不要相信他们!通过对信息来源进行鉴定,减少错误信息的影响。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications Pub Date : 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1186/s41235-024-00581-7
Ullrich K H Ecker, Toby Prike, Antonia B Paver, Rosie J Scott, Briony Swire-Thompson
{"title":"不要相信他们!通过对信息来源进行鉴定,减少错误信息的影响。","authors":"Ullrich K H Ecker, Toby Prike, Antonia B Paver, Rosie J Scott, Briony Swire-Thompson","doi":"10.1186/s41235-024-00581-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Misinformation often continues to influence people's reasoning even after it has been corrected. Therefore, an important aim of applied cognition research is to identify effective measures to counter misinformation. One frequently recommended but hitherto insufficiently tested strategy is source discreditation, that is, attacking the credibility of a misinformation source. In two experiments, we tested whether immediate source discreditation could reduce people's subsequent reliance on fictional event-related misinformation. In Experiment 1, the discreditation targeted a person source of misinformation, pointing to a conflict of interest. This intervention was compared with a commonly employed message-focused correction and a combination of correction and discreditation. The discreditation alone was effective, but less effective than a correction, with the combination of both most effective. Experiment 2 compared discreditations that targeted a person versus a media source of misinformation, pointing either to a conflict of interest or a poor track record of communication. Discreditations were effective for both types of sources, although track-record discreditations were less effective when the misinformation source was a media outlet compared to a person. Results demonstrate that continued influence of misinformation is shaped by social as well as cognitive factors and that source discreditation is a broadly applicable misinformation countermeasure.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"9 1","pages":"52"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11345350/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Don't believe them! Reducing misinformation influence through source discreditation.\",\"authors\":\"Ullrich K H Ecker, Toby Prike, Antonia B Paver, Rosie J Scott, Briony Swire-Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41235-024-00581-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Misinformation often continues to influence people's reasoning even after it has been corrected. Therefore, an important aim of applied cognition research is to identify effective measures to counter misinformation. One frequently recommended but hitherto insufficiently tested strategy is source discreditation, that is, attacking the credibility of a misinformation source. In two experiments, we tested whether immediate source discreditation could reduce people's subsequent reliance on fictional event-related misinformation. In Experiment 1, the discreditation targeted a person source of misinformation, pointing to a conflict of interest. This intervention was compared with a commonly employed message-focused correction and a combination of correction and discreditation. The discreditation alone was effective, but less effective than a correction, with the combination of both most effective. Experiment 2 compared discreditations that targeted a person versus a media source of misinformation, pointing either to a conflict of interest or a poor track record of communication. Discreditations were effective for both types of sources, although track-record discreditations were less effective when the misinformation source was a media outlet compared to a person. Results demonstrate that continued influence of misinformation is shaped by social as well as cognitive factors and that source discreditation is a broadly applicable misinformation countermeasure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11345350/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00581-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00581-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

即使在错误信息被纠正之后,它仍会继续影响人们的推理。因此,应用认知研究的一个重要目标就是找出有效的措施来对抗错误信息。一个经常被推荐但迄今为止尚未经过充分测试的策略是来源可信度,即攻击错误信息来源的可信度。在两个实验中,我们测试了立即诋毁信息源是否能减少人们随后对虚构事件相关错误信息的依赖。在实验 1 中,诋毁针对的是一个人的错误信息来源,指出其存在利益冲突。这一干预措施与通常采用的以信息为重点的更正以及更正与诋毁相结合的方法进行了比较。单独的诋毁是有效的,但不如更正有效,而两者的结合最为有效。实验 2 比较了针对错误信息的个人和媒体来源的诋毁,指出其存在利益冲突或传播记录不佳。对这两类信息源的诋毁都很有效,但与个人相比,当错误信息来源是媒体时,记录诋毁的效果较差。研究结果表明,错误信息的持续影响受社会因素和认知因素的影响,对信息来源进行诋毁是一种广泛适用的错误信息应对措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Don't believe them! Reducing misinformation influence through source discreditation.

Misinformation often continues to influence people's reasoning even after it has been corrected. Therefore, an important aim of applied cognition research is to identify effective measures to counter misinformation. One frequently recommended but hitherto insufficiently tested strategy is source discreditation, that is, attacking the credibility of a misinformation source. In two experiments, we tested whether immediate source discreditation could reduce people's subsequent reliance on fictional event-related misinformation. In Experiment 1, the discreditation targeted a person source of misinformation, pointing to a conflict of interest. This intervention was compared with a commonly employed message-focused correction and a combination of correction and discreditation. The discreditation alone was effective, but less effective than a correction, with the combination of both most effective. Experiment 2 compared discreditations that targeted a person versus a media source of misinformation, pointing either to a conflict of interest or a poor track record of communication. Discreditations were effective for both types of sources, although track-record discreditations were less effective when the misinformation source was a media outlet compared to a person. Results demonstrate that continued influence of misinformation is shaped by social as well as cognitive factors and that source discreditation is a broadly applicable misinformation countermeasure.

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
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Beyond minutiae: inferring missing details from global structure in fingerprints. Context modulates evidence accumulation in split-second handball penalty decisions. Delay discounting predicts COVID-19 vaccine booster willingness. Emotions in misinformation studies: distinguishing affective state from emotional response and misinformation recognition from acceptance. Acquiring complex concepts through classification versus observation.
×
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