Comparing beliefs in falsehoods based on satiric and non-satiric news

Abstract

This article seeks to quantify the extent to which Americans hold beliefs that are consistent with interpreting satiric news literally, and to assess whether factors known to promote misperceptions work differently depending on whether the source of the misperception is satire. We also test the robustness of those factors across a diverse set of real-world falsehoods. The study uses secondary data analysis, relying on data drawn from a 12-wave six-month panel conducted in 2019. Analyses focus on participants’ beliefs about 120 falsehoods derived from high-profile political content in circulation before each survey wave, including 48 based on satiric news. A non-trivial number of participants believed claims originating in satire, but it is less than the proportion who believed falsehoods derived from other misleading content. Results also confirm the robustness of established predictors of misperceptions while demonstrating that the associations differ in magnitude between satiric and non-satiric news.