Confirmation vs Refutation: Partisanship and Competence Assessment in Argentina

• In Event: Poster Session: Studies in Comparative Political Development

Abstract

In this study, we conduct a survey experiment to assess the impact of 'confirmation' versus 'refutation' frames on the sharing of op-ed social media messages. These messages comment on the competence of two presidential candidates in the Argentina National Presidential Election runoff of November 2023. Participants were exposed to a simulated CNN Facebook post that either confirmed or refuted semantically equivalent statements. For instance, comparisons were drawn between statements like “It is TRUE that [Javier Milei/Sergio Massa] can control Argentina’s inflation“ and “It is FALSE that Javier Milei cannot control Argentina’s inflation“. We hypothesize that semantically equivalent statements will elicit different levels of engagement in terms of ’likes’ and ’shares’, with 'confirmation' frames expected to result in greater interaction than 'refutation' frames. Furthermore, we anticipate that refutation frames will evoke more negative emotional responses, such as anger, disgust, and stress. The experimental setup mimics a Facebook post format and includes eight randomized treatments, which vary in framing (’confirmation’ or ’refutation’) and candidate focus (Javier Milei or Sergio Massa). The survey was administered to a sample of 2,000 Argentine adults in November 2022, concurrent with the Argentina runoff election.

Authors

• Juan Diego Alvarado, University of Maryland

• Ernesto F. Calvo, University of Maryland