The increasing spread of false stories ("fake news") represents one of the great challenges societies face in the 21st century. A little-understood aspect of this phenomenon and of the processing of online news in general is how sources influence whether people believe and share what they read. In contrast to the predigital era, the Internet makes it easy for anyone to imitate well-known and credible sources in name and appearance. In a preregistered survey experiment, we first investigate the effect of this contrast (real vs. fake source) and find that subjects, as expected, have a higher tendency to believe and a somewhat higher propensity to share news by real sources. We then expose subjects to a number of reports manipulated in content (congruent vs. incongruent with individuals' attitudes), which reveals our most crucial finding. As predicted, people are more likely to believe a news report by a source that has previously given them congruent information. However, this only holds if the source is fake. We further use

Could the media’s attention to misinformation and fake news be harmful? We examine whether the coverage of misinformation in the media, alongside untrustworthy content and partisan sites, contributes to rising erroneous beliefs and decreasing levels of trust among U.S. citizens. We test this using experimental (Study 1) and observational data (Study 2). Study 1 finds that both exposure to actual misinformation and to the coverage of misinformation have short-term but no long-term consequences for misperceptions. Study 2 shows that behaviorally tracked visits to untrustworthy sites and exposure to content covering misinformation —although relatively rare — both predict lower trust, and that visits to liberal news sites boost trust in scientists. Although the direct impact of untrustworthy sites and the coverage of misinformation on misperceptions is short-lived, it may matter more for other outcomes such as trust, which are crucial to the functioning of democracies.

Does the return of large carnivores affect voting behavior? We study this question through the lens of wolf attacks on livestock. Sustained environmental conservation has allowed the wolf ( Canis lupus) to make an impressive and unforeseen comeback across Central Europe in recent years. While lauded by conservationists, local residents often see the wolf as a threat to economic livelihoods, particularly those of farmers. As populists appear to exploit such sentiments, the wolf’s reemergence is a plausible source for far-right voting behavior. To test this hypothesis, we collect fine-grained spatial data on wolf attacks and construct a municipality-level panel in Germany. Using difference-in-differences models, we find that wolf attacks are accompanied by a significant rise in far-right voting behavior, while the Green party, if anything, suffers electoral losses. We buttress this finding using local-level survey data, which confirms a link between wolf attacks and negative sentiment toward environmental protection. To explore potential mechanisms, we analyze Twitter posts, election manifestos, and Facebook ads to show that far-right politicians frame the wolf as a threat to economic livelihoods.

No abstract

Most scholars focus on the prevalence and democratic effects of (partisan) news exposure. This focus misses large parts of online activities of a majority of politically disinterested citizens. Although political content also appears outside of news outlets and may profoundly shape public opinion, its prevalence and effects are under-studied at scale. This project combines three-wave panel survey data from three countries (total N = 6,892) with online behavioral data from the same participants (119.7M visits). We create a multi-lingual classifier to identify political content both in news and outside (e.g. in shopping or entertainment sites). We find that news consumption is infrequent: just 3.4% of participants’ online browsing comprised visits to news sites. Only between 14% (NL) and 36% (US) of these visits were to hard news. The overwhelming majority of participants' visits were to non-news sites. Although only 1.6% of those visits related to politics, in absolute terms, citizens encounter politics more frequently outside of news than within news. Out of every 10 visits to political content, 3 come from news and 7 from non-news sites. Furthermore, non-news exposure to political content had the same – and in some cases stronger - associations with key democratic attitudes and behaviors as news exposure. These findings offer a comprehensive analysis of the online political (not solely news) ecosystem and demonstrate the importance of assessing the prevalence and effects of political content in non-news sources.