IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v115y2021i3p999-1015_19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter

Author

Listed:
  • OSMUNDSEN, MATHIAS
  • BOR, ALEXANDER
  • VAHLSTRUP, PETER BJERREGAARD
  • BECHMANN, ANJA
  • PETERSEN, MICHAEL BANG

Abstract

The rise of “fake news” is a major concern in contemporary Western democracies. Yet, research on the psychological motivations behind the spread of political fake news on social media is surprisingly limited. Are citizens who share fake news ignorant and lazy? Are they fueled by sinister motives, seeking to disrupt the social status quo? Or do they seek to attack partisan opponents in an increasingly polarized political environment? This article is the first to test these competing hypotheses based on a careful mapping of psychological profiles of over 2,300 American Twitter users linked to behavioral sharing data and sentiment analyses of more than 500,000 news story headlines. The findings contradict the ignorance perspective but provide some support for the disruption perspective and strong support for the partisan polarization perspective. Thus, individuals who report hating their political opponents are the most likely to share political fake news and selectively share content that is useful for derogating these opponents. Overall, our findings show that fake news sharing is fueled by the same psychological motivations that drive other forms of partisan behavior, including sharing partisan news from traditional and credible news sources.

Suggested Citation

  • Osmundsen, Mathias & Bor, Alexander & Vahlstrup, Peter Bjerregaard & Bechmann, Anja & Petersen, Michael Bang, 2021. "Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 999-1015, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:115:y:2021:i:3:p:999-1015_19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055421000290/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elena Llorca-Asensi & Alexander Sánchez Díaz & Maria-Elena Fabregat-Cabrera & Raúl Ruiz-Callado, 2021. "“Why Can’t We?” Disinformation and Right to Self-Determination. The Catalan Conflict on Twitter," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Fève, Patrick & Assenza, Tiziana & Collard, Fabrice & Huber, Stefanie, 2024. "From Buzz to Bust: How Fake News Shapes the Business Cycle," TSE Working Papers 24-1516, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Jana Lasser & Segun T. Aroyehun & Fabio Carrella & Almog Simchon & David Garcia & Stephan Lewandowsky, 2023. "From alternative conceptions of honesty to alternative facts in communications by US politicians," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(12), pages 2140-2151, December.
    4. James N. Druckman & Donald P. Green & Shanto Iyengar, 2023. "Does Affective Polarization Contribute to Democratic Backsliding in America?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 137-163, July.
    5. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    6. Mohsen Mosleh & David G. Rand, 2022. "Measuring exposure to misinformation from political elites on Twitter," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. François t'Serstevens & Roberto Cerina & Giulia Piccillo, 2024. "Mapping the Risk of Spreading Fake-News via Wisdom-of-the-Crowd & MrP," CESifo Working Paper Series 11138, CESifo.
    8. Gordon Pennycook & David G. Rand, 2022. "Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Adrian Kwek & Luke Peh & Josef Tan & Jin Xing Lee, 2023. "Distractions, analytical thinking and falling for fake news: A survey of psychological factors," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Gordon Pennycook & David G. Rand, 2022. "Nudging Social Media toward Accuracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 152-164, March.
    11. Zeng, Jing & Brennen, Scott Babwah, 2023. "Misinformation," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20.
    12. Jens Foerderer, 2023. "Should we trust web-scraped data?," Papers 2308.02231, arXiv.org.
    13. Steve Rathje & Jon Roozenbeek & Jay J. Bavel & Sander Linden, 2023. "Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(6), pages 892-903, June.
    14. Raúl Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, 2023. "An Overview of the Fake News Phenomenon: From Untruth-Driven to Post-Truth-Driven Approaches," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(2), pages 15-29.
    15. Mason Youngblood & Joseph M. Stubbersfield & Olivier Morin & Ryan Glassman & Alberto Acerbi, 2023. "Negativity bias in the spread of voter fraud conspiracy theory tweets during the 2020 US election," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Çiğdem Bozdağ & Suncem Koçer, 2022. "Skeptical Inertia in the Face of Polarization: News Consumption and Misinformation in Turkey," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(2), pages 169-179.
    17. Roberts Lyer, Kirsten & Saliba, Ilyas & Spannagel, Janika, 2023. "Hypotheses on Institutional Autonomy Decline," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 177-193.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:115:y:2021:i:3:p:999-1015_19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.