Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Misinformation Correction Experiment× | Motivated Reasoning Experiment× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Poliittinen psykologia | Poliittinen psykologia |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 2010 | 2006 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifler | Charles Taber & Milton Lodge |
| Tyyppi≠ | Survey experiment on factual correction | Survey/lab experiment |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. DOI ↗ | Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet≠ | Fact-Check Correction Experiment, Misperception Correction Design, Backfire Effect Experiment, Belief Updating Correction Study | Directional Motivated Reasoning Study, Biased Assimilation Experiment, Disconfirmation Bias Paradigm |
| Liittyvät≠ | 3 | 4 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | A misinformation correction experiment tests whether a factual correction can reduce belief in a political misperception. In Nyhan and Reifler's influential 2010 design, all respondents read a misleading claim and a random subset also read a correction, after which their factual beliefs are measured. Their alarming finding was a backfire effect: for some groups, corrections increased rather than decreased misperceptions among those ideologically threatened by the fact. Later large-scale replications by Wood and Porter found backfire to be rare and corrections generally effective, making this design a case study in how political psychology refines a striking result through replication. | A motivated reasoning experiment tests whether people process political information to reach conclusions they are directionally motivated to hold rather than the most accurate ones. Building on Kunda's (1990) theory and crystallized by Taber and Lodge (2006), these designs expose partisans to attitude-congruent and incongruent arguments and measure biased assimilation, disconfirmation bias, attitude polarization, and selective exposure. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|