来源的可信度和合理性在文本信息的验证中被考虑:来自社交媒体背景的证据

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Andreas G. Wertgen, Tobias Richter
{"title":"来源的可信度和合理性在文本信息的验证中被考虑:来自社交媒体背景的证据","authors":"Andreas G. Wertgen, Tobias Richter","doi":"10.1080/20445911.2022.2149757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We examined the interplay of message plausibility and trustworthiness in the validation of tweet-like messages. Reading times served as implicit indicator for validation and participants rated the tweets’ plausibility and source credibility. In Experiment 1, plausibility was varied via text-belief consistency and trustworthiness via the message’s fit with the source’s typical argumentative position. Participants read belief-inconsistent (vs. belief-consistent) messages longer and judged these as less plausible. Similarly, participants read messages from untrustworthy (vs. trustworthy) sources longer and judged these as less plausible. Belief-consistent messages by a trustworthy (vs. untrustworthy) source were judged as more plausible. In Experiment 2, plausibility was varied via world-knowledge consistency and trustworthiness via the reputation of media organizations. Participants read plausible messages from untrustworthy (vs. trustworthy) sources more slowly. Plausibility and trustworthiness seem to be considered in the validation of tweet-like messages, but their exact relationship seems to depend on contextual factors.","PeriodicalId":47483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","volume":"35 1","pages":"183 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Source credibility and plausibility are considered in the validation of textual information: evidence from a social media context\",\"authors\":\"Andreas G. Wertgen, Tobias Richter\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20445911.2022.2149757\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT We examined the interplay of message plausibility and trustworthiness in the validation of tweet-like messages. Reading times served as implicit indicator for validation and participants rated the tweets’ plausibility and source credibility. In Experiment 1, plausibility was varied via text-belief consistency and trustworthiness via the message’s fit with the source’s typical argumentative position. Participants read belief-inconsistent (vs. belief-consistent) messages longer and judged these as less plausible. Similarly, participants read messages from untrustworthy (vs. trustworthy) sources longer and judged these as less plausible. Belief-consistent messages by a trustworthy (vs. untrustworthy) source were judged as more plausible. In Experiment 2, plausibility was varied via world-knowledge consistency and trustworthiness via the reputation of media organizations. Participants read plausible messages from untrustworthy (vs. trustworthy) sources more slowly. Plausibility and trustworthiness seem to be considered in the validation of tweet-like messages, but their exact relationship seems to depend on contextual factors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognitive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"183 - 204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognitive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022.2149757\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022.2149757","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:我们研究了推特类消息验证中消息可信性和可信度的相互作用。阅读时间作为验证的隐含指标,参与者对推文的合理性和来源可信度进行评级。在实验1中,可信性通过文本信念的一致性而变化,可信性通过信息与信息源的典型论证立场的契合而变化。参与者阅读信念不一致(与信念一致)的信息的时间更长,并认为这些信息不太可信。同样,参与者阅读来自不可信(相对于可信)来源的信息的时间更长,并认为这些信息不太可信。来自可信(相对于不可信)来源的与信念一致的信息被认为更可信。在实验2中,可信性通过世界知识的一致性而改变,可信性通过媒体组织的声誉而改变。参与者阅读来自不可信(相对于可信)来源的可信信息的速度更慢。在验证类似推特的信息时,似乎要考虑可信性和可信度,但它们的确切关系似乎取决于语境因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Source credibility and plausibility are considered in the validation of textual information: evidence from a social media context
ABSTRACT We examined the interplay of message plausibility and trustworthiness in the validation of tweet-like messages. Reading times served as implicit indicator for validation and participants rated the tweets’ plausibility and source credibility. In Experiment 1, plausibility was varied via text-belief consistency and trustworthiness via the message’s fit with the source’s typical argumentative position. Participants read belief-inconsistent (vs. belief-consistent) messages longer and judged these as less plausible. Similarly, participants read messages from untrustworthy (vs. trustworthy) sources longer and judged these as less plausible. Belief-consistent messages by a trustworthy (vs. untrustworthy) source were judged as more plausible. In Experiment 2, plausibility was varied via world-knowledge consistency and trustworthiness via the reputation of media organizations. Participants read plausible messages from untrustworthy (vs. trustworthy) sources more slowly. Plausibility and trustworthiness seem to be considered in the validation of tweet-like messages, but their exact relationship seems to depend on contextual factors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cognitive Psychology
Journal of Cognitive Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
54
×
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