Falsehoods Offer No Persuasive Advantage over Selective Facts

Abstract

Concerns about false information masquerading as news are widespread in part because falsehoods are seen as an effective way to mislead and inflame. However, other studies have shown that factually accurate but biased information can also affect beliefs and attitudes. Do falsehoods influence opinions more than selectively framed, but factual information? We address this question by conducting a randomized experiment that uses large language models (LLMs) to synthetically generate articles that systematically vary in frame 1 (positive vs. negative) and veracity (selective facts vs. exaggerations vs. fabrications). We find that while lying does have a large effect on downstream feelings and opinions, it is no larger than the effect of the selective presentation of factual statements taken from mainstream media accounts. Our findings challenge the notion that falsehoods are necessary to manipulate public opinion and highlight the potential role of practices like negativity bias and selective emphasis in shaping public misperceptions.