Partisans neither expect nor receive reputational rewards for sharing falsehoods over truth online

Author:

Ghezae Isaias1ORCID,Jordan Jillian J2ORCID,Gainsburg Izzy B1ORCID,Mosleh Mohsen34ORCID,Pennycook Gordon5ORCID,Willer Robb1ORCID,Rand David G467ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Sociology, Stanford University , Stanford, CA 94305 , USA

2. Negotiation, Organizations and Markets Unit, Harvard Business School , Boston, MA 02163 , USA

3. Management Department, University of Exeter Business School , Exeter EX4 4PU , UK

4. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Cambridge, MA 02142 , USA

5. Department of Psychology, Cornell University , Ithaca, NY 14850 , USA

6. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Cambridge, MA 02142 , USA

7. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Cambridge, MA 02142 , USA

Abstract

Abstract A frequently invoked explanation for the sharing of false over true political information is that partisans are motivated by their reputations. In particular, it is often argued that by indiscriminately sharing news that is favorable to one's political party, regardless of whether it is true—or perhaps especially when it is not true—partisans can signal loyalty to their group, and improve their reputations in the eyes of their online networks. Across three survey studies (total N = 3,038), and an analysis of over 26,000 tweets, we explored these hypotheses by measuring the reputational benefits that people anticipate and receive from sharing different content online. In the survey studies, we showed participants actual news headlines that varied in (ⅰ) veracity, and (ⅱ) favorability to their preferred political party. Across all three studies, participants anticipated that sharing true news would bring more reputational benefits than sharing false news. Critically, while participants also expected greater reputational benefits for sharing news favorable to their party, the perceived reputation value of veracity was no smaller for more favorable headlines. We found a similar pattern when analyzing engagement on Twitter: among headlines that were politically favorable to a user's preferred party, true headlines elicited more approval than false headlines.

Funder

Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3