IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v13y2024i11p571-d1505506.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Narrow Margins and Misinformation: The Impact of Sharing Fake News in Close Contests

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Rhodes

    (Faculty of Political Science, Moravian University, Bethlehem, PA 18018, USA)

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of candidates disseminating fake news on voter behavior and electoral outcomes in highly competitive, partisan races. While the effects of fake news on electoral outcomes have been studied, research has yet to examine the impact of candidates’ strategic use of fake news in elections where it may have the greatest impact—close races. This research explores whether the use of fake news influences voter support, particularly among independent voters, in tightly contested elections. Through a conjoint survey experiment involving participants from Amazon MTurk, this study analyzes how variables such as race competitiveness, perceived risk of alienating independents, and the presence of partisan labels affect voter responses to candidates who spread misinformation. The findings indicate that while the competitiveness of a race does not significantly enhance support for candidates sharing fake news, the presence of partisan labels does. These results suggest that voter behavior in response to fake news is more closely tied to partisan identity than to strategic electoral considerations. This study highlights the complex dynamics of misinformation in electoral contexts and its implications for democratic processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Rhodes, 2024. "Narrow Margins and Misinformation: The Impact of Sharing Fake News in Close Contests," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:11:p:571-:d:1505506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/11/571/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/11/571/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    2. Kevin E. Levay & Jeremy Freese & James N. Druckman, 2016. "The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440166, March.
    3. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Soojong Kim, 2019. "Directionality of information flow and echoes without chambers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    2. Michael Thaler, 2020. "Good News Is Not a Sufficient Condition for Motivated Reasoning," Papers 2012.01548, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    3. David Johnson & John Barry Ryan, 2020. "Amazon Mechanical Turk workers can provide consistent and economically meaningful data," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(1), pages 369-385, July.
    4. Ajzenman, Nicolás & Balza, Lenin & Bejarano, Hernan & De Los Rios, Camilo & Gómez Parra, Nicolás, 2023. "Seemingly irrelevant factors and willingness to block polluting investments," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 13325, Inter-American Development Bank.
    5. Toby Bolsen & Justin Kingsland & Risa Palm, 2018. "The impact of frames highlighting coastal flooding in the USA on climate change beliefs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 359-368, March.
    6. Brian J. McCabe, 2018. "Costly, Regressive, and Ineffective: How Sensitive Is Public Support for the Mortgage Interest Deduction in the United States?," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 963-978, November.
    7. Scott Simon Boddery & Damon Cann & Laura Moyer & Jeff Yates, 2023. "The role of cable news hosts in public support for Supreme Court decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 1045-1069, December.
    8. Scott Williamson & Mashail Malik, 2021. "Contesting narratives of repression: Experimental evidence from Sisi’s Egypt," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(5), pages 1018-1033, September.
    9. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Lamberova, Natalia, 2021. "The puzzling politics of R&D: Signaling competence through risky projects," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 801-818.
    11. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    12. Gilles Grolleau & Murat C. Mungan & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2024. "Punishment menus and their deterrent effects: an exploratory analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 1-19, August.
    13. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    14. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    15. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    16. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    17. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    18. Saito, Hiroharu, 2022. "Loss aversion for the value of voting rights: WTA/WTP ratios for a ballot," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    19. Deena A. Isom & Hunter M. Boehme & Toniqua C. Mikell & Stephen Chicoine & Marion Renner, 2021. "Status Threat, Social Concerns, and Conservative Media: A Look at White America and the Alt-Right," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, July.
    20. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:11:p:571-:d:1505506. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.