事实与观点的区别

Matthew Mettler, Jeffery J. Mondak
{"title":"事实与观点的区别","authors":"Matthew Mettler, Jeffery J. Mondak","doi":"10.37016/mr-2020-136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Statements of fact can be proved or disproved with objective evidence, whereas statements of opinion depend on personal values and preferences. Distinguishing between these types of statements contributes to information competence. Conversely, failure at fact-opinion differentiation potentially brings resistance to corrections of misinformation and susceptibility to manipulation. Our analyses show that on fact-opinion differentiation tasks, unsystematic mistakes and mistakes emanating from partisan bias occur at higher rates than accurate responses. Accuracy increases with political sophistication. Affective partisan polarization promotes systematic partisan error: As views grow more polarized, partisans increasingly see their side as holding facts and the opposing side as holding opinions.","PeriodicalId":93289,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review","volume":"24 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fact-opinion differentiation\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Mettler, Jeffery J. Mondak\",\"doi\":\"10.37016/mr-2020-136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Statements of fact can be proved or disproved with objective evidence, whereas statements of opinion depend on personal values and preferences. Distinguishing between these types of statements contributes to information competence. Conversely, failure at fact-opinion differentiation potentially brings resistance to corrections of misinformation and susceptibility to manipulation. Our analyses show that on fact-opinion differentiation tasks, unsystematic mistakes and mistakes emanating from partisan bias occur at higher rates than accurate responses. Accuracy increases with political sophistication. Affective partisan polarization promotes systematic partisan error: As views grow more polarized, partisans increasingly see their side as holding facts and the opposing side as holding opinions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review\",\"volume\":\"24 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-136\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

事实陈述可以用客观证据来证明或反驳,而意见陈述则取决于个人的价值观和偏好。区分这两类陈述有助于提高信息能力。反之,如果不能区分事实与观点,就有可能对错误信息的纠正产生抵触情绪,并容易受到操纵。我们的分析表明,在事实-观点区分任务中,非系统性错误和党派偏见导致的错误比准确回答的发生率更高。准确率随着政治素养的提高而提高。情感上的党派极化会助长系统性的党派错误:随着观点的日益两极化,党派人士会越来越多地将自己的一方视为掌握事实,而将对方视为掌握观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Fact-opinion differentiation
Statements of fact can be proved or disproved with objective evidence, whereas statements of opinion depend on personal values and preferences. Distinguishing between these types of statements contributes to information competence. Conversely, failure at fact-opinion differentiation potentially brings resistance to corrections of misinformation and susceptibility to manipulation. Our analyses show that on fact-opinion differentiation tasks, unsystematic mistakes and mistakes emanating from partisan bias occur at higher rates than accurate responses. Accuracy increases with political sophistication. Affective partisan polarization promotes systematic partisan error: As views grow more polarized, partisans increasingly see their side as holding facts and the opposing side as holding opinions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Taking the power back: How diaspora community organizations are fighting misinformation spread on encrypted messaging apps Who reports witnessing and performing corrections on social media in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and France? The spread of synthetic media on X #SaveTheChildren: A pilot study of a social media movement co-opted by conspiracy theorists US-skepticism and transnational conspiracy in the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election
×
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