John Bullock, a postdoctoral fellow at University of British Columbia, conducted a study that looks at the impact of false information on people’s political views. Two groups of people were detailed with the policy positions of a fictional Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. One group received pretty middle-ground positions, while the second group received radical positions, such as abolishing the Department of Education. After the second group was told that the information provided to them was false, they were more likely to support the candidate than before they knew the information was false, but still, less likely to support the candidate than the first group. If candidates used this research finding to their advantage, we would have but a flood of distorted information, which would just be hurtful to all involved. Hopefully, what a psychology professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, Nicholas DiFonzo, says holds true as well. Based on studies of rumor, DiFonzo believes that when people realize that the reputations they have are at stake when spreading false information, they may act more reliably. The full article mentioning these studies can be found at The Vancouver Sun here.