Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39915512›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Different honesty conceptions align across US politicians' tweets and public replies.

Fabio Carrella, Segun T Aroyehun, Jana Lasser, Almog Simchon, David Garcia, Stephan Lewandowsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fabio CarrellaSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. fabio.carrella@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4918-3875
Segun T AroyehunDepartment of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Jana LasserIDea_Lab, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4274-4580
Almog SimchonDepartment of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2629-2913
David GarciaDepartment of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Stephan LewandowskySchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1655-2013

Funding

EC | EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 | H2020 Priority Excellent Science | H2020 European Research Council (H2020 Excellent Science - European Research Council) 101020961EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020) 101094752John Templeton Foundation (JTF) The Honesty Project
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent evidence shows that US politicians' conception of honesty has undergone a bifurcation, with authentic but evidence-free "belief-speaking" becoming more prominent and differentiated from evidence-based "fact-speaking". Here we examine the downstream consequences of those two ways of conceiving honesty by investigating user engagement with fact-speaking and belief-speaking texts by members of the US Congress on Twitter (now X). We measure the conceptions of honesty of a sample of tweets and replies using computational text processing, and check whether the conceptions of honesty in the tweets align with those in their replies. We find that the conceptions of honesty used in replies align with those of the tweets, suggesting a "contagion". Notably, this contagion replicates under controlled experimental conditions. Our study highlights the crucial role of political leaders in setting the tone of the conversation on social media.

Indexed as

PoliticsSocial MediaHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39915512
PMCPMC11802837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.