Why debunking political rumours is tough

In what may come as a shocker to the proponents of rational political discourse, attempts to debunk political rumours may only reinforce their strength, says a study.

"Rumours are sticky, corrections are difficult, and in some cases can even make the problem worse," said study author Adam Berinsky, a professor of political science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Berinsky found in an experiment concerning the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that rebuttals of political rumours about the supposed existence of "death panels" sometimes increased belief in the myth among the public.

"Pure repetition, we know from psychology, makes information more powerful," Berinsky said.

In the case of the "death panels," Berinsky's research indicates that the best way to counteract these rumours is to find a political figure who could credibly debunk the rumour based on their broader political stand -- a Republican senator, for instance.

As Berinsky sees it, it is harder for a democracy to function well in a public environment pervaded by political myths.

Berinsky conducted the experiment with three separate waves of public-opinion surveys in 2010, encompassing nearly 2,000 voters.

Berinsky's experiment also produced new data about the attachment of the electorate to myths in general.

He asked respondents whether they believed in any or all of seven different myths, six of which concerned politics -- such as the myth that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, or the rumour that vote fraud in Ohio swung the 2004 presidential election to then-President George W. Bush.

Only five percent of the population believed four or more of the seven rumours, but on average, people believed 1.8 of the rumours.

"It's not that there are some people who believe a lot of crazy things. There are a lot of people who believe some crazy things," Berinsky said.

The paper is scheduled to be published in the British Journal of Political Science.