Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T22:34:54.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in American Politics

False Alarm

The Truth About Political Mistruths in the Trump Era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2019

Ethan Porter  and
Thomas J. Wood
Ethan Porter
Affiliation:
George Washington University, Washington DC
Thomas J. Wood
Affiliation:
Ohio State University

Summary

Americans are not invulnerable to factual information. They do not 'backfire'; facts do not make them less accurate. Instead, they become more accurate, even when corrections target co-partisans. Corrections of fake news yield similar results. Among Republicans, Trump's misstatements are less susceptible to corrections than identical misstatements attributed to other Republicans. While we do not observe facts affecting attitudes, multiple instances of misinformation can increase approval of the responsible politician - but corrections can reduce approval by similar amounts. While corrections do not eliminate false beliefs, they reduce the share of inaccurate beliefs among subjects in this study nearly in half.
Get access

Keywords

misinformationbackfire effectfake newspublic opinion
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in American Politics
Online ISBN: 9781108688338
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 03 October 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, A. (2010). The Disappearing Center. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Achen, C. and Bartels, L.. (2016). Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allcott, H. and Gentzkow, M.. (2017). “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 31 (2): 211–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The American National Election Studies. (2018). The ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior (www.electionstudies.org).Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S. and Konisky, D. M.. (2014). Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1971). Crises of the Republic. Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. (2002). “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perception.” Political Behavior. 24 (2): 117–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benegal, S. D. and Scruggs, L. A.. (2018). “Correcting Misinformation About Climate Change: The Impact of Partisanship in an Experimental Setting.” Climactic Change. 148: 61–80.Google Scholar
Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfield, P., and McPhee, W. N.. (1954). Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berinsky, A. J. (2017). “Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation.” British Journal of Political Science. 47 (2): 241–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., and Lenz, G. S.. (2012). “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis. 20: 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M. and Shapiro, J. M.. (2018). “A Note on Internet Use and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Outcome.” PLoS ONE. 13 (7): e0199571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0199571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, A. M. (2012). “Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics.” American Journal of Public Health. 102 (1): 63–71.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bullock, J. G. (2009). “Partisan Bias and the Bayesian Ideal in the Study of Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics. 71 (July): 1109–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., and Huber, G. A.. (2015). “Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 10: 519–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, E. (2006.) Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E.. (1960). The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carpini, M. X. D. and Keeter, S.. (1996). What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chan, M. P. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H., and Albarracín, D.. (2017). “Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation.” Psychological Science. 28 (11): 1531–46.Google Scholar
Chen, X., Tsaparas, P., Lijffijt, J., and Bie, T. D.. 2019. “Opinion Dynamics with Backfire Effect and Biased Assimilation.” Accessed via https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.11535.pdfGoogle Scholar
Chong, D. and Druckman, J. N.. (2007). “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science. 10: 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G., and Cox, G. M.. (1957). Experimental Designs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Cordrea-Rado, A. (March 21, 2018). “Wolfgang Tillmans Explores the Role of Art in a Post-Truth World.” New York Times.Google Scholar
Coppock, A. (2018). “Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach.” Political Science Research and Methods. 1–16. doi:10.1017/psrm.2018.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, A., Ekins, E., and Kirby, D.. (2018). “The Long-lasting Effects of Newspaper Op-Eds on Public Opinion.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 13 (1): 59–87.Google Scholar
Davison, W. P. (1983). “The Third-Person Effect in Communication.” Public Opinion Quarterly. 47 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2012). “The Politics of Motivation.” Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society. 24 (2): 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ecker, K. H. U., Lewandowsky, S., and Wang, D. T. W.. (2010). “Explicit Warnings Reduce But Do Not Eliminate the Continued Influence of Misinformation.” Memory and Cognition. 38 (8): 1087–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelhardt, A. M. and Utych, S. M.. (2018). “Grand Old Tailgate Party: Partisan Discrimination in Apolitical Settings.” Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-09519-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. B. T. 2008. “Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition.” Annual Review of Psychology. 59: 255–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L.(1950). “Informal Social Communication.” Psychological Review. 57: 271–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., and Verkuilen, J.. (2007). “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion On Iraq.” Journal of Politics. 69 (4): 957–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S. and Green, D. P.. (2012). Field Experiments: Design, Analysis and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Glasser, S. (2016, December 2). “Covering Politics in a ‘Post-Truth’ America.” The Brookings Institute. Accessed via www.brookings.edu/essay/covering-politics-in-a-post-truth-america/Google Scholar
Graves, L. (2016). Deciding What’s True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., and Schickler, E.. (2002). Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (2018). “Donald Trump Gets Polar Ice Trend Backwards.” Politifact. Accessed via www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/29/donald-trump/ trump-gets-polar-ice-trend-backwards/Google Scholar
Gross, K., Porter, E., and Wood, T. J.. (2019). “Identifying Media Effects Through Low-Cost, Multi-Wave Field Experiments.” Political Communication. 36 (2): 272–87.Google Scholar
Guess, A., Tucker, J., and Nagler, J.. (2018). “Less Than You Think: Prevalence and Predictors of Fake News Dissemination on Facebook.” Science Advances. 5 (1).Google Scholar
Guess, A. J. and Coppock, A.. (n.d.). “Does Counterattitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments.” British Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Guess, A. J. and Coppock, A., Nyhan, B., and Reifler, J.. (2018). “Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the Consumption of Fake News During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Campaign.” Accessed via www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdfGoogle Scholar
Guess, A. J. and Coppock, A., Nyhan, B., and Reifler, J.and Coppock, A., (Forthcoming). “Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments.” British Journal of Politcal Science. Accessed via https://webspace.princeton.edu/users/aguess/GC_Backlash_Final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Haglin, K. (2017). “The Limitations of the Backfire Effect.” Research and Politics. Accessed via https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017716547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahl, O., Kim, M., and Zuckerman Sivan, E. W.. 2018. “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy.” American Sociological Review. 83 (1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Hamilton, L. C. J. Hartter, J., Lemke-Stampone, J., Moore, M., and Safford, T. G.. (2015). “Tracking Public Beliefs About Anthropogenic Climate Change.” PLOS ONE. Accessed via https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0138208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, D. (2016). “Contesting the Science of Smoking.” The Atlantic. Accessed via www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar-cigarettes/481116/Google Scholar
Hill, S. J. (2017). “Learning Together Slowly: Bayesian Learning About Political Facts.” Journal of Politics. 79 (4): 1403–18.Google Scholar
Howell, W .G., Porter, E., and Wood, T. J. (2017). “Making a President: Performance, Public Opinion and the (Temporary) Transmutation of Donald J. Trump.” Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3111903Google Scholar
Hochschild, J. and Einstein, K. L.. (2015). Do Facts Matter?: Information and Misinformation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Huber, G., Hill, S., and Lenz, G.. 2012. “Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters’ Limitations in Controlling Incumbents.” American Political Science Review. 106 (4): 720–41.Google Scholar
Isaac, M. and Roose, K.. (2018). “Disinformation Spreads on WhatsApp Ahead of Brazilian Election.” New York Times. Accessed via www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/ technology/whatsapp-brazil-presidential-election.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad& smid=nytcore-ipad-shareGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., and Lelkes, Y.. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Theory on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly. 76 (3): 405–31.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. and Westwood, S. J. (2015). “Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science. 59 (3): 690––707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, L. (2018). “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wrong on Several Counts About Unemployment.” Politifact. Accessed via www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/Google Scholar
Jerit, J. and Barabas, J.. (2012). “Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment.” The Journal of Politics. 74 (3): 672–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, H. M. and Seifert, C. M.. (1998). “Updating Accounts Following a Correction of Misinformation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 24(6): 1483–94.Google Scholar
Jones, P. E. (2019). “Partisanship, Political Awareness, and Retrospective Evaluations, 1956–2016.” Political Behavior. Accessed via https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09543-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D. and Braman, D.. (2006). “Cultural Cognition and Public Policy.” Yale Law and Policy Review. 24 (147): 147–70.Google Scholar
Kaplan, J., Gimbel, S. I., and Harris, S.. (2016). “Neural Correlates of Maintaining One’s Political Beliefs in the Face of Counterevidence.” Nature Scientific Reports. 6.Google Scholar
Kessler, G. and Lee, M. Y. H.. (2017). “Fact-checking President Trump’s Claims on the Paris Climate Change Deal.” Washington Post. Accessed via www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/ 192017/06/01/fact-checking-presideGoogle Scholar
Kessler, G., Rizzo, S., and Kelly, M.. (2018). “President Trump Has Made 3,001 False or Misleading Claims So Far.” Washington Post. Accessed via www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/01/president-trump-has-made-3001-false-or-misleading-claims-so-far/?utm_term=.f4222c766c67Google Scholar
Khaldarova, I. and Pantti, M.. (2016). “Fake News: The Narrative Battle Over the Ukrainian Conflict.” Journalism Practice. 10 (7): 891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyre, A. (1945). “The Political Function of the Modern Lie.” In Contemporary Jewish Record. Vol. 8. New York: American Jewish Committee.Google Scholar
Kuklinksi, J. H., Quirk, P. J, Jerit, J., Schweider, D., and Rich, R. F.. (2000). “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.” Journal of Politics. 62 (3): 790–816.Google Scholar
Lazer, D. M. J, Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., F. et al. (2018). “The Science of Fake News.” Science. 359 (6380): 1094–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenz, G. (2012). Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lodge, M. and Taber, C. S.. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M. and Taber, C. S.. (2006). “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science. 50 (3): 755–69.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. (1979). “Reactions to Blatantly Contradictory Information.” Memory and Cognition. 7 (5): 368–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A. (1994). “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review. 88 (1): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A(1975). “Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report.” Cognitive Psychology. 7 (4): 560–72.Google Scholar
Lupia, Aand Palmer, J. C.. (1974). “Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction.” Journal of Verbal Learning Verbal Behavior. 13 (5): 585–89.Google Scholar
Lybrand, H. et al. (2019). “How 19 Claims Trump Made During the State of the Union Check Out.” Accessed via www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/fact-check-trump-state-of-the-union/ index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Mansky, J. (2018.) “The Age-Old Problem of Fake News.” Smithsonian. Accessed via www.smithsonianmag.com/history/age-old-problem-fake-news-180968945/Google Scholar
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R. and MacKuen, M.. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mason, L. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merola, V. and Hitt, M.. (2016.) “Numeracy and the Persuasive Effect of Policy Information and Party Cues.” Public Opinion Quarterly. 80 (2): 554–62.Google Scholar
Mozur, Paul. (2018.) “A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military.” New York Times. Accessed via www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html?action=click&module=Top\ percent20Stories&pgtype= HomepageGoogle Scholar
Mullinx, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., and Freese, J.. (2015). “The Generalizeability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science. 2: 109–38.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. (2012). “The Great Divide: Campaign Media in the American Mind.” Daedalus. 141 (4): 83–97.Google Scholar
National Public Radio. (2016). “Fact Check: Trump and Clinton Debate for the First Time.” Accessed via www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate.Google Scholar
New York Times. (2016). “Our Fact Checks of the First Debate.” Accessed via www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/fact-check-debate.htmlGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., and Wood, T. J.. (2017). “Taking Corrections Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Information on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability.” Working paper. Accessed via https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2995128Google Scholar
Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., and Wood, T. J.and Reifler, J. (2010). “When Corrections Fail.” Political Behavior. 32 (2): 303–30.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., and Wood, T. J.and Reifler, Jand Reifler, J. (2015). “The Effect of Fact-Checking on Elites: A Field Experiment on U.S. State Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science. 59 (3): 628–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., and Wood, T. J.and Reifler, Jand Reifler, J, Reifler, J., and Ubel, P.. (2013). “The Hazards of Correcting Myths About Health Care Reform.” 51 (2): 127–32.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. K.. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J.. (1986). “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 19: 123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponder, D. E. (2017). Presidential Leverage: Presidents, Approval and the American State. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, E., Wood, T. J., and Bahador, B.. (Forthcoming). “Can Presidential Misinformation on Climate Change Be Corrected? Evidence from Internet and Phone Experiments.” Research and Politics.Google Scholar
Porter, E., Wood, T. J., and Kirby, D.. (2018). “Sex Trafficking, Russian Infiltration, Birth Certificates, and Pedophilia: A Survey Experiment Correcting Fake News.” Journal of Experimental Political Science. 5 (2): 159–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, M., Sood, G., and Khanna, K.. (2015). “You Cannot be Serious: The Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Reports of Economic Perceptions.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 10 (4): 489–518.Google Scholar
Rahn, W. (1993). “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science. 37 (2): 472–96.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making.” Journal of Politics. 64 (4): 1021–44.Google Scholar
Schaffner, B. and Roche, C.. (2017). “Misinformation and Motivated Reasoning: Responses to Economic News in a Politicized Environment.” Public Opinion Quarterly. 81 (1): 86–110.Google Scholar
Silverman, C. (November 26, 2016). “This Analysis Shows How Fake Election News Outperformed Real Election News on Facebook.” BuzzFeed. Accesed via www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebookGoogle Scholar
Smidt, C. D. (2017). “Polarization and the Decline of the American Floating Voter.” American Journal of Political Science. 61 (2): 365–81.Google Scholar
Snyder, T. (2017). On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York: Penguin University Press.Google Scholar
Spivak, C. (2011). “The Fact-Checking Explosion.” American Journalism Review. 32: 38–43.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2018). How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Sterling, R. W. and Scott, W. C.. (1985). The Republic of Plato. New York: W.W Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Taber, C. and Lodge, M.. (2006). “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science. 50 (3): 755–69.Google Scholar
Taber, C. and Lodge, M.and Lodge, M.. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., and Ling, R.. (2017). “Defining “Fake News.” Digital Journalism. 6 (2): 137–53.Google Scholar
Teisch, S. (January 6, 1992). “A Government of Lies.” The Nation. 254 (1): 12–14.Google Scholar
Tillmans, W. (February 28, 2018). “My Two-Year Investigation into the Post-Truth Era.” The Guardian. Accessed via www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/feb/28/wolfgang-tillmans-what-is-different-backfire-effectGoogle Scholar
Tversy, A. and Kahneman, D.. (1973). “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability.” Cognitive Psychology. 5: 207–32.Google Scholar
Uscinski, J. and Butler, R.. (2013). “The Epistemology of Fact Checking.” Critical Review. 25 (2): 162–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., and Aral, S.. (2018). “The Spread of True and False News Online.” Science. 359 (6380): 1146–51.Google Scholar
Wintersieck, A. L. (2017). “Debating the Truth: The Impact of Fact-Checking During Electoral Debates.” American Politics Research. 45 (2): 304–31.Google Scholar
Wood, T. J. and Porter, E.. (2018). “The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence.” Political Behavior. 1–32.Google Scholar
Woodward, C., Yen, H., and Rugaber, C.. (February 9, 2019). “AP Fact Check: Trump swipes progress from Obama era.” Associated Press. Accessed via www.apnews.com/3e265c4138d04e22886e6e1818789734Google Scholar
Zaller, J. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Public Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. (2004). “Floating Voters in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2000.” In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error and Change. Edited by Saris, W. E. and Sniderman, P. M.. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J. (February 8, 2017). “It’s Time to Give Up on Facts.” Slate. Accessed via https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/counter-lies-with-emotions-not-facts.htmlGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

False Alarm
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

False Alarm
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

False Alarm
Available formats
×