On the Efficacy of Accuracy Prompts Across Partisan Lines: An Adversarial Collaboration.

IF 4.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1177/09567976241232905
Cameron Martel, Steve Rathje, Cory J Clark, Gordon Pennycook, Jay J Van Bavel, David G Rand, Sander van der Linden
{"title":"On the Efficacy of Accuracy Prompts Across Partisan Lines: An Adversarial Collaboration.","authors":"Cameron Martel, Steve Rathje, Cory J Clark, Gordon Pennycook, Jay J Van Bavel, David G Rand, Sander van der Linden","doi":"10.1177/09567976241232905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The spread of misinformation is a pressing societal challenge. Prior work shows that shifting attention to accuracy increases the quality of people's news-sharing decisions. However, researchers disagree on whether accuracy-prompt interventions work for U.S. Republicans/conservatives and whether partisanship moderates the effect. In this preregistered adversarial collaboration, we tested this question using a multiverse meta-analysis (<i>k</i> = 21; <i>N</i> = 27,828). In all 70 models, accuracy prompts improved sharing discernment among Republicans/conservatives. We observed significant partisan moderation for single-headline \"evaluation\" treatments (a critical test for one research team) such that the effect was stronger among Democrats than Republicans. However, this moderation was not consistently robust across different operationalizations of ideology/partisanship, exclusion criteria, or treatment type. Overall, we observed significant partisan moderation in 50% of specifications (all of which were considered critical for the other team). We discuss the conditions under which moderation is observed and offer interpretations.</p>","PeriodicalId":20745,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"435-450"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241232905","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The spread of misinformation is a pressing societal challenge. Prior work shows that shifting attention to accuracy increases the quality of people's news-sharing decisions. However, researchers disagree on whether accuracy-prompt interventions work for U.S. Republicans/conservatives and whether partisanship moderates the effect. In this preregistered adversarial collaboration, we tested this question using a multiverse meta-analysis (k = 21; N = 27,828). In all 70 models, accuracy prompts improved sharing discernment among Republicans/conservatives. We observed significant partisan moderation for single-headline "evaluation" treatments (a critical test for one research team) such that the effect was stronger among Democrats than Republicans. However, this moderation was not consistently robust across different operationalizations of ideology/partisanship, exclusion criteria, or treatment type. Overall, we observed significant partisan moderation in 50% of specifications (all of which were considered critical for the other team). We discuss the conditions under which moderation is observed and offer interpretations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论跨党派准确性提示的功效:对抗性合作。
错误信息的传播是一项紧迫的社会挑战。先前的研究表明,将注意力转移到准确性上可以提高人们分享新闻决策的质量。然而,对于准确性提示干预是否对美国共和党/保守党人有效,以及党派倾向是否会调节这种效果,研究人员存在分歧。在这次预先注册的对抗性合作中,我们使用多元宇宙荟萃分析(k = 21; N = 27,828)对这一问题进行了测试。在所有 70 个模型中,准确性提示提高了共和党人/保守党人的分享辨别力。我们观察到,单标题 "评价 "处理(一个研究小组的关键测试)具有明显的党派调节作用,民主党人的效果强于共和党人。然而,这种调节作用在不同的意识形态/党派、排除标准或治疗类型的操作中并不稳定。总体而言,我们在 50% 的规范中观察到了明显的党派调节作用(所有这些规范对另一个研究小组来说都是至关重要的)。我们讨论了观察到调节的条件,并提供了解释。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Science
Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Psychological Science, the flagship journal of The Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society), is a leading publication in the field with a citation ranking/impact factor among the top ten worldwide. It publishes authoritative articles covering various domains of psychological science, including brain and behavior, clinical science, cognition, learning and memory, social psychology, and developmental psychology. In addition to full-length articles, the journal features summaries of new research developments and discussions on psychological issues in government and public affairs. "Psychological Science" is published twelve times annually.
期刊最新文献
Rethinking the Role of Teams and Training in Geopolitical Forecasting: The Effect of Uncontrolled Method Variance on Statistical Conclusions. Gaze Behavior Reveals Expectations of Potential Scene Changes. Why Do Children Think Words Are Mutually Exclusive? The Affect Misattribution Procedure Revisited: An Informational Account. Narrative Identity, Traits, and Trajectories of Depression and Well-Being: A 9-Year Longitudinal Study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1