“I Don’t Think That’s True, Bro!” Social Corrections of Misinformation in India

IF 4.1 1区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION International Journal of Press-Politics Pub Date : 2023-02-27 DOI:10.1177/19401612231158770
Sumitra Badrinathan, Simon Chauchard
{"title":"“I Don’t Think That’s True, Bro!” Social Corrections of Misinformation in India","authors":"Sumitra Badrinathan, Simon Chauchard","doi":"10.1177/19401612231158770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fact-checks and corrections of falsehoods have emerged as effective ways to counter misinformation online. But in contexts with encrypted messaging applications (EMAs), corrections must necessarily emanate from peers. Are such social corrections effective? If so, how substantiated do corrective messages need to be? To answer these questions, we evaluate the effect of different types of social corrections on the persistence of misinformation in India ([Formula: see text]5,100). Using an online experiment, we show that social corrections substantially reduce beliefs in misinformation, including in beliefs deeply anchored in salient group identities. Importantly, these positive effects are not systematically attenuated by partisan motivated reasoning, highlighting a striking difference from Western contexts. We also find that the presence of a correction matters more relative to how sophisticated this correction is: substantiating a correction with a source only improves its effect in a minority of cases; besides, when social corrections are effective, citing a source does not drastically improve the size of their effect. These results have implications for both users and platforms and speak to countering misinformation in developing countries that rely on private messaging apps.","PeriodicalId":47605,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Press-Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Press-Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612231158770","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Fact-checks and corrections of falsehoods have emerged as effective ways to counter misinformation online. But in contexts with encrypted messaging applications (EMAs), corrections must necessarily emanate from peers. Are such social corrections effective? If so, how substantiated do corrective messages need to be? To answer these questions, we evaluate the effect of different types of social corrections on the persistence of misinformation in India ([Formula: see text]5,100). Using an online experiment, we show that social corrections substantially reduce beliefs in misinformation, including in beliefs deeply anchored in salient group identities. Importantly, these positive effects are not systematically attenuated by partisan motivated reasoning, highlighting a striking difference from Western contexts. We also find that the presence of a correction matters more relative to how sophisticated this correction is: substantiating a correction with a source only improves its effect in a minority of cases; besides, when social corrections are effective, citing a source does not drastically improve the size of their effect. These results have implications for both users and platforms and speak to countering misinformation in developing countries that rely on private messaging apps.
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
“我不认为那是真的,兄弟!”印度错误信息的社会纠正
事实核查和纠正虚假信息已成为打击网上错误信息的有效方法。但在使用加密消息应用程序(EMA)的情况下,更正必须来自对等方。这种社会矫正有效吗?如果是,纠正信息需要如何得到证实?为了回答这些问题,我们评估了不同类型的社会矫正对印度错误信息持续存在的影响([公式:见正文]5100)。通过一项在线实验,我们发现社会矫正大大减少了对错误信息的信念,包括深深植根于显著群体身份的信念。重要的是,这些积极影响并没有被党派动机的推理系统地削弱,这突出了与西方背景的显著差异。我们还发现,纠正的存在与这种纠正的复杂程度有关:用来源证明纠正只会在少数情况下提高其效果;此外,当社会矫正有效时,引用来源并不能显著提高其效果的大小。这些结果对用户和平台都有影响,有助于打击依赖私人消息应用程序的发展中国家的错误信息。
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
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Press/Politics is an interdisciplinary journal for the analysis and discussion of the role of the press and politics in a globalized world. The Journal is interested in theoretical and empirical research on the linkages between the news media and political processes and actors. Special attention is given to the following subjects: the press and political institutions (e.g. the state, government, political parties, social movements, unions, interest groups, business), the politics of media coverage of social and cultural issues (e.g. race, language, health, environment, gender, nationhood, migration, labor), the dynamics and effects of political communication.
期刊最新文献
Rejoinder to the Review of Inside the Local Campaign: Constituency Elections in Canada Interpreters as Spin Doctors: The Interactional Role of Interpreters in China’s Political Press Conferences Do News Frames Really Have Some Influence in the Real World? A Computational Analysis of Cumulative Framing Effects on Emotions and Opinions About Immigration Political Viewpoint Diversity in the News: Market and Ownership Conditions for a Pluralistic Media System “Everything is Biased”: Populist Supporters’ Folk Theories of Journalism
×
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