Promoting engagement with social fact-checks online

Social corrections, wherein social media users correct one another, are an important mechanism for debunking online misinformation. But users who post misinformation only rarely engage with social corrections, instead typically choosing to ignore them. Here, we investigate how the social relationship between the corrector and corrected user affect the willingness to engage with corrective, debunking messages. We explore two key dimensions: (i) partisan agreement with, and (ii) social relationships between the user and the corrector. We conducted a randomized field experiment with Twitter users and a conceptual replication survey experiment with Amazon Mechanical Turk workers in which posts containing false news were corrected. We varied whether the corrector identified as a Democrat or Republican; and whether the corrector followed the user and liked three of their tweets the day before issuing the correction (creating a minimal social relationship). Surprisingly, we did not find evidence that shared partisanship increased a user’s probability of engaging with the correction. Conversely, forming a minimal social connection significantly increased engagement rate. A second survey experiment found that minimal social relationships foster a general norm of responding, such that people feel more obligated to respond – and think others expect them to respond more – to people who follow them, even outside the context of misinformation correction. These results emphasize social media’s ability to foster engagement with corrections via minimal social relationships, and have implications for effective, engaging fact-check delivery online.

How Voters Respond to Presidential Assaults on Checks and Balances: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Turkey

Why do voters support executive aggrandizement? One possible answer is that they do so because they think this will ease their preferred leader’s hand in putting their partisan vision into action, provided that the leader will continue winning elections. We study this phenomenon through a survey experiment in Turkey, by manipulating voters’ perceptions about the potential results of the first presidential election after a constitutional referendum of executive aggrandizement. We find that voters from both sides display what we call “elastic support” for executive aggrandizement; that is, they change previously revealed constitutional preferences in response to varying winning chances. This elasticity increases not only when citizens feel greater social distance to perceived political “others” (i.e., affective polarization) but also when voters are concerned about economic management in a potential post-incumbent era. Our findings contribute to the literature on how polarization and economic anxiety contribute to executive aggrandizement and democratic backsliding. 1

Reactions to China-linked Fake News: Experimental Evidence from Taiwan

China is accused of conducting disinformation campaigns on Taiwan's social media. Existing studies on foreign interventions in democratic societies predict that such disinformation campaigns should lead to increasing partisan polarization within Taiwan. We argue that a backlash effect, making Taiwan's citizens more united against China, is equally plausible. We conduct a survey experiment exposing participants to a real-life rumour and rebuttal to test these competing hypotheses. We find, at best, mixed evidence for polarization. Although neither rumour nor rebuttal mention China, there is consistent evidence of backlash against China. Most notably, participants across the political spectrum are more inclined to support Taiwanese independence after viewing the rumour rebuttal. These findings indicate that citizens may put aside partisanship when confronted with false news that is plausibly linked to an external actor. We conclude by discussing the broader applicability of our theory and implications for cross-Strait relations.

Red Tape, Rule Legitimacy, and Public Service Motivation: Experimental Evidence From Korean Citizens

While legitimacy plays a key role in determining if a public sector rule or process objectively qualifies as red tape, it is unclear if legitimacy shapes subjective red tape judgments. We use a sample of South Korean citizens and a vignette-based survey experiment describing applying for a small business COVID-19 relief fund to test the relevance of rule legitimacy for perceived red tape. We find that obtaining a favorable outcome (receiving the fund) reduces perceived red tape, but that neither input nor output legitimacy plays a consistent role. Second, we find that public service motivation moderates the role of both input and output legitimacy on perceived red tape, though in different directions. For those with high levels of public service motivation, output legitimacy reduces perceived red tape. However, for the same group, input legitimacy increases it. We provide a detailed discussion of the contributions of our study.

Immigration, Identity, and Anonymity: Intentionally Masked Intolerance in Ireland

Newcomers to Ireland confront a context of reception shaped by large-scale historical emigration and more recent immigration defined by an increasingly diverse set of origin contexts, both within and outside the European Union (EU). How has the Irish population responded to these groups, and how openly do Irish residents express their views toward different immigrant groups? We test this response using a survey experiment, which offered respondents an anonymous way to express any negative attitudes to immigrant groups they may have had. Results from the survey experiment show that Irish residents’ support for Black and Polish immigrations is overstated when expressed directly. In contrast, their sentiment toward Muslim immigrants is notably insensitive to the level of anonymity provided, indicating little difference between overt and covert expression of support (or antipathy). In other words, when race/ethnicity or EU origin is made salient, Irish respondents are more likely to mask negative sentiment. When Islam is emphasized, however, Irish antipathy is not masked. We find that in-group preferences, instead of determining support in an absolute sense, shape the reluctance with which opposition to immigrant groups is overtly expressed.

Scratch the Scratch-off: Testing Prepaid and Conditional Incentives With Postcard and Letter Invitations in a Web-push Design With an Address-based Sample

We tested a novel extension to mailed invitations to a web-push survey, using a postcard invitation to deliver a scratch-off giftcode incentive similar to an instant-win lottery ticket. Scratch-off postcards were included as one of five conditions in randomized survey experiment varying two mailing types (letter and postcard) and three incentive types (prepaid cash, prepaid giftcodes, and conditional giftcodes). Invitations were sent to a sample of 17,808 addresses in Boston, Massachusetts, recruiting for a new online panel study of city residents. We report response rates and costs for each condition. Findings suggest that letters achieve higher response rates than postcards and are more cost effective overall. We also find that conditional incentives achieve higher response rates and are more cost effective, although conflating factors do not permit clear inferences. Notably, the novel scratch-off postcard condition achieved the lowest response rate and the highest costs per completed survey.

The Effect of Reading Prisoner Poetry on Stigma and Public Attitudes: Results from a Multigroup Survey Experiment

We examine how public attitudes toward currently/formerly incarcerated people and their reentry into society are affected by consuming information about imprisoned people. Over 1,500 respondents from a national online survey were randomly assigned one of five sources of written information about currently and formerly incarcerated people (CFIP) (three informative pieces and two sets of incarceree poetry). They then reported their views toward them and support for reentry policies. While no differences in support for reentry initiatives across conditions were uncovered, those reading poetry with a humanizing theme applied the least amount of stigma toward currently/formerly incarcerated people.