Replication data for: Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Hunt Allcott; Matthew Gentzkow
Version: View help for Version V1
Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
---|---|---|---|
output | 10/12/2019 06:31:PM | ||
source | 10/12/2019 06:31:PM | ||
|
text/plain | 251 bytes | 10/12/2019 02:31:PM |
|
text/plain | 143 bytes | 10/12/2019 02:30:PM |
|
application/octet-stream | 430.2 KB | 10/12/2019 02:30:PM |
|
text/plain | 1.4 KB | 10/12/2019 02:31:PM |
|
text/plain | 1.1 KB | 10/12/2019 02:30:PM |
Citation:
Allcott, Hunt, and Gentzkow, Matthew. Replication data for: Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election: election media JEP replication. Nashville, TN: American Economic Association [publisher], 2017. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2019-10-12. https://doi.org/10.3886/E113992V1-79000
To view the citation for the overall project, see http://doi.org/10.3886/E113992V1.
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
Following the 2016 US presidential election, many have expressed concern about the effects of false stories ("fake news"), circulated largely through social media. We discuss the economics of fake news and present new data on its consumption prior to the election. Drawing on web browsing data, archives of fact-checking websites, and results from a new online survey, we find: 1) social media was an important but not dominant source of election news, with 14 percent of Americans calling social media their "most important" source; 2) of the known false news stories that appeared in the three months before the election, those favoring Trump were shared a total of 30 million times on Facebook, while those favoring Clinton were shared 8 million times; 3) the average American adult saw on the order of one or perhaps several fake news stories in the months around the election, with just over half of those who recalled seeing them believing them; and 4) people are much more likely to believe stories that favor their preferred candidate, especially if they have ideologically segregated social media networks.
Scope of Project
JEL Classification:
View help for JEL Classification
D72 Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
L82 Entertainment; Media
Z13 Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification
D72 Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
L82 Entertainment; Media
Z13 Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.