Counterattitudinal Information Research Articles

Public Beliefs about Falsehoods in News

The circulation of misinformation, lies, propaganda, and other kinds of falsehood has, to varying degrees, become a challenge to democratic publics. We are interested in the question of what publics believe about their own exposure to falsehoods in news, and about what contributes to similarities and differences in these beliefs across countries. We are also interested in the question of whether publics report attempting to verify news that is suspect to them. Here we report on a comparative election survey in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. We find three key predictors of publics’ beliefs that they have been exposed to falsehoods: discussion of news, use of social media for political purposes, and exposure to counter-attitudinal information. The nexus between these three predictors and beliefs about falsehoods exists in all three countries, as we anticipate that it likely exists elsewhere. We do not find voters on the right to be different from those on the left in the United Kingdom and France, but do find a substantial difference in the United States, which is likely due to the 2016 Trump campaign. We conclude with concerns about the imbalance in beliefs about exposure to falsehoods in the United States and the apparent capacity of a single leader, in the right context, to shape public beliefs about what is to be believed.

The Trump Paradox: How Cues from a Disliked Source Foster Resistance to Persuasion

We usually reject information from sources we dislike. But what if those same sources explicitly disagree with that information? Are we more likely to be persuaded by information that is opposed by someone we dislike? We present results from an experimental study with a convenience sample of 199 Dutch students. Respondents were exposed to counter-attitudinal information on climate change in an attempt to generate persuasion, and in a second time exposed to a tweet from the current US president, Donald J. Trump, as a positive or negative endorsement of the counter-attitudinal. Results show that positive endorsements reduce the persuasive power of counter-attitudinal information, whereas negative endorsements (marginally) increase its persuasive power. These results have important implications in today’s politics, where “disliked” figures—most of the time referred to as “populists”—play an increasingly central role in framing the terms of the debate on the most salient issues.

Meta-cognition and resistance to political persuasion: evidence from a three-wave panel study

ABSTRACT We investigate the temporal course of meta-cognition and resistance processes following exposure to counter-attitudinal information in the 2012 Presidential election. Using a unique 3-wave survey panel design, we tracked eligible voters during the last months of the 2012 campaign and experimentally manipulated exposure to negative political messages targeting Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on an online platform. As predicted, we found that politically unengaged (vs. engaged) individuals were less likely to counter-argue a message attacking their favored candidate. Resistance, in turn, led to increased attitudinal certainty, polarization, and correspondence with actual voting behavior over the course of the campaign. These findings provide the first analysis of the longitudinal effects of meta-cognitive processes underlying persuasion for real-world attitude change and behavior.

Hypnotic Suggestions Can Induce Rapid Change in Implicit Attitudes

We sometimes evaluate our environment (e.g., persons, objects, situations) in an automatic fashion. These automatic or implicit evaluations are often considered to be based on qualitatively distinct mental processes compared with more controlled or explicit evaluations. Important evidence for this claim comes from studies showing that implicit evaluations do not change as the result of counterattitudinal information, in contrast to their explicit counterparts. We examined the impact of counterattitudinal information on implicit evaluations in two experiments (N = 60, N = 72) that included an innovative manipulation: hypnotic suggestions to participants that they would strongly process upcoming counterattitudinal information. Both experiments indicated that hypnotic suggestions facilitated effects of counterattitudinal information on implicit evaluations. These findings extend recent evidence for rapid revision of implicit evaluations on the basis of counterattitudinal information and support the controversial idea that belief-based processes underlie not only explicit but also implicit evaluations.

Partisan Selective Exposure in Times of Political and Technological Upheaval: A Social Media Field Experiment

Contemporary democracies are increasingly shaped by a surge of populism, posing serious threats to the idea of liberal democracy. Particularly in the run-up to elections, knowledge of such threats is essential for citizens to cast an informed vote. Against this background, the present study examined the likelihood of media users to engage with political news providing critical perspectives on populist movements in a 24-hour social media field experiment during the 2017 federal election campaign in Germany (<em>N</em> = 210). Based on two selective exposure measures, findings suggest that exposure to critical news is contingent upon the conceptualization of populist partisanship as a political orientation of either high commitment (i.e., voting intention) or high affinity (i.e., sympathy for a party). While high commitment triggered a rather classic confirmation bias, especially regarding click decisions, high affinity caused selection patterns to be more strongly guided by informational utility, particularly during newsfeed browsing, with counter-attitudinal information receiving more attention. When public sentiment cues were present, however, attitudinal patterns disappeared. These findings imply that partisan news use in times of political upheaval is best gauged by taking a closer look at the particular type of partisanship that guides selective exposure, as both types of partisanship caused contrary exposure patterns, and that today’s news environments potentially override attitudinal influences by providing additional social monitoring cues.

Retrieval cues fail to influence contextualized evaluations

ABSTRACTInitial evaluations generalise to new contexts, whereas counter-attitudinal evaluations are context-specific. Counter-attitudinal information may not change evaluations in new contexts because perceivers fail to retrieve counter-attitudinal cue-evaluation associations from memory outside the counter-attitudinal learning context. The current work examines whether an additional, counter-attitudinal retrieval cue can enhance the generalizability of counter-attitudinal evaluations. In four experiments, participants learned positive information about a target person, Bob, in one context, and then learned negative information about Bob in a different context. While learning the negative information, participants wore a wristband as a retrieval cue for counter-attitudinal Bob-negative associations. Participants then made speeded as well as deliberate evaluations of Bob while wearing or not wearing the wristband. Internal meta-analysis failed to find a reliable effect of the counter-attitudinal retrieval cue on speeded or deliberate evaluations, whereas the context cues influenced speeded and deliberate evaluations. Counter to predictions, counter-attitudinal retrieval cues did not disrupt the generalisation of first-learned evaluations or the context-specificity of second-learned evaluations (Experiments 2–4), but the counter-attitudinal retrieval cue did influence evaluations in the absence of context cues (Experiment 1). The current work provides initial evidence that additional counter-attitudinal retrieval cues fail to disrupt the renewal and generalizability of first-learned evaluations.

Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability

Are citizens willing to accept journalistic fact-checks of misleading claims from candidates they support and to update their attitudes about those candidates? Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the effects of exposure to counter-attitudinal information. As fact-checking has become more prominent, it is therefore worth examining how respondents respond to fact-checks of politicians—a question with important implications for understanding the effects of this journalistic format on elections. We present results to two experiments conducted during the 2016 campaign that test the effects of exposure to realistic journalistic fact-checks of claims made by Donald Trump during his convention speech and a general election debate. These messages improved the accuracy of respondents’ factual beliefs, even among his supporters, but had no measurable effect on attitudes toward Trump. These results suggest that journalistic fact-checks can reduce misperceptions but often have minimal effects on candidate evaluations or vote choice.

Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments

AbstractSeveral theoretical perspectives suggest that when individuals are exposed to counter-attitudinal evidence or arguments, their pre-existing opinions and beliefs are reinforced, resulting in a phenomenon sometimes known as ‘backlash’. This article formalizes the concept of backlash and specifies how it can be measured. It then presents the results from three survey experiments – two on Mechanical Turk and one on a nationally representative sample – that find no evidence of backlash, even under theoretically favorable conditions. While a casual reading of the literature on information processing suggests that backlash is rampant, these results indicate that it is much rarer than commonly supposed.

Does contextualized attitude change depend on individual differences in responses to belief-incongruent information?

Previous research has shown that changes in the evaluation of an attitude object can be limited to the context in which counterattitudinal information was learned. To account for these findings, it has been proposed that exposure to expectancy-violating information enhances attention to context, which leads to an integration of the context into the representation of expectancy-violating counterattitudinal information. Although a considerable body of evidence supports these assumptions, it is still unclear whether contextualized attitude change is a general phenomenon that is robust across individuals or instead depends on psychological characteristics of the perceiver. To address this question, the current research tested whether contextualized attitude change is moderated by three individual difference variables that are known to influence responses to belief-incongruent information: preference for consistency, need for structure, and implicit theories of personality. Based on the hypothesis that contextualized attitude change is due to enhanced attention to context during encoding of expectancy-violating information, we hypothesized that individual differences along the three dimensions should moderate contextualized attitude change via differences in attention to context in response to expectancy-violating information. Contrary to this hypothesis, none of the three variables moderated contextualized attitude change (Experiments 1 and 2) and attention to context during exposure to expectancy-violating information (Experiment 3). Implications for the generality of contextualized attitude change, research on the three individual difference variables, and cognitive consistency more broadly are discussed.

Changing Deep-Rooted Implicit Evaluation in the Blink of an Eye: Negative Verbal Information Shifts Automatic Liking of Gandhi

It is often assumed that, once established, spontaneous or implicit evaluations are resistant to immediate change. Recent research contradicts this theoretical stance, showing that a person’s implicit evaluations of an attitude object can be changed rapidly in the face of new counterattitudinal information. Importantly, it remains unknown whether such changes can also occur for deep-rooted implicit evaluations of well-known attitude objects. We address this question by examining whether the acquisition of negative information changes implicit evaluations of a well-known positive historic figure: Mahatma Gandhi. We report three experiments showing rapid changes in implicit evaluations of Gandhi as measured with an affect misattribution procedure and evaluative priming task but not with an implicit association test (IAT). These findings suggest that implicit evaluations based on deep-rooted representations are subjective to rapid changes in the face of expectancy-violating information while pointing to limitations of the IAT for assessing such changes.

Incidental Exposure, Selective Exposure, and Political Information Sharing: Integrating Online Exposure Patterns and Expression on Social Media

Political information sharing in social media offers citizens opportunities to engage with news and express their political views, but how do different patterns of online political information exposure, including both incidental and selective exposure, affect sharing? Using two-wave panel survey data collected in the United States, we examine the relationship between incidental and selective exposure and their consequent links to political information sharing, across different levels of strength of political party affiliation. Our results demonstrate that incidental exposure to counter-attitudinal information drives stronger partisans to more actively seek out like-minded political content, which subsequently encourages political information sharing on social media. The results highlight the need to consider both types of political information exposure when modeling citizens' political behavior online.

The dark side of technology: An experimental investigation of the influence of customizability technology on online political selective exposure

We investigated whether there is a causal relationship between the presence of customizability technology (i.e., technology that allows individuals/websites to tailor the information environment according to user's preferences) and political selective exposure. We found that various forms of customizability technology (especially, system-driven customizability) increase selective exposure in the context of online political news consumption. Moreover, customizability technology has a stronger effect on minimizing exposure to counter-attitudinal information than it has on increasing exposure to pro-attitudinal information. The effect of customizability on selective exposure was particularly strong for ideologically moderate individuals. This study extends the understanding of the selective exposure process in today's communication environment and clarifies the implications of the Internet for deliberative democracy theory.

Cognitive Discrepancy, Dissonance, and Selective Exposure

Although cognitive dissonance is regarded as one of the most recognized causes of selective exposure [N. J. Stroud, Niche News (Oxford University Press, 2011)], the mechanism for such causation is still unclear. By inducing dissonance in a web-based experiment, this study demonstrates how cognitive dissonance relates to information preferences—the intention to seek congruent information and the intention to seek incongruent information. The findings suggest that perceived hostility with respect to one’s belief (cognitive discrepancy) can enhance the intention to seek out for attitude-consistent information. More importantly, individuals were found to have the intention to avoid counterattitudinal information, but only when they experienced some sort of psychological discomfort (dissonance). In other words, while cognitive discrepancy leads individuals to crave for confirming information, only those who encounter negative emotions are likely to employ avoidance of disconfirming information as a dissonance-reduction strategy.

Bridging the Partisan Divide? Exploring Ambivalence and Information Seeking Over Time in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Research has shown that holding conflicted attitudes (ambivalence) about political decisions may lead people to act as ideal citizens. One example of this normatively ideal behavior is seen in research linking ambivalence to information seeking. To expand on this line of inquiry, this study examines the over-time relationship between ambivalence and information seeking. We use three-wave panel data collected during the 2012 election to determine whether over-time relationships exist between these variables and test the causal direction of these relationships. We find that use of counterattitudinal information increases ambivalence, which leads people to seek out more counterattitudinal information. We also find that use of pro-attitudinal media decreases levels of ambivalence.

Taking Corrections Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Information on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability

Are citizens willing to accept journalistic fact-checks of misleading claims from candidates they support and to update their attitudes about those candidates? Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the effects of exposure to counter-attitudinal information. As fact-checking has become more prominent, it is therefore worth examining how respondents respond to fact-checks of politicians --- a question with important implications for understanding the effects of this journalistic format on elections. We present results to two experiments conducted during the 2016 campaign that test the effects of exposure to realistic journalistic fact-checks of claims made by Donald Trump during his convention speech and a general election debate. These messages improved the accuracy of respondents' factual beliefs, even among his supporters, but had no measurable effect on attitudes toward Trump. These results suggest that journalistic fact-checks can reduce misperceptions but often have minimal effects on candidate evaluations or vote choice.

A Second Chance for First Impressions? Exploring the Context-(In)Dependent Updating of Implicit Evaluations

Research on implicit evaluation has yielded mixed results, with some studies suggesting that implicit evaluations are relatively resistant to change and others showing that implicit evaluations can change rapidly in response to new information. To reconcile these findings, it has been suggested that changes in implicit evaluations can be limited to the context in which counterattitudinal information was acquired. The current research expands on evidence for such context-dependent changes by investigating whether two cases of rapid change—updating caused by a reinterpretation of earlier information and by exposure to diagnostic information—generalize across contexts or, instead, are limited to the context in which the qualifying information was acquired. Two experiments found that both reinterpretation of earlier information and diagnostic counterattitudinal information led to changes in implicit evaluations that generalized across contexts. Implications for the malleability of implicit evaluations and context-dependent changes in implicit evaluations are discussed.

Candidate Vulnerability and Exposure to Counterattitudinal Information: Evidence From Two U.S. Presidential Elections

Politically motivated selective exposure has traditionally been understood through the lens of long-standing attitudes and beliefs, but the role of environment in shaping information exposure practices merits further consideration. Citizens might respond to the political environment in their information-seeking behavior for numerous reasons. Citizens who believe their position is politically vulnerable have specific cognitive and affective needs that may make them uniquely attuned to counterattitudinal information. In the context of a presidential election, this means that as the defeat of a supported candidate appears more likely, attention to counterattitudinal content will increase. Data collected in the 2008 and 2012 U.S. Presidential elections support this prediction, although this relationship was observed primarily among supporters of the Republican candidate in both elections.

Communicating the Scientific Consensus on Human-Caused Climate Change is an Effective and Depolarizing Public Engagement Strategy: Experimental Evidence from a Large National Replication Study

This experimental study evaluated whether communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is likely to be effective with the American public. Drawing on a large national sample (N = 6,301), we set out to replicate and extend the findings of van der Linden et al. (2015). Consistent with the original study, we find robust and replicated evidence that communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change leads to significant and substantial changes in perceived scientific agreement among conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike. These findings prove robust, even among those predisposed to receive counter-attitudinal information (e.g., Fox-news watchers, global warming skeptics). Further, among conservatives, we find the greatest change in perceived consensus among the subset whose own friends and family are least likely to believe in human-caused global warming. In short, we find little evidence of identity-protective cognition and no evidence of belief polarization across these groups. We further find that communicating the scientific consensus has (positive) direct effects (across the political spectrum) on belief that climate change is happening, human-caused, and a serious threat that requires societal action. We also find that these direct effects are mediated by changes in perceived scientific consensus. In other words, public perception of the scientific consensus is an important gateway cognition. Results also show that belief in the scientific consensus is more influential in driving public engagement than perceived consensus among other groups (e.g., Americans). Lastly, although public understanding of the scientific consensus is low, we find that conservatives and moderates are significantly less aware of the scientific consensus than liberals.

Changes in implicit and explicit exercise-related attitudes after reading targeted exercise-related information

The purpose of this research was to examine if reading exercise information targeted at pretest explicit attitudes were related to changes in corresponding implicit or explicit attitudes. The associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model guided the research. Participants (N = 154) completed pretest measures of implicit and explicit attitudes; one week later they read information that targeted pretest explicit affective or instrumental attitudes and again completed the attitude measures. Results showed changes in implicit attitudes in both instrumental message conditions that supported the hypotheses that counter-attitudinal information would result in implicit attitude change in the opposite direction to the reading whereas information that targeted congruent attitudes would show changes in keeping with the information. This study demonstrates the importance of considering how implicit cognitions may change as a result of reading exercise-related information, and the relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes.

Generalization versus contextualization in automatic evaluation revisited: A meta-analysis of successful and failed replications.

To account for disparate findings in the literature on automatic evaluation, Gawronski, Rydell, Vervliet, and De Houwer (2010) proposed a representational theory that specifies the contextual conditions under which automatic evaluations reflect initially acquired attitudinal information or subsequently acquired counterattitudinal information. The theory predicts that automatic evaluations should reflect the valence of expectancy-violating counterattitudinal information only in the context in which this information had been learned. In contrast, automatic evaluations should reflect the valence of initial attitudinal information in any other context, be it the context in which the initial attitudinal information had been acquired (ABA renewal) or a novel context in which the target object had not been encountered before (ABC renewal). The current article presents a meta-analysis of all published and unpublished studies from the authors' research groups regardless of whether they produced the predicted pattern of results. Results revealed average effect sizes of d = 0.249 for ABA renewal (30 studies, N = 3,142) and d = 0.174 for ABC renewal (27 studies, N = 2,930), both of which were significantly different from zero. Effect sizes were moderated by attention to context during learning, order of positive and negative information, context-valence contingencies during learning, and sample country. Although some of the obtained moderator effects are consistent with the representational theory, others require theoretical refinements and future research to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms underlying contextual renewal.