What to Believe? Social Media Commentary and Belief in Misinformation

  • Nicolas M. AnspachEmail author
  • Taylor N. Carlson
Original Paper


Americans are increasingly turning to social media for political information. However, given that the average social media user only clicks through on a small fraction of the political content available, the brief article previews that appear in the News Feed likely serve as shortcuts to political information. Yet, in addition to sharing political news, social media also allow users to make their own comments on news posts, comments which may challenge or distort the information contained in the articles. In this paper, we first analyze how social media posts on Twitter and Facebook differ from the actual content of their linked news articles, finding that social media comments regularly misrepresent the facts reported in the news. We then use a survey experiment to test the consequences of these information discrepancies. Specifically, we randomly assign individuals to read a full news article, a news article preview post (as seen on Facebook), or a news article preview with misinformative social commentary attached. We find that individuals in the social commentary conditions are more misinformed about the featured topic, tending to report the factually-incorrect information relayed in the comments rather than the factually-correct information embedded within the article preview.


Social media Misinformation Motivated reasoning Opinion leadership Political communication 

Supplementary material

11109_2018_9515_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1474 kb)


  1. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Press Institute. (2014). The personal news cycle. Media Insight Project. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from
  3. Anspach, N. M. (2017). The new personal influence: How our Facebook friends influence the news we read. Political Communication, 34(4), 590–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anspach, N. M., Jennings, J. T., & Arceneaux, K. (2018). A little bit of knowledge: Facebook’s News Feed and self-perceptions of knowledge. In Presented at the 2017 midwest political science association conference.Google Scholar
  5. Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2017). Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. Scholar
  8. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barthel, M., Mitchell, A., & Holcomb, J. (2016). Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion. Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from
  10. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernstein, M.S., Bakshy, E., Burke, M., & Karrer, B. (2013). Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks. In CHI’13 (pp. 21–30).Google Scholar
  12. Bialik, K., & Matsa, K. E. (2017). Key trends in social and digital news media. Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 4, 2017, from
  13. Bode, L. (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 24–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Budak, C., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Fair and balanced? Quantifying media bias through crowdsourced content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1), 250–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personal Assessment, 48(3), 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carlson, T. N. (2018). Modeling political information transmission as a game of telephone. Journal of Politics, 80(1), 348–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olsen, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M. R., Goncalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. ICWSM, 133, 89–96.Google Scholar
  21. DeMarzo, P. M., Vayanos, D., & Zwiebel, J. (2003). Persuasion bias, social influence, and unidimensional opinions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 909–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  23. Enke, B., & Zimmermann, F. (2017). Correlation neglect in belief formation. The Review of Economic Studies Scholar
  24. Erisen, C., Redlawsk, D. P., & Erisen, E. (2017). Complex thinking as a result of incongruent information exposure. American Politics Research, 46(2), 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eyster, E., & Rabin, M. (2010). Naïve herding in rich-information settings. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(4), 221–243.Google Scholar
  26. Feezell, J. T. (2017). Agenda setting through social media: The importance of incidental news exposure and social filtering in the digital era. Political Research Quarterly, 71, 482–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. American Journal of Political Science, 22(2), 426–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Are news audiences increasingly fragmented? A cross-national comparative analysis of cross-platform news audience fragmentation and duplication. Journal of Communication, 67, 476–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gallup, Inc., and the Knight Foundation. (2018). American views: Trust, media, and democracy. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from
  30. Garrett, R. K., Weeks, B. E., & Neo, R. L. (2016). Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: How online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management, 44(4), 1467–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hochschild, J. L. (2001). Where you stand depends on what you see: Connections among values, perceptions of fact, and political prescriptions. In James Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jerit, J., & Barabas, J. (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 672–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karnowski, V., Kumpel, A. S., Leonhard, L., & Leiner, D. J. (2017). From incidental news exposure to news engagement. How perceptions of the news post and news usage patterns influence engagement with news articles encountered on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kim, Y., Hsu, S., & Gil de Zuniga, H. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63, 498–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krupnikov, Y., & Levine, A. S. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2002). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (1997). Voting correctly. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., et al. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levendusky, M. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Psychology, 69(4), 583–614.Google Scholar
  47. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s mechanical turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 20(10), 1042–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., & Shearer, E. (2016). The modern news consumer: News attitudes and practices in the digital era. Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from,
  51. Muirhead, R. (2013). The case for party loyalty. Nomos, 54, 229–256.Google Scholar
  52. Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2017). The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Communication and Society, 21(2), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.Google Scholar
  57. Pasek, J., Sood, G., & Krosnick, J. A. (2015). Misinformed about the affordable care act? Leveraging certainty to assess the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 660–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubueque: William C. Brown.Google Scholar
  59. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pirolli, P. (2005). Rational analyses of information foraging on the web. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increase inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ryan, J. B. (2011). Accuracy and bias in perceptions of political knowledge. Political Behavior, 33(2), 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Settle, J. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shearer, E., & Gottfried, J. (2017). News use across social media platforms 2017. Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
  69. Shin, J., Jian, L., Driscoll, K., & Bar, F. (2017). Political rumoring on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election: Rumor diffusion and correction. New Media & Society, 19(8), 1214–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sides, J., & Vavreck, L. (2012). The gamble: The hand you’re dealt with. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Stroud, N. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Valeriani, A., & Vaccari, C. (2016). Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1857–1874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weeks, B. E., Ardèvol-Abreu, A., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2017). Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(2), 214–239.Google Scholar
  78. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.York College of PennsylvaniaYorkUSA
  2. 2.University of California, San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations