Skip to main content
. 2024 Oct 15;3(10):pgae393. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae393

Fig. 2.

Six line charts arranged in two columns of three charts each. Each chart has two lines plotted on it, one solid and one dashed. Each line has a shaded area around it representing uncertainty. The left column is labeled “Convergence”. The right column is labeled “Polarization”. Each of the six line charts illustrates how beliefs (represented on the y-axis) change over each debunking observation (represented on the x-axis, labeled 0-5). The top row shows beliefs about the truth of the perspective. The middle row shows beliefs about the authority’s accuracy. The bottom row shows beliefs about the authority’s bias. See the Figure description for the summary of both scenarios.

Model simulations for evolution of beliefs in two example settings. The y-axis represents the mean of the belief distribution, and the x-axis shows the number of observed debunking actions; debunking actions 0 represents the prior belief on each variable. Truth of the perspective varies between 0 and 1, with larger values representing a higher likelihood of truth. Accuracy varies between 0 and 1, with larger values representing a higher motivation to respond in proportion to the truthfulness of the claims—debunk likely false content and do nothing in response to likely true content. Bias varies between −0.5 and 0.5, with positive values representing bias in favor and negative values representing bias against the perspective—e.g. based on the political orientation of the perspective. The shaded ribbon shows the standard deviation of belief distribution. The solid line represents the subgroup who a priori believes the perspective of the claims is likely true (i.e. the proponent subgroup), and the dashed line represents the subgroup who a priori believes the perspective of the claims is likely false (i.e. the opponent subgroup). Left column: A setting in which the subgroups’ prior differing beliefs about the topic are uncertain, and their shared prior beliefs about authority’s legitimacy are confident—high accuracy and impartiality, leads to effective debunking of false content. Right column: A setting in which the subgroups’ prior differing beliefs about the topic are confident and their shared prior beliefs about the authority’s motivations are uncertain, leads to polarization of beliefs about the authority in addition to beliefs about the topic remaining polarized.