Allcott,Hunt Volney

All Publications

• Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions. Science (New York, N.Y.) Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., González-Bailón, S., Kennedy, E., Kim, Y. M., Lazer, D., Moehler, D., Nyhan, B., Rivera, C. V., Settle, J., Thomas, D. R., Thorson, E., Tromble, R., Wilkins, A., Wojcieszak, M., Xiong, B., de Jonge, C. K., Franco, A., Mason, W., Stroud, N. J., Tucker, J. A. 2023; 381 (6656): 404-408

  Abstract

  We studied the effects of exposure to reshared content on Facebook during the 2020 US election by assigning a random set of consenting, US-based users to feeds that did not contain any reshares over a 3-month period. We find that removing reshared content substantially decreases the amount of political news, including content from untrustworthy sources, to which users are exposed; decreases overall clicks and reactions; and reduces partisan news clicks. Further, we observe that removing reshared content produces clear decreases in news knowledge within the sample, although there is some uncertainty about how this would generalize to all users. Contrary to expectations, the treatment does not significantly affect political polarization or any measure of individual-level political attitudes.

  View details for DOI 10.1126/science.add8424

  View details for PubMedID 37499012

• Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook. Science (New York, N.Y.) González-Bailón, S., Lazer, D., Barberá, P., Zhang, M., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., Guess, A. M., Iyengar, S., Kim, Y. M., Malhotra, N., Moehler, D., Nyhan, B., Pan, J., Rivera, C. V., Settle, J., Thorson, E., Tromble, R., Wilkins, A., Wojcieszak, M., de Jonge, C. K., Franco, A., Mason, W., Stroud, N. J., Tucker, J. A. 2023; 381 (6656): 392-398

  Abstract

  Does Facebook enable ideological segregation in political news consumption? We analyzed exposure to news during the US 2020 election using aggregated data for 208 million US Facebook users. We compared the inventory of all political news that users could have seen in their feeds with the information that they saw (after algorithmic curation) and the information with which they engaged. We show that (i) ideological segregation is high and increases as we shift from potential exposure to actual exposure to engagement; (ii) there is an asymmetry between conservative and liberal audiences, with a substantial corner of the news ecosystem consumed exclusively by conservatives; and (iii) most misinformation, as identified by Meta's Third-Party Fact-Checking Program, exists within this homogeneously conservative corner, which has no equivalent on the liberal side. Sources favored by conservative audiences were more prevalent on Facebook's news ecosystem than those favored by liberals.

  View details for DOI 10.1126/science.ade7138

  View details for PubMedID 37499003

• How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science (New York, N.Y.) Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., González-Bailón, S., Kennedy, E., Kim, Y. M., Lazer, D., Moehler, D., Nyhan, B., Rivera, C. V., Settle, J., Thomas, D. R., Thorson, E., Tromble, R., Wilkins, A., Wojcieszak, M., Xiong, B., de Jonge, C. K., Franco, A., Mason, W., Stroud, N. J., Tucker, J. A. 2023; 381 (6656): 398-404

  Abstract

  We investigated the effects of Facebook's and Instagram's feed algorithms during the 2020 US election. We assigned a sample of consenting users to reverse-chronologically-ordered feeds instead of the default algorithms. Moving users out of algorithmic feeds substantially decreased the time they spent on the platforms and their activity. The chronological feed also affected exposure to content: The amount of political and untrustworthy content they saw increased on both platforms, the amount of content classified as uncivil or containing slur words they saw decreased on Facebook, and the amount of content from moderate friends and sources with ideologically mixed audiences they saw increased on Facebook. Despite these substantial changes in users' on-platform experience, the chronological feed did not significantly alter levels of issue polarization, affective polarization, political knowledge, or other key attitudes during the 3-month study period.

  View details for DOI 10.1126/science.abp9364

  View details for PubMedID 37498999

• Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature Nyhan, B., Settle, J., Thorson, E., Wojcieszak, M., Barberá, P., Chen, A. Y., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., González-Bailón, S., Guess, A. M., Kennedy, E., Kim, Y. M., Lazer, D., Malhotra, N., Moehler, D., Pan, J., Thomas, D. R., Tromble, R., Rivera, C. V., Wilkins, A., Xiong, B., de Jonge, C. K., Franco, A., Mason, W., Stroud, N. J., Tucker, J. A. 2023

  Abstract

  Many critics raise concerns about the prevalence of 'echo chambers' on social media and their potential role in increasing political polarization. However, the lack of available data and the challenges of conducting large-scale field experiments have made it difficult to assess the scope of the problem1,2. Here we present data from 2020 for the entire population of active adult Facebook users in the USA showing that content from 'like-minded' sources constitutes the majority of what people see on the platform, although political information and news represent only a small fraction of these exposures. To evaluate a potential response to concerns about the effects of echo chambers, we conducted a multi-wave field experiment on Facebook among 23,377 users for whom we reduced exposure to content from like-minded sources during the 2020 US presidential election by about one-third. We found that the intervention increased their exposure to content from cross-cutting sources and decreased exposure to uncivil language, but had no measurable effects on eight preregistered attitudinal measures such as affective polarization, ideological extremity, candidate evaluations and belief in false claims. These precisely estimated results suggest that although exposure to content from like-minded sources on social media is common, reducing its prevalence during the 2020 US presidential election did not correspondingly reduce polarization in beliefs or attitudes.

  View details for DOI 10.1038/s41586-023-06297-w

  View details for PubMedID 37500978

  View details for PubMedCentralID 9524832

• Digital Addiction AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M., Song, L. 2022; 112 (7): 2424-2463

  View details for DOI 10.1257/aer.20210867

  View details for Web of Science ID 000823623000010

• The Welfare Effects of Social Media AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., Gentzkow, M. 2020; 110 (3): 629–76

  View details for DOI 10.1257/aer.20190658

  View details for Web of Science ID 000522716800001

• Polarization and Public Health: Partisan Differences in Social Distancing during the Coronavirus Pandemic. Journal of public economics Allcott, H. n., Boxell, L. n., Conway, J. n., Gentzkow, M. n., Thaler, M. n., Yang, D. n. 2020: 104254

  Abstract

  We study partisan differences in Americans' response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Political leaders and media outlets on the right and left have sent divergent messages about the severity of the crisis, which could impact the extent to which Republicans and Democrats engage in social distancing and other efforts to reduce disease transmission. We develop a simple model of a pandemic response with heterogeneous agents that clarifies the causes and consequences of heterogeneous responses. We use location data from a large sample of smartphones to show that areas with more Republicans engaged in less social distancing, controlling for other factors including public policies, population density, and local COVID cases and deaths. We then present new survey evidence of significant gaps at the individual level between Republicans and Democrats in self-reported social distancing, beliefs about personal COVID risk, and beliefs about the future severity of the pandemic.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254

  View details for PubMedID 32836504

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC7409721

• FOOD DESERTS AND THE CAUSES OF NUTRITIONAL INEQUALITY QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS Allcott, H., Diamond, R., Dube, J., Handbury, J., Rahkovsky, I., Schnell, M. 2019; 134 (4): 1793–1844

  View details for DOI 10.1093/qje/qjz015

  View details for Web of Science ID 000489163400003

• Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media RESEARCH & POLITICS Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M., Yu, C. 2019; 6 (2)

  View details for DOI 10.1177/2053168019848554

  View details for Web of Science ID 000467602400001

• Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M. 2017; 31 (2): 211-235

  View details for DOI 10.1257/jep.31.2.211

  View details for Web of Science ID 000403753100010

• Social, Economic, and Ethical Concepts and Methods CLIMATE CHANGE 2014: MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE Kolstad, C., Urama, K., Broome, J., Bruvoll, A., Carino Olvera, M., Fullerton, D., Gollier, C., Hanemann, W., Hassan, R., Jotzo, F., Khan, M. R., Meyer, L., Mundaca, L., Aghion, P., Allcott, H., Betz, G., Borenstein, S., Brennan, A., Caney, S., Farber, D., Jaffe, A., Luderer, G., Ockenfels, A., Popp, D., Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change, W., Edenhofer, O., PichsMadruga, R., Sokona, Y., Minx, J. C., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlomer, S., VonStechow, C., Zwickel, T. 2014: 207–82

  View details for Web of Science ID 000372635100007