When do details matter? News source evaluation summaries and details against misinformation on social media

IF 20.1 1区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE International Journal of Information Management Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102666
Antino Kim, Patricia L. Moravec, Alan R. Dennis
{"title":"When do details matter? News source evaluation summaries and details against misinformation on social media","authors":"Antino Kim,&nbsp;Patricia L. Moravec,&nbsp;Alan R. Dennis","doi":"10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>News source evaluations based on fact-checking can help curb the consumption and spread of fake news on social media. Prior research has primarily considered source evaluations with intuitive icons that indicate whether or not news sources are reputable. But can we increase the power of these icons by adding more detailed information about the evaluation that explains the reasons for the icon? What additional benefit would such evaluation details bring? Would they have the same effect for both positive and negative evaluations? We conducted two online experiments to understand the effects of a source evaluation <em>icon</em> (a positive or negative summary of the evaluation) and more detailed evaluation information explaining the reasons for the icon. Our results show an asymmetric effect of positive and negative icons and details. Negative icons reduced the believability of the articles, but adding evaluation details supporting the icon had no additional effect. In contrast, positive icons had no significant effects, but adding evaluation details significantly increased believability. We also found that users were more likely to view the evaluation details when the content of the article aligned with their pre-existing opinions, but the valence of the icon (positive or negative) did not affect this decision.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48422,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Information Management","volume":"72 ","pages":"Article 102666"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Information Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401223000476","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

News source evaluations based on fact-checking can help curb the consumption and spread of fake news on social media. Prior research has primarily considered source evaluations with intuitive icons that indicate whether or not news sources are reputable. But can we increase the power of these icons by adding more detailed information about the evaluation that explains the reasons for the icon? What additional benefit would such evaluation details bring? Would they have the same effect for both positive and negative evaluations? We conducted two online experiments to understand the effects of a source evaluation icon (a positive or negative summary of the evaluation) and more detailed evaluation information explaining the reasons for the icon. Our results show an asymmetric effect of positive and negative icons and details. Negative icons reduced the believability of the articles, but adding evaluation details supporting the icon had no additional effect. In contrast, positive icons had no significant effects, but adding evaluation details significantly increased believability. We also found that users were more likely to view the evaluation details when the content of the article aligned with their pre-existing opinions, but the valence of the icon (positive or negative) did not affect this decision.

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
什么时候细节很重要?新闻来源评估总结和细节,防止社交媒体上的错误信息
基于事实核查的新闻来源评估有助于遏制社交媒体上假新闻的消费和传播。先前的研究主要考虑了带有直观图标的来源评估,这些图标表明新闻来源是否有信誉。但是,我们可以通过添加更多关于评估的详细信息来解释图标的原因来增加这些图标的威力吗?这样的评估细节会带来什么额外的好处?它们对正面评价和负面评价都有同样的影响吗?我们进行了两个在线实验,以了解源评估图标(评估的正面或负面总结)的效果,以及解释图标原因的更详细的评估信息。我们的结果显示了积极和消极的图标和细节的不对称效应。负面图标降低了文章的可信度,但添加支持图标的评估细节并没有额外的效果。相反,正面图标没有显著影响,但添加评估细节显著提高了可信度。我们还发现,当文章的内容与他们之前的观点一致时,用户更有可能查看评估细节,但图标的效价(正面或负面)并不影响这一决定。
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
International Journal of Information Management
International Journal of Information Management INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
53.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
111
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Information Management (IJIM) is a distinguished, international, and peer-reviewed journal dedicated to providing its readers with top-notch analysis and discussions within the evolving field of information management. Key features of the journal include: Comprehensive Coverage: IJIM keeps readers informed with major papers, reports, and reviews. Topical Relevance: The journal remains current and relevant through Viewpoint articles and regular features like Research Notes, Case Studies, and a Reviews section, ensuring readers are updated on contemporary issues. Focus on Quality: IJIM prioritizes high-quality papers that address contemporary issues in information management.
期刊最新文献
Collaborative AI in the workplace: Enhancing organizational performance through resource-based and task-technology fit perspectives Personal data strategies in digital advertising: Can first-party data outshine third-party data? Using the influence of human-as-machine representation for self-improvement products The exploration of users’ perceived value from personalization and virtual conversational agents to enable a smart home assemblage– A mixed method approach Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology for sustainable technologies context
×
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