Political Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 303–330 | Cite as

When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions

Original Paper

Abstract

An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

Keywords

Misperceptions Misinformation Ignorance Knowledge Correction Backfire 

References

  1. Allen, M. (2003). Bush: ‘We Found’ banned weapons. Washington Post. May 31, 2003. Page A1.Google Scholar
  2. Althaus, S. L. (1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 545–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arpan, L. M., & Raney, A. A. (2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the Hostile Media Effect. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 265–281.Google Scholar
  4. Balz, D. (2004). Candidates use arms report to make case. Washington Post, October 8, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum, M. A., & Gussin, P. (2007). In the eye of the beholder: How information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (2009). Shot by the messenger: Partisan cues and public opinion regarding national security and war. Political Behavior, 31(2), 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bullock, J. (2007). Experiments on partisanship and public opinion: Party cues, false beliefs, and Bayesian updating. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  10. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christen, C. T., Kannaovakun, P., & Gunther, A. C. (2002). Hostile media perceptions: Partisan assessments of press and public during the 1997 United Parcel Service Strike. Political Communication, 19(4), 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, F., Ogilvie, D. M., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2005). American Roulette: The effect of reminders of death on support for George W. Bush in the 2004. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham, B. (2003). Re-thinking objectivity. Columbia Journalism Review July/August 2003, 24–32.Google Scholar
  15. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2010). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base.’ In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived media bias. Political Psychology, 24(1), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fournier, R. (2004). First Lady Bashes Kerry Stem Cell Stance. Associated Press August 9, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. Fritz, B., Keefer, B., & Nyhan, B. (2004). All the President’s spin: George W. Bush, the media and the truth. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  23. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Interpreting Iraq: Partisanship and the meaning of facts. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerber, A. S., & Huber, G. A. (2010). Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gollust, S. E., Lantz, P. M., & Ubel, P. A. (2009). The polarizing effect of news media messages about the social determinants of health. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2160–2167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation–the left, the right, and the rigid: comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gunther, A. C., & Chia, S. C.-Y. (2001). Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media perception and its consequences. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 688–701.Google Scholar
  29. Gunther, A. C., & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gussin, P., & Baum, M. A. (2004). In the eye of the beholder: An experimental investigation into the foundations of the hostile media phenomenon. Paper presented at 2004 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  31. Gussin, P., & Baum, M. A. (2005). Issue bias: How issue coverage and media bias affect voter perceptions of elections. Paper presented at 2005 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  32. Hartman, T. K., & Weber, C. R. (2009). Who said what? The effects of source cues in issue frames. Political Behavior, 31(4), 537–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hill, P. (2006). House or Senate shake-up likely to end tax cuts. Washington Times October 5, 2006.Google Scholar
  34. Howell, W. G., & West, M. R. (2009). Educating the public. Education Next, 9(3), 41–47.Google Scholar
  35. Jerit, J., & Barabas, J. (2006). Bankrupt rhetoric: How misleading information affects knowledge about social security. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(3), 278–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003a). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003b). Exceptions that prove the rule-using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kriner, D., & Howell, W. G. (N.d.). Political elites and public support for war. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  40. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political rationality. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Schweider, D., & Rich, R. F. (1998). ‘Just the Facts, Ma’am’: Political facts and public opinion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 560, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schweider, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kull, S., Ramsay, C., & Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 569–598.Google Scholar
  45. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Landau, M. J., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., et al. (2004). Deliver us from evil: The effects of mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 on support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1136–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lebo, M. J., & Cassino, D. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated ignorance and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28(6), 719–746.Google Scholar
  49. Lee, T.-T. (2005). The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors influencing perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Linzer, D. (2006). Lawmakers cite weapons found in Iraq. Washington Post June 22, 2006.Google Scholar
  51. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & Samuel. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political rationality. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Mankiw, G. (2003). Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. May 13, 2003.Google Scholar
  56. McGregor, H. A., Lieberman, J. D., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., Simon, L., et al. (1998). Terror management and aggression: Evidence that mortality salience motivates aggression against worldview-threatening others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 590–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Milbank, D. (2003). For Bush tax plan, a little inner dissent. Washington Post February 16, 2003. Page A4.Google Scholar
  59. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Motivated thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2007). Persuasion and resistance: Race and the death penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 996–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2005). Public more critical of press, but goodwill persists: Online newspaper readership countering print losses. Poll conducted June 8–12, 2005 and released June 26, 2005. Downloaded December 6, 2008 from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/248.pdf.
  63. Popkin, S. (1991). The reasoning voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Priest, D., & Pincus, W. (2004). U.S. ‘Almost All Wrong’ on weapons. Washington Post October 7, 2004.Google Scholar
  65. Program on International Policy Attitudes (2004). PIPA-knowledge networks poll: Separate realities of Bush and Kerry supporters. Downloaded December 30, 2009 from http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20quaire.pdf.
  66. Program on International Policy Attitudes (2006). Americans on Iraq: Three years on. Downloaded December 30, 2009 from http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar06/USIraq_Mar06-quaire.pdf.
  67. Pyszczynski, T., Abdollahi, A., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., & Weise, D. (2006). Mortality salience, martyrdom, and military might: The great satan versus the axis of evil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003). In the wake of 9/11: The psychology of terror. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Redlawsk, D. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.Google Scholar
  70. Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. W., & Emmerson, K. M. (Forthcoming). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever ‘Get It’?” Political Psychology.Google Scholar
  71. Robertson, L. (2007). “Supply-side Spin.” Factcheck.org. June 11, 2007. Downloaded December 6, 2008 from http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html.
  72. Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1980). The perserverance of beliefs: Empirical and normative considerations. In R. A. Shweder (Ed.), Fallible judgment in behavioral research: New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science (Vol. 4, pp. 17–36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  73. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shani, D. (2006). Knowing your colors: Can knowledge correct for partisan bias in political perceptions? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  75. Shapiro, R. Y., Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2008). Do the facts speak for themselves? Partisan disagreement as a challenge to democratic competence. Critical Review 20(1–2):115–139.Google Scholar
  76. Sides, J., & Citrin, J.(2007). “How large the huddled masses? The causes and consequences of public misperceptions about immigrant populations.” Paper presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  77. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the ‘Beirut Massacre’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 577–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wells, C., Reedy, J., Gastil, J., & Lee, Carolyn. (2009). Information distortion and voting choices: The origins and effects of factual beliefs in initiative elections. Political Psychology, 30(6), 953–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Weiss, R., & Fitzgerald, M. (2004). Edwards, first lady at odds on stem cells. Washington Post August 10, 2004.Google Scholar
  82. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations