Cherry-Picking Tolerance About Untruthful News

IF 1.8 3区心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-12-08 DOI:10.1002/bdm.70003

Xilin Li, Christopher K. Hsee, Shu Wang

{"title":"Cherry-Picking Tolerance About Untruthful News","authors":"Xilin Li, Christopher K. Hsee, Shu Wang","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>People are increasingly worried about untruthfulness in news reporting. We distinguish between two types of untruthfulness: apparent untruthfulness (containing false information) and consequential untruthfulness (giving readers a wrong impression of the truth). Consequential untruthfulness can be caused by both the presence of false information and cherry-picking (reporting only parts of the truth). Despite this, we find that people's perception of untruthfulness depends largely on apparent untruthfulness. Consequently, they treat news that cherry-picks information less negatively (e.g., less likely to criticize it and more likely to share it with others) than they treat news that contains false information, when the former is more consequentially untruthful than the latter. We dub this phenomenon as <i>cherry-picking tolerance</i>. We also find that prompting people to think about the consequence of the news report (i.e., the impressions people form after they read the news reports) will mitigate the cherry-picking tolerance. This research draws attention to the widespread practice of cherry-picking in news reporting and calls for a new look at what constitutes fake news.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

People are increasingly worried about untruthfulness in news reporting. We distinguish between two types of untruthfulness: apparent untruthfulness (containing false information) and consequential untruthfulness (giving readers a wrong impression of the truth). Consequential untruthfulness can be caused by both the presence of false information and cherry-picking (reporting only parts of the truth). Despite this, we find that people's perception of untruthfulness depends largely on apparent untruthfulness. Consequently, they treat news that cherry-picks information less negatively (e.g., less likely to criticize it and more likely to share it with others) than they treat news that contains false information, when the former is more consequentially untruthful than the latter. We dub this phenomenon as cherry-picking tolerance. We also find that prompting people to think about the consequence of the news report (i.e., the impressions people form after they read the news reports) will mitigate the cherry-picking tolerance. This research draws attention to the widespread practice of cherry-picking in news reporting and calls for a new look at what constitutes fake news.

查看原文本刊更多论文

人们越来越担心新闻报道中的不真实性。我们将不真实分为两类：表面上的不真实（包含虚假信息）和后果性的不真实（给读者留下错误的真实印象）。后果性不真实既可能由虚假信息造成，也可能由偷梁换柱（只报道部分真相）造成。尽管如此，我们发现人们对不真实性的感知主要取决于表面上的不真实性。因此，与包含虚假信息的新闻相比，当前者比后者更不真实时，人们对待偷换概念的新闻的负面态度会更少（例如，批评的可能性更小，与他人分享的可能性更大）。我们将这种现象称为 "挑剔容忍"。我们还发现，促使人们思考新闻报道的后果（即人们在阅读新闻报道后形成的印象）会减轻人们的 "偷梁换柱 "容忍度。这项研究引起了人们对新闻报道中普遍存在的 "偷梁换柱 "现象的关注，并呼吁人们重新审视什么是假新闻。

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

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

5.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.