Truth be told: How “true” and “false” labels influence user engagement with fact-checks

Natalia Aruguete, Ingrid Bachmann, Ernesto Calvo, Sebastián Valenzuela, Tiago Ventura
{"title":"Truth be told: How “true” and “false” labels influence user engagement with fact-checks","authors":"Natalia Aruguete, Ingrid Bachmann, Ernesto Calvo, Sebastián Valenzuela, Tiago Ventura","doi":"10.1177/14614448231193709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When do users share fact-checks on social media? We describe a survey experiment conducted during the 2019 election in Argentina measuring the propensity of voters to share corrections to political misinformation that randomly confirm or challenge their initial beliefs. We find evidence of selective sharing—the notion that individuals prefer to share pro-attitudinal rather than counter-attitudinal fact-checks. This effect, however, is conditioned by the type of adjudication made by fact-checkers. More specifically, in line with motivated reasoning processes, respondents report a higher intent to share confirmations (i.e. messages fact-checked with a “true” rating) compared with refutations (i.e. messages fact-checked with a “false” rating). Experimental results are partially confirmed with a regression discontinuity analysis of observational data of Twitter and replicated with additional experiments. Our findings suggest that fact-checkers could increase exposure to their verifications on social media by framing their corrections as confirmations of factually correct information.","PeriodicalId":443328,"journal":{"name":"New Media & Society","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Media & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231193709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

When do users share fact-checks on social media? We describe a survey experiment conducted during the 2019 election in Argentina measuring the propensity of voters to share corrections to political misinformation that randomly confirm or challenge their initial beliefs. We find evidence of selective sharing—the notion that individuals prefer to share pro-attitudinal rather than counter-attitudinal fact-checks. This effect, however, is conditioned by the type of adjudication made by fact-checkers. More specifically, in line with motivated reasoning processes, respondents report a higher intent to share confirmations (i.e. messages fact-checked with a “true” rating) compared with refutations (i.e. messages fact-checked with a “false” rating). Experimental results are partially confirmed with a regression discontinuity analysis of observational data of Twitter and replicated with additional experiments. Our findings suggest that fact-checkers could increase exposure to their verifications on social media by framing their corrections as confirmations of factually correct information.
真相被告知:“真实”和“虚假”标签如何影响用户参与事实核查
用户什么时候在社交媒体上分享事实核查?我们描述了2019年阿根廷大选期间进行的一项调查实验,该实验测量了选民分享对随机证实或挑战其初始信念的政治错误信息的更正的倾向。我们发现了选择性分享的证据,即个人更喜欢分享支持态度的事实核查,而不是反对态度的事实核查。然而,这种效果取决于事实核查人员作出的裁决类型。更具体地说,与动机推理过程相一致,受访者报告了更高的分享确认的意图(即,与“真实”评级的事实核查的消息),而不是反驳(即,与“虚假”评级的事实核查的消息)。对Twitter观测数据的不连续回归分析部分证实了实验结果,并通过附加实验得到了验证。我们的研究结果表明,事实核查员可以通过将他们的更正定义为对事实正确信息的确认,从而增加他们在社交媒体上的验证的曝光率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信