The political (a)symmetry of metacognitive insight into detecting misinformation.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1037/xge0001600
Michael Geers, Helen Fischer, Stephan Lewandowsky, Stefan M Herzog
{"title":"The political (a)symmetry of metacognitive insight into detecting misinformation.","authors":"Michael Geers, Helen Fischer, Stephan Lewandowsky, Stefan M Herzog","doi":"10.1037/xge0001600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Political misinformation poses a major threat to democracies worldwide, often inciting intense disputes between opposing political groups. Despite its central role for informed electorates and political decision making, little is known about how aware people are of whether they are right or wrong when distinguishing accurate political information from falsehood. Here, we investigate people's metacognitive insight into their own ability to detect political misinformation. We use data from a unique longitudinal study spanning 12 waves over 6 months that surveyed a representative U.S. sample (N = 1,191) on the most widely circulating political (mis)information online. Harnessing signal detection theory methods to model metacognition, we found that people from both the political left and the political right were aware of how well they distinguished accurate political information from falsehood across all news. However, this metacognitive insight was considerably lower for Republicans and conservatives-than for Democrats and liberals-when the information in question challenged their ideological commitments. That is, given their level of knowledge, Republicans' and conservatives' confidence was less likely to reflect the correctness of their truth judgments for true and false political statements that were at odds with their political views. These results reveal the intricate and systematic ways in which political preferences are linked to the accuracy with which people assess their own truth discernment. More broadly, by identifying a specific political asymmetry-for discordant relative to concordant news-our findings highlight the role of metacognition in perpetuating and exacerbating ideological divides. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001600","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Political misinformation poses a major threat to democracies worldwide, often inciting intense disputes between opposing political groups. Despite its central role for informed electorates and political decision making, little is known about how aware people are of whether they are right or wrong when distinguishing accurate political information from falsehood. Here, we investigate people's metacognitive insight into their own ability to detect political misinformation. We use data from a unique longitudinal study spanning 12 waves over 6 months that surveyed a representative U.S. sample (N = 1,191) on the most widely circulating political (mis)information online. Harnessing signal detection theory methods to model metacognition, we found that people from both the political left and the political right were aware of how well they distinguished accurate political information from falsehood across all news. However, this metacognitive insight was considerably lower for Republicans and conservatives-than for Democrats and liberals-when the information in question challenged their ideological commitments. That is, given their level of knowledge, Republicans' and conservatives' confidence was less likely to reflect the correctness of their truth judgments for true and false political statements that were at odds with their political views. These results reveal the intricate and systematic ways in which political preferences are linked to the accuracy with which people assess their own truth discernment. More broadly, by identifying a specific political asymmetry-for discordant relative to concordant news-our findings highlight the role of metacognition in perpetuating and exacerbating ideological divides. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
元认知洞察发现错误信息的政治(a)对称性。
政治错误信息对全世界的民主政体构成了重大威胁,常常引发对立政治团体之间的激烈争论。尽管政治误导信息对选民知情和政治决策起着核心作用,但人们在辨别准确的政治信息和虚假信息时,对自己是对是错的认知程度却知之甚少。在此,我们研究了人们对自己发现政治错误信息能力的元认知洞察力。我们使用了一项独特的纵向研究中的数据,该研究在 6 个月内进行了 12 次调查,调查对象是具有代表性的美国样本(样本数 = 1,191),调查内容是网上流传最广的政治(错误)信息。利用信号检测理论方法建立元认知模型,我们发现,无论是政治左派还是政治右派,他们都意识到自己对所有新闻中准确政治信息与虚假信息的辨别能力。然而,当相关信息对他们的意识形态承诺构成挑战时,共和党人和保守派人士的这种元认知洞察力要比民主党人和自由派人士低得多。也就是说,考虑到他们的知识水平,共和党人和保守派的信心不太可能反映出他们对与其政治观点相悖的真假政治言论的正确性判断。这些结果揭示了政治偏好与人们评估自身真理辨别力的准确性之间错综复杂的系统联系。更广泛地说,通过识别特定的政治不对称--不和谐新闻相对于和谐新闻--我们的研究结果凸显了元认知在延续和加剧意识形态分歧中的作用。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
期刊最新文献
Vitamin B12: prevention of human beings from lethal diseases and its food application. Current status and obstacles of narrowing yield gaps of four major crops. Cold shock treatment alleviates pitting in sweet cherry fruit by enhancing antioxidant enzymes activity and regulating membrane lipid metabolism. Removal of proteins and lipids affects structure, in vitro digestion and physicochemical properties of rice flour modified by heat-moisture treatment. Investigating the impact of climate variables on the organic honey yield in Turkey using XGBoost machine learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1