Wrong: How Media, Politics, and Identity Drive Our Appetite for Misinformation

by Dannagal Goldthwaite Young

An engaging look at how American politics and media reinforce partisan identity and threaten democracy

Why are so many of us wrong about so much? From COVID-19 to climate change to the results of elections, millions of Americans believe things that are simply not true―and act based on these misperceptions. In Wrong: How Media, Politics, and Identity Drive Our Appetite for Misinformation, expert in media and politics Dannagal Goldthwaite Young offers a comprehensive model that illustrates how political leaders and media organizations capitalize on our social and cultural identities to separate, enrage, and―ultimately―mobilize us.

Through a process of identity distillation encouraged by public officials, journalists, political and social media, Americans' political identities―how we think of ourselves as members of our political team―drive our belief in and demand for misinformation. It turns out that if being wrong allows us to comprehend the world, have control over it, or connect with our community, all in ways that serve our political team, then we don't want to be right.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Sociology, Audiobook, Psychology, Cultural, Philosophy

305 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 17, 2023

About the author

Dannagal Goldthwaite Young is Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Delaware and the Center for Political Communication, a Distinguished Research Fellow with the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, and member of the National Institute for Civil Discourse Research Network. Her research on the psychology, content, and effects of political entertainment has been widely published in academic journals and media outlets, including The Atlantic, The New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review, Variety, and National Public Radio. She has also been an improvisational comedian with ComedySportz Philadelphia since 1999, and is the creator and host of Dr. Young Unpacks, a playful deep dive into the psychology of media, politics, and pop culture.

Reviews

[John Martindale · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book is wrongly titled, it should be "Republicans are Wrong: How Conservative Media, politics and Identity Drive Their Appetite for Misinformation." Dannagal Young is very partisan. I noticed a majority of books on misinformation have all been from a leftwing bias and nearly all the examples of irrationality, stupidity, bias, and tribalism are from Republicans. Young's book was the same, however, with this difference, eventually, she comes out and condemns Bothsidesism, saying the Republicans ARE the problem and it is wrong to suggest both sides are equal offenders. Things are entirely asymmetrical--that is, the noble democrats are diverse and their media produces unbiased facts and truth; most progressives are rational, driven by evidence, not prone to cognitive biases, and don't buy into identity politics, conspiracy theories or misinformation, whereas the Republicans, who are primarily angry white males, drink up ludicrous conspiracies like water, reject science, watch FoxNews and are driven by emotions rather than reason, and are obsessed with identity politics and white nationalism.
At least Young presents some evidence for her claims in the form of research from the social sciences. I am curious, however, whether some of these studies she cites are among the multitude of studies that have fallen with the replication crisis. In the book Science Fictions by Stuart Ritchie, I learned how some surveys were perfectly designed to guarantee that the Republicans would look stupid. The problem is that when they did the study again without using loaded questions, or surveys worded in such a way to confirm the hypothesis, gone were the asymmetrical outcomes. Oh yeah, I think I remember one such study. Researchers asked a bunch of Democrats and conservatives questions, to see who was more prone to conspiracy theory thinking--but of course, the researchers only chose examples of things conservatives are more likely to believe (things like masks not working or the vaccination being unsafe) and whaddayaknow, conservatives are more prone to conspiracy thinking! Fortunately, other researchers changed it up, including conspiracies that are popular on the left, and whaddayaknow, the progressives were the crazed conspiracy loons and the Republicans were not! In light of the replication crisis (Several attack pieces against Republicans have been exposed as bad science) and that fact the many conducting research are heavily biased and the social science is more easily corrupted) I would have to go through each study Young presents for them to work as evidence for me. Yet even if these are good studies, I still think Dannagal is holding up a few studies to deny reality.
I can't deny that with Trump, the Republican party has taken a major nosedive into irrationality and that they have tragically embraced identity politics. But honestly, Dannagal's inability to recognize the width and depth of identity politics on her own side is simply extraordinary. The Democrats have sadly embraced identity politics and while I cannot prove it, I fear the Republican's move in this direction is largely a reaction. It seems that a vicious feedback loop is now occurring. Leftist identity politics sparked Right-wing identity politics. Trump caused the left to radicalize and go absolutely bat$h!crazy, which then made Republicans descend lower into lunacy, which gives Democrats even more evidence of just how dangerous and evil conservatives are.... and on it goes.
Dannagal seemed to find a handful of studies that supported her biased partisan conclusions that only Republicans are to blame and she displays a remarkable level of confirmation bias as she acts as if her team is almost nearly perfect in their rightness and goodness, while the other team utterly wrong and bad. The fundamental driving thesis of this book is that things are asymmetrical and that it is primarily Republican media, politics, and identity that drive a lust for misinformation, Democrats, however, are exempt. I think this thesis is most definitely WRONG. I think identity politics, bias, activism, and a media and populous that is increasingly unhinged from truth is a rot on both sides.

["Cyril' (David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an excellent discussion of right wing bias. Unfortunately it virtually ignored left wing bias. The author kept saying that the right wing distorts the news more often, but insists many times it occurs on both sides. A pity that with the exception of the Steele dossier the left is never really discussed. I suspect that the author suffered from the bias she describes.

[Glenn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book lays out such an effective case for the epistemological sorting of the two parties that every well-argued insight is as persuasive as it is frustrating that the only people inclined toward reading this book are people whose worldview is responsive to facts and evidence (who tend to be liberal), as opposed to gut feelings and barely-masked bigotries (Christian conservatives). That this book gives me slightly better language to describe the constant asymmetrical psychological warfare being waged by the rich and powerful upon ordinary people to varying degrees of success is small consolation. But if this book were nothing but a downer reinforcement for my cynical priors, it would've been a poor argument for its case and not a book I would recommend.

At its most hopeful, this book is an excellent primer on the concept of intellectual humility: i.e. embracing, and lauding as a virtue, the idea that I might be wrong about something. This dovetailed nicely with the concept of neuropsychological humility voiced by Dr. Steven Novella and others in the scientific skepticism* movement, who urge readers and listeners to consider that our very perceptions of reality might be flawed or at a disadvantage even before they enter our brains- a minefield of biases, assumptions, and fallacies that constantly seek to reduce our willingness to hear points of view or sensory inputs contrary to our own prior assumptions and interpretations.

A disinformation ecosystem is designed to sap us of our will and capacity to understand the world around us, and Dr. Young proposes a number of concrete steps that might allow us to push back in some small ways against the forces conspiring or operating synergistically to encourage us to remain exhausted and complacent. By boosting (and paying attention to) local news and politics. By trying to get to know and interact with our neighbors and community members that we might otherwise regard through a caricatured lens.

I enjoyed this book about as much as one can enjoy this subject matter.

[LdyGray · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's a huge swath of books that I like to call "you're right, but who's your audience?" books. I read a ton of them, especially on topics like the rise of conservatism in America. They are important, often well-written and well-researched, and they make a convincing argument, but the only people who are ever going to read them already agree with the author. And I'm always torn on how to review them. This book, for example, makes a convincing case that misinformation is rife on the right-wing of American politics, and that we should all be open to other ideas and to the possibility that we could be wrong about some of our deeply-held beliefs. Those facts come across as biased in our current environment (see the reviews of this book!), and I don't know what to do about that information. But the book is good if you want to learn more about our media environment, or if you're fulfilling the "Read a book about media literacy" task for a reading challenge.

[Gi Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good read, however can seem overly political. Come in with an open mind and understand the point the author is trying to convey. Don’t believe everything media/social media has to say and definitely not biased opinions shared and re-shared. Overall good book, I recommend.

[Adam Yecies · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you’re wondering how we got here, this book does a great job laying all the factors out in an effective manner.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very timely and interesting book/study of people who have such a strong political or idealogical bias that they are willing to accept almost any lies or misinformation that supports their beliefs. As someone who has always leaned more anarchistic and independent politically, I have always been amazed by how easily so many people are duped by misinformation and propaganda (and it really goes back to the beginning of humanity with religions). These days with so many people connected/addicted to Television, Social Media, Political "News" Media Outlets, etc. it seems worse than ever. This book really puts in the work to determine just WHY and HOW people are so easily lied to, and how it shapes their personal identities. From a deep-seated need to "belong" to a community, or to "fit in" with family members who think a certain way, it's very easy to see how people cling to lies to reinforce the many preconceived notions they are TAUGHT as children, or by friends, spouses, etc. I still don't understand how so many people let themself believe in lies, but at least now I do have a little better understanding of how easily it can happen, and how difficult it may be for those people to ever change or seek out the truth/facts. I highly recommend this book if you find the subject matter as fascinating (albeit depressing) as I do.

[Andrew Mails · Rating 4 out of 5]

Young gives a well sourced overview of research around the driving forces that have undergirded the growth of misinformation in our political spheres. Young’s theory of why asymmetrical polarization makes this problem worse on the American political right attempts to synthesize a diverse body of research in an approachable way, that makes for an interesting and compelling read. I would recommend this book for anyone interested in the spread of misinformation in modern politics.

[Peter B Sperry · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bias is obvious and irritating

She provides a few insights on how focusing on our in group identity can leave us vulnerable to misinformation. But does not really break new ground. And the continual harping on the supposed asymmetrical nature of the threat not only gets very old very quickly; it also exposes how little she has examined the behavior of her own tribe.

[Kyle C · Rating 5 out of 5]

Our media consumption is becoming more and more polarized, but it's not entirely a "both sides" issue. The data shows that misinformation is lopsided

[Fatima Javed]

for hank green

[Gabe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wrong, was very academic, which I appreciated loads.

Young argues that misinformation isn’t just a supply problem (bad actors spreading falsehoods); it’s a demand-side phenomenon. People actively seek out and cling to false beliefs because they satisfy three psychological needs:
1. Comprehension: Making sense of a complex world
2. Control: Feeling agency in uncertain times
3. Community: Belonging to a social or political tribe

Different misinformation vulnerabilities:
Conservatives tend to value order, certainty, and loyalty. This makes them more susceptible to identity-protective misinformation—especially narratives that reinforce in-group cohesion or warn of out-group threats. Conservatives respond strongly to threat-based messaging and in-group loyalty. Right-wing media often uses outrage framing to activate these instincts.
Liberals, by contrast, are more open to ambiguity and novelty, which can make them more receptive to satirical or ironic content; however, they are also prone to confirmation bias in ideologically aligned media. Left-leaning media tend to reward intellectual performance and narratives that promote social justice.
This helps explain why formats like late-night comedy resonate more with liberals, while talk radio and cable news outrage shows thrive on the right.

Young dissects how political identities have fused with cultural ones, creating “mega-identities” that filter how we interpret reality. Media outlets, especially partisan and social platforms, don’t just inform—they reinforce tribal boundaries and reward identity signaling. That makes fact-checking feel like a threat instead of an invitation. The more right-leaning you are, the bigger the threat due to conservative identity being more fused with race, religion, and geography—making political disagreement feel existential. Liberals, while also tribal, tend to have more fragmented identities, which can dilute group cohesion but increase openness.

[Juineve · Rating 1 out of 5]

Other reviewers have said the same thing as me but better, the TLDR of it is the author talks about how we all are blind to our own biases, silos, etc. and then goes on to present a fantastic case study in how being aware of cognitive biases and logical fallacies can do a great job of making you blind to your own. There's too many examples of her being clearly silod that had I been reading the book rather than listening, there would be pages full of yellow hi-liter marks where she is straw manning more fringe elements of the right while steelmanning the left - IE "Schools justhad to stay closed to protect vulnerable teachers, Democrats just wanted to make sure people were safe and didn't want to deny any child an education nor endanger any teacher," while portraying "The Right" / "Republicans" as people who believed drinking bleach and wearing tinfoil hats was a standard party stance because - for what it's worth this is more the gist of a lot of the book's contents, since it's an audiobook -

That said she tries to racialize the right, emphasizing Whiteness as a meaningful identity category and repeatedly says phrases like the Democratic party is "Becoming ever more diverse," using a language that implies a cohesive-yet-varied rainbow, when the reality is racial identity is both more fluid (And less meaningful to many) than she gives credit for, but also the Republican party has been gaining traction among certain demographics With over twice as many Black voters ready to vote Republican in 2024 than in 2016, and more changes contra to what the author insists the trend is.

[Sandor Adam Gorni · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first saw Young present at a conference, and I knew immediately that I had to read her book. She has that rare combination of intellectual clarity and narrative charm.

This book stands out because it shifts the focus away from the usual “bad guys” spreading misinformation and instead examines the demand side; why we, as individuals, are so drawn to false information in the first place. Young argues that misinformation doesn’t just spread because of manipulation or algorithmic bias (though those matter), but because it meets fundamental psychological needs: for identity, coherence, and control. That framing felt both timely and profoundly human.

What I liked the most was her ability to balance vivid storytelling with rigorous argument. The book is filled with examples, including Young’s own reflections, but it never sacrifices depth for accessibility. She writes with empathy, humor, and precision, making complex ideas digestible without dumbing them down.

That said, some of her prescriptions toward the end, especially around how to fix the misinformation crisis, felt a bit idealistic and overly simplified. I found myself wanting a more concrete sense of how these shifts could realistically happen, especially in highly polarized environments.

Still, this is an excellent and important book. It’s not just about misinformation; it’s about how identity shapes what we choose to believe.

[Ulrich · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gave me some tools to notice my confirmation bias and things like that more than I already did after reading Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow many years ago and some other books about catching yourself in the act of tricking yourself but I have one major bone to pick with this book.

The author shows a consistent and massive prejudice against right-wing leaning citizens making the entire book totally useless for the people who absolutely need this information the very most. No one who holds those views and biases is ever going to make it through this book, they probably won't even finish the first chapter before throwing it across the room. Those are the people who need this information!! Calling them stupid multiple times on every page is not going to get through to them! All you are doing is just preaching to the choir! You're probably making some of the "college educated elites" even more smug in their (our) supposed superiority and and just making the whole mess even worse.

A bit disappointed in Hank Green for recommending this book so highly when it is rather divisive overall and useless for the people who really need the core information and tools.

[Mark Craemer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read to better understand how our social identities inform what we value and believe by shaping our needs for comprehension, control, and community.

"A 2020 Pew report found that of 30 news sources that Americans were asked about, conservatives distrusted 20 of them. Less than a third of Republicans reported trusting CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, or any of the major television network news organizations. But 65 percent of those same Republicans reported trusting Fox News."

In this era of unregulated social media and rampant disregard for the media and institutions, it's helpful to better understand why we are so gullible to misinformation. Unfortunately, Young doesn't provide any clear guidance on what to do about it. Best to be skeptical in general and find reliable, fact based news sources you can trust. This typically means you'll need to pay for it, but it's worth it.

[Jbussen · Rating 3 out of 5]

SIGH! Once again the people who could most benefit from this book will never read it. One of my hobbies is to research the opposite argument to see if my beliefs are correct. I have changed my opinions on gun laws, removing old statues (not Abraham Lincoln or Columbus but example Confederate Statues) & confirmed my beliefs in other things. I have discovered new ways of looking at things and considering opinions of others differently by seeing the facts as they affect others and form their opinions. Sadly, apparently a thinking person is an outlier.

Anyone who needs this book will never read it. And if you are reading this book, you want comfort food, confirmation bias, whatever. For me, that is what this book was. I don't know why I read this. Too obvious for a high rating unless you are like 85% of the unthinking masses in the world. Others have written excellent reviews so I will not repeat their opinions.
At its most basic; "the willingness to believe can fool even the keenest intellect" (I thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said this but IDK). Religious people are more prone to believe in conspiracy theories. Gee, can't imagine why. The media encourages misinformation and lies. No shoot, hunh, I can't imagine why. Etc. etc. slightly alter and repeat for 9 chapters.

At it's very most basic; people are willfully stupid and intellectually lazy. Misinformation (LIES!) are guided by hatred and ignorance. Stupid lazy people give in easily to group think because they don't want to think. People are quick to define the world they live in to glorify themselves. We automatically distrust & vilify what we don't understand without bothering to do any research. People do not bother to consider that they might be wrong. All the people I know who fall for the medias propaganda are not necessarily stupid, but they are easily given in to bias and grievance. People who don't understand the scientific method cannot even look for the truth without such basic knowledge. I always wonder what the fuck people were doing in school that they do not have knowledge of basic biology, demographics, statistics and (insert any ology or million dollar words here!)

Other:

I thought this was pretty fun, thought I'd share. from Peter Sickles
There's an interesting psychology behind these people...
Science provides a multifaceted view of the psychology of conspiracy theorists, incorporating various cognitive, emotional, and personality factors. Here's a comprehensive overview, including the role of narcissism:
Cognitive Biases
- Pattern Recognition: Conspiracy theorists often see patterns and connections where none exist, driven by an inherent tendency to make sense of random events.
- Confirmation Bias: They favor information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts them.
- Proportionality Bias: The belief that significant events must have significant causes leads to the assumption that large-scale conspiracies explain major occurrences.
Emotional Factors
- Fear and Anxiety: High levels of fear and anxiety can drive individuals towards conspiracy theories, as these narratives provide a sense of understanding and control over unsettling events.
- Need for Control and Certainty: When people feel a lack of control in their lives, they may turn to conspiracy theories to regain a sense of predictability and security.
Social and Group Dynamics
- Sense of Belonging: Conspiracy theories can create a sense of community among believers, reinforcing social identity and group cohesion. This is often facilitated by echo chambers where dissenting views are minimized.
- Distrust of Authority: A deep-seated mistrust of government, media, and other authoritative institutions is common among conspiracy theorists, often fueled by past experiences or cultural factors.
Personality Traits
- Paranoia and Schizotypy: Traits such as paranoia and schizotypy (a predisposition to odd beliefs and perceptions) are more prevalent among conspiracy theorists.
- Narcissism: Narcissistic traits can significantly contribute to conspiracy beliefs. Narcissists often:
- Seek Uniqueness: They desire to feel special and unique, which conspiracy theories can provide by suggesting they possess exclusive knowledge.
- Perceive Superiority: They have an inflated sense of self-importance and view themselves as more insightful or perceptive than others.
- Exhibit Distrust and Paranoia: They may be more inclined to see others as threats, aligning with conspiracy narratives.
- Desire Control and Dominance: They seek to assert intellectual dominance, finding conspiracy theories a way to demonstrate their supposed superiority.
- React to Criticism: They use conspiracy theories to externalize blame for failures or lack of recognition, protecting their self-image.
Exposure and Education
- Media Influence: Regular exposure to conspiracy theories through social media and alternative news sources can reinforce these beliefs. Repetition and social reinforcement are key factors.
- Educational and Cognitive Factors: Lower levels of education and analytical thinking skills can increase susceptibility to conspiracy theories. Enhanced critical thinking and media literacy can serve as protective factors.
Summary
The psychology of conspiracy theorists is shaped by a combination of cognitive biases, emotional needs, social dynamics, personality traits (including narcissism), and environmental influences. These factors interact in complex ways, making some individuals more prone to believing in and spreading conspiracy theories.

[Kierra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really thoughtful book about the reasons behind people getting sucked into conspiracy theories. It addresses sort of the human and psychological side of it in a pretty compassionate way. It also invites readers to participate in a lot of self-reflection about our own engagement with media and the practice of intellectual humility, regardless of what side of the issue we are on. It's pulled from a lot of research of others, though the author presents some of her own research as well. Not the most compelling book I've read on the subject--it's data heavy--, but very useful.

[Roberta Sorenson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This could have been a really good book but the author does too much conservative/Republican bashing. As a result, the books serves as confirmation bias for liberals/Democrats that they are right and the other side is simply emotional and crazy. If this had been written from a more neutral stance (yes, even with statistics), then it could have been transformative for people on BOTH sides of the political coin.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very insightful. The author explains that our need for community affects how we decide if information is true or if we choose to reject it. A very timely read considering the increasing risk of exposure to, and unintentional spread of, incorrect information.

[Armen Shirvanian]

My interview with Dannagal Young on "Wrong" for The Armen Show:

http://www.armenshirvanian.com/podcas...

[Ryan]

It's a little comical reading the pearl-clutching, dismissive, oh-so-defensive reviews from conservatives. You people are the ones this book is about.

[Kerry Gibbons · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars

[Yun Jae Min · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

[Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is a little underwhelming and slow to start but the final section around social media is quite on point and insightful.