Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election


Although commentators frequently warn about echo chambers, little is known about the volume or slant of political misinformation that people consume online, the effects of social media and fact checking on exposure, or the effects of political misinformation on behaviour. Here, we evaluate these questions for websites that publish factually dubious content, which is often described as fake news. Survey and web-traffic data from the 2016 US presidential campaign show that supporters of Donald Trump were most likely to visit these websites, which often spread through Facebook. However, these websites made up a small share of people’s information diets on average and were largely consumed by a subset of Americans with strong preferences for pro-attitudinal information. These results suggest that the widespread speculation about the prevalence of exposure to untrustworthy websites has been overstated.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Selective exposure to untrustworthy websites.
Fig. 2: Visits to untrustworthy websites by media diet slant decile.
Fig. 3: Consumption of untrustworthy conservative websites by CRT score and candidate preference.
Fig. 4: Referrers to untrustworthy news websites and other sources.
Fig. 5: Visits to fact-checking and untrustworthy websites.

Data availability

Data files necessary to replicate the results in this article are available at the following Dataverse repository:

Code availability

R/Stata scripts that replicate the results in this article are available at the following Dataverse repository:


  1. 1.

    Silverman, C. This analysis shows how fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. BuzzFeed News (2016).

  2. 2.

    Silverman, C. & Singer-Vine, J. Most Americans who see fake news believe it, new survey says. BuzzFeed News (2016).

  3. 3.

    Allcott, H. & Gentzkow, M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect 31, 211–236 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Parkinson, H. J. Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election. The Guardian (14 November 2016).

  5. 5.

    Solon, O. Facebook’s failure: did fake news and polarized politics get Trump elected? The Guardian (10 November 2016).

  6. 6.

    Blake, A. A new study suggests fake news might have won Donald Trump the 2016 election. Washington Post (3 April 2018).

  7. 7.

    Gunther, R., Beck, P. A. & Nisbet, E. C. ‘Fake news’ and the defection of 2012 Obama voters in the 2016 presidential election. Elect. Stud. 61, 102030 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Nelson, J. L. & Taneja, H. The small, disloyal fake news audience: the role of audience availability in fake news consumption. New Media Soc. 20, 3720–3737 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Fourney, A., Racz, M. Z., Ranade, G., Mobius, M. & Horvitz, E. Geographic and temporal trends in fake news consumption during the 2016 US presidential election. In Proc. 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management 2071–2074 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2017).

  10. 10.

    Sunstein, C. R. (Princeton Univ. Press, 2001).

  11. 11.

    Pariser, E. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web is Changing What We Read and How We Think (Penguin, 2011).

  12. 12.

    Stroud, N. J. Media use and political predispositions: revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Polit. Behav. 30, 341–366 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hart, W. et al. Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychol. Bull. 135, 555–588 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Iyengar, S. & Hahn, K. S. Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. J. Commun. 59, 19–39 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A. & Walker, J. Selective exposure to campaign communication: the role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. J. Polit. 70, 186–200 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. M. Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly J. Econ. 126, 1799–1839 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. & Bonneau, R. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 26, 1531–1542 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Flaxman, S. R., Goel, S. & Rao, J. M. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opin. Quart. 80, 298–320 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Swire, B. & Ecker, U. K. in Misinformation and Mass Audiences (eds Southwell, B. G. et al.) 195–211 (Univ. Texas Press, 2018).

  20. 20.

    Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 1146–1151 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Helmsley, J. in Misinformation and Mass Audiences (eds Southwell, B. G. et al.) 263–273 (Univ. Texas Press, 2018).

  23. 23.

    Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Winneg, K. M. & Jamieson, K. H. Did fact checking matter in the 2012 presidential campaign? Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 1558–1567 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit. Behav. 32, 303–330 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Flynn, D., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Adv. Polit. Psychol. 38, 127–150 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Chan, M. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K. & Albarracin, D. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1531–1546 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Walter, N. & Murphy, S. T. How to unring the bell: a meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Commun. Monogr. 85, 423–441 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L. & Morag, Y. Fact-checking: a meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Polit. Commun. (2019).

  29. 29.

    Shin, J. & Thorson, K. Partisan selective sharing: the biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. J. Commun. 67, 233–255 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Weeks, B. E. Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: how anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. J. Commun. 65, 699–719 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Prior, M. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  32. 32.

    Diddi, A. & LaRose, R. Getting hooked on news: uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an internet environment. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 50, 193–210 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: evidence from 49 field experiments. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 112, 148–166 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Spenkuch, J. L. & Toniatti, D. Political advertising and election results. Q. J. Econ. 133, 1981–2036 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B. & Lazer, D. Fake news on twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science 363, 374–378 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Frederick, S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 25–42 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bacevich, A. J. The real news we ignore at our peril. The American Conservative (11 January 2018).

  39. 39.

    Van den Putte, B., Yzer, M., Southwell, B. G., de Bruijn, G.-J. & Willemsen, M. C. Interpersonal communication as an indirect pathway for the effect of antismoking media content on smoking cessation. J. Health Commun. 16, 470–485 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Southwell, B. G. & Thorson, E. A. The prevalence, consequence, and remedy of misinformation in mass media systems. J. Commun. 65, 589–595 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Guess, A., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on facebook. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau4586 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Graves, L. Deciding What’s True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism (Columbia Univ. Press, 2016).

  43. 43.

    Uscinski, J. E. & Butler, R. W. The epistemology of fact checking. Crit. Rev. 25, 162–180 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Lim, C. Checking how fact-checkers check. Res. Polit. 5, 1–7 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Benkler, Y., Faris, R., Roberts, H. & Zuckerman, E. Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda. Columbia Journalism Review (2017).

  46. 46.

    McDonald, M. P. 2016 November General Election Turnout Rates (United States Election Project, 2016).

  47. 47.

    Lazer, D. M. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Budak, C. What happened? The spread of fake news publisher content during the 2016 US presidential election. In The World Wide Web Conference 139–150 (ACM, 2019).

  49. 49.

    Guess, A., Lyons, B., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Avoiding the Echo Chamber About Echo Chambers: Why Selective Exposure to Like-Minded Political News is Less Prevalent Than You Think (Knight Foundation, 2018).

  50. 50.

    Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J.-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).

Download references


We thank D. Kahan and C. Silverman for sharing data; S. Luks and M. Shih at YouGov for assistance with survey administration; K. Arceneaux, Y. Benkler, D. Ciuk, T. Coan, L. Jasny, D. Kahan, D. Lazer, J. Leahy, T. Leeper, A. S. Levine, B. Lyons, C. Mo, S. Munzert and S. Piston for providing comments and feedback; B. Bao, J. Barancik, A. Cai, J. Davidson, K. Fuhs, J. Burnes Garza, G. Green, J. Lu, A. Ma, H. Parkhurst, S. Petroni, M. Sandhu, P. Sankar, A. Sun, J. Sweetow, A. Wolff and A. Woodruff for research assistance. This project received funding support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 682758). We are grateful to the Poynter Institute, Knight Foundation and American Press Institute for funding support. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information




A.M.G., B.N. and J.R. designed the study, conducted the analysis, and drafted and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brendan Nyhan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Aisha Bradshaw.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, results (includes integrated supplementary tables and figures that are related to text in this section) and references.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guess, A.M., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nat Hum Behav 4, 472–480 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing