Identifying and Debunking Environmentally-Related False News Stories – An Experimental Investigation

IF 0.7 4区 经济学 Q4 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY German Journal of Agricultural Economics Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.30430/gjae.2021.0176
Sven Grüner
{"title":"Identifying and Debunking Environmentally-Related False News Stories – An Experimental Investigation","authors":"Sven Grüner","doi":"10.30430/gjae.2021.0176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The vast majority of studies in the realm of false information are currently conducted in the realm of political topics and Covid-19. This study addresses environmentally-related news stories. With the help of two experiments, I explore determinants that can explain who is good at distinguishing between accurate (i.e., factually correct) and false information and compare several intervention scenarios to debunk false information. In experiment one, subjects had to rate environmentally-related news stories as accurate or false. Afterward, subjects received systematically varied information about the correctness of the news stories depending on the experimental condition they had been randomly assigned to. After a period of three weeks, the subjects were asked to evaluate the news stories again (experiment two). In experiment one, I find that the perceived familiarity with news stories increased the propensity to accept them as true. Moreover, actively open-minded thinking helped to distinguish between accurate and false information. But the willingness to think deliberately did not seem to be important. In experiment two, it can be found that by repeating false news stories, subjects were more likely to adequately identify them later (i.e., no evidence for a familiarity backfire effect). However, it decreased the likelihood to adequately identify accurate news stories. A somewhat reverse, but weaker effect occurred when factually correct news stories were repeated: the correct identification of accurate news stories was more successful, but the opposite holds for the identification of false news stories.","PeriodicalId":48919,"journal":{"name":"German Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Journal of Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30430/gjae.2021.0176","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The vast majority of studies in the realm of false information are currently conducted in the realm of political topics and Covid-19. This study addresses environmentally-related news stories. With the help of two experiments, I explore determinants that can explain who is good at distinguishing between accurate (i.e., factually correct) and false information and compare several intervention scenarios to debunk false information. In experiment one, subjects had to rate environmentally-related news stories as accurate or false. Afterward, subjects received systematically varied information about the correctness of the news stories depending on the experimental condition they had been randomly assigned to. After a period of three weeks, the subjects were asked to evaluate the news stories again (experiment two). In experiment one, I find that the perceived familiarity with news stories increased the propensity to accept them as true. Moreover, actively open-minded thinking helped to distinguish between accurate and false information. But the willingness to think deliberately did not seem to be important. In experiment two, it can be found that by repeating false news stories, subjects were more likely to adequately identify them later (i.e., no evidence for a familiarity backfire effect). However, it decreased the likelihood to adequately identify accurate news stories. A somewhat reverse, but weaker effect occurred when factually correct news stories were repeated: the correct identification of accurate news stories was more successful, but the opposite holds for the identification of false news stories.
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
识别和揭穿与环境有关的虚假新闻报道-一项实验性调查
目前,绝大多数虚假信息领域的研究都是在政治话题和Covid-19领域进行的。本研究针对与环境相关的新闻报道。在两个实验的帮助下,我探索了可以解释谁善于区分准确(即事实正确)和虚假信息的决定因素,并比较了几种干预方案来揭穿虚假信息。在实验一中,受试者必须对与环境有关的新闻报道进行准确或虚假的评价。之后,受试者根据他们被随机分配到的实验条件,系统地收到了关于新闻故事正确性的不同信息。三周后,受试者被要求再次评价新闻故事(实验二)。在实验一中,我发现对新闻故事的感知熟悉度增加了接受它们为真实的倾向。此外,积极开放的思维有助于区分准确和虚假的信息。但刻意思考的意愿似乎并不重要。在实验二中,可以发现,通过重复虚假新闻故事,受试者更有可能在以后充分识别它们(即,没有证据表明熟悉适得其反)。然而,它降低了充分识别准确新闻故事的可能性。当事实正确的新闻故事被重复播放时,效果会有所相反,但效果较弱:正确识别准确的新闻故事更成功,而错误新闻故事的识别则相反。
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
German Journal of Agricultural Economics
German Journal of Agricultural Economics AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The GJAE publishes a broad range of theoretical, applied and policy-related articles. It aims for a balanced coverage of economic issues within agricultural and food production, demand and trade, rural development, and sustainable and efficient resource use as well as specific German or European issues. The GJAE also welcomes review articles.
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Maximum Residue Limits on Agri-Food Trade: Evidence from Chinese Exports to the EU Use Cases of the Integrated Administration and Control System’s Plot-Level Data: Protocol and Pilot Analysis for a Systematic Mapping Review A Trans-Theoretical Model for Farmers’ perceived Usefulness of Digital Risk Management Tools – A Case Study from Germany Public Agricultural Extension, Pest and Disease Experience, and Adoption of Improved Wheat Varieties The National and Regional Impact of the EU Bioeconomy Strategies on the Agri-Food Sector: Insights from Germany
×
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