IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/i4rdps/34.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Replication Report: Checking and Sharing Alt-Facts

Author

Listed:
  • Beeder, Monica
  • Sørensen, Erik Ø.

Abstract

Henry, Zhuravskaya, and Guriev (2022) examine whether people are willing to share "alternative facts" espoused by right-wing populist parties before the 2019 European elections in France and how this interacted with the availability of fact-checking information. They find that both imposed and voluntary fact-checking reduce the likelihood of sharing false statements by approximately 45%, and that imposed and voluntary fact-checking have similar effect sizes. We reproduce these findings and introduce several alternative estimates to assess the robustness of the original results, including resolving an inconsistency in the handling of pre-treatment controls. Overall, our results align with the results of the original paper. The differences we find are small in absolute magnitude but, since many effects were small, not always trivial in terms of relative differences. This replication supports the conclusions of the original paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Beeder, Monica & Sørensen, Erik Ø., 2023. "Replication Report: Checking and Sharing Alt-Facts," I4R Discussion Paper Series 34, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/271674/1/I4R-DP034.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2018. "Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-68, February.
    2. Emeric Henry & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Sergei Guriev, 2022. "Checking and Sharing Alt-Facts," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 55-86, August.
    3. Emeric Henry & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Sergei Guriev, 2022. "Checking and Sharing Alt-Facts," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-03342759, HAL.
    4. Emeric Henry & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Sergei Guriev, 2022. "Checking and Sharing Alt-Facts," Post-Print halshs-03342759, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ali, Ayesha & Qazi, Ihsan Ayyub, 2023. "Countering misinformation on social media through educational interventions: Evidence from a randomized experiment in Pakistan," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    2. Bellodi, Luca & Docquier, Frédéric & Iandolo, Stefano & Morelli, Massimo & Turati, Riccardo, 2024. "Digging up Trenches: Populism, Selective Mobility, and the Political Polarization of Italian Municipalities," IZA Discussion Papers 16732, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Jiménez Durán, Rafael & Muller, Karsten & Schwarz, Carlo, 2024. "The Effect of Content Moderation on Online and Offline Hate: Evidence from Germany’s NetzDG," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 701, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    4. Joël Cariolle & Yasmine Elkhateeb & Mathilde Maurel, 2024. "Misinformation technology: Internet use and political misperceptions in Africa," Post-Print hal-04423752, HAL.
    5. Guy Aridor & Rafael Jiménez-Durán & Ro'ee Levy & Lena Song, 2024. "The Economics of Social Media," CESifo Working Paper Series 10934, CESifo.
    6. Choi, Syngjoo & Choi, Chung-Yoon & Kim, Seonghoon, 2023. "Tackling misperceptions about immigrants with fact-checking interventions: A randomized survey experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    7. Chopra, Felix & Haaland, Ingar & Roth, Christopher, 2022. "Do people demand fact-checked news? Evidence from U.S. Democrats," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    8. Andrea Mattozzi & Samuel Nocito & Francesco Sobbrio, 2022. "Fact-Checking Politicians," CESifo Working Paper Series 10122, CESifo.
    9. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Christian Hansen & Kengo Kato, 2018. "High-dimensional econometrics and regularized GMM," CeMMAP working papers CWP35/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    10. Nicolaj N. Mühlbach, 2020. "Tree-based Synthetic Control Methods: Consequences of moving the US Embassy," CREATES Research Papers 2020-04, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    11. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP72/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    12. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    13. Ruoxuan Xiong & Allison Koenecke & Michael Powell & Zhu Shen & Joshua T. Vogelstein & Susan Athey, 2021. "Federated Causal Inference in Heterogeneous Observational Data," Papers 2107.11732, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    14. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    15. Jelena Bradic & Weijie Ji & Yuqian Zhang, 2021. "High-dimensional Inference for Dynamic Treatment Effects," Papers 2110.04924, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    16. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2019. "Synthetic learner: model-free inference on treatments over time," Papers 1904.01490, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    17. Sallin, Aurelién, 2021. "Estimating returns to special education: combining machine learning and text analysis to address confounding," Economics Working Paper Series 2109, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    18. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials [Microcredit impacts: Evidence from a randomized microcredit program placement experiment by Compartamos Banco]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    19. Sung Jae Jun & Sokbae Lee, 2020. "Causal Inference under Outcome-Based Sampling with Monotonicity Assumptions," Papers 2004.08318, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    20. Soren Blomquist & Anil Kumar & Che-Yuan Liang & Whitney K. Newey, 2022. "Nonlinear Budget Set Regressions for the Random Utility Model," Working Papers 2219, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.i4replication.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.