Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Misinformation Correction Experiment× | Elite Cue Experiment× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Psychologie politique | Psychologie politique |
| Famille | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Année d'origine≠ | 2010 | 1992 |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifler | John Zaller; Stephen Nicholson |
| Type≠ | Survey experiment on factual correction | Survey experiment on source cues |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. DOI ↗ | Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521407861 |
| Alias | Fact-Check Correction Experiment, Misperception Correction Design, Backfire Effect Experiment, Belief Updating Correction Study | Party Cue Experiment, Source Cue Persuasion Experiment, Partisan Endorsement Cue Design, Elite Endorsement Experiment |
| Apparentées | 3 | 3 |
| Résumé≠ | 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. | An elite cue experiment isolates the persuasive power of source endorsements by holding a policy message constant and randomly varying who is said to support it. Grounded in John Zaller's receive-accept-sample model of mass opinion, which holds that citizens take cues from trusted political elites rather than reasoning from first principles, the design reveals how much opinion moves simply because a party or leader takes a side. Stephen Nicholson's work on polarizing cues shows that in-party endorsements can persuade while out-party endorsements provoke backlash, making the cue, not the argument, the engine of opinion change. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|