即使对那些不信任事实核查员的人来说,事实核查员警示标签也是有效的

IF 21.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Nature Human Behaviour Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1038/s41562-024-01973-x
Cameron Martel, David G. Rand
{"title":"即使对那些不信任事实核查员的人来说,事实核查员警示标签也是有效的","authors":"Cameron Martel, David G. Rand","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-01973-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Warning labels from professional fact-checkers are one of the most widely used interventions against online misinformation. But are fact-checker warning labels effective for those who distrust fact-checkers? Here, in a first correlational study (<i>N</i> = 1,000), we validate a measure of trust in fact-checkers. Next, we conduct meta-analyses across 21 experiments (total <i>N</i> = 14,133) in which participants evaluated true and false news posts and were randomized to either see no warning labels or to see warning labels on a high proportion of the false posts. Warning labels were on average effective at reducing belief in (27.6% reduction), and sharing of (24.7% reduction), false headlines. While warning effects were smaller for participants with less trust in fact-checkers, warning labels nonetheless significantly reduced belief in (12.9% reduction), and sharing of (16.7% reduction), false news even for those most distrusting of fact-checkers. These results suggest that fact-checker warning labels are a broadly effective tool for combatting misinformation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":21.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers\",\"authors\":\"Cameron Martel, David G. Rand\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41562-024-01973-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Warning labels from professional fact-checkers are one of the most widely used interventions against online misinformation. But are fact-checker warning labels effective for those who distrust fact-checkers? Here, in a first correlational study (<i>N</i> = 1,000), we validate a measure of trust in fact-checkers. Next, we conduct meta-analyses across 21 experiments (total <i>N</i> = 14,133) in which participants evaluated true and false news posts and were randomized to either see no warning labels or to see warning labels on a high proportion of the false posts. Warning labels were on average effective at reducing belief in (27.6% reduction), and sharing of (24.7% reduction), false headlines. While warning effects were smaller for participants with less trust in fact-checkers, warning labels nonetheless significantly reduced belief in (12.9% reduction), and sharing of (16.7% reduction), false news even for those most distrusting of fact-checkers. These results suggest that fact-checker warning labels are a broadly effective tool for combatting misinformation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Human Behaviour\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":21.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Human Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01973-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Human Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01973-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

来自专业事实核查机构的警告标签是针对网络错误信息最广泛使用的干预措施之一。但是,对于那些不信任事实核查人员的人来说,事实核查人员的警告标签是否有效呢?在此,我们在第一项相关研究(N = 1,000)中验证了对事实核查者信任度的衡量标准。接下来,我们对 21 项实验(总人数 = 14,133 人)进行了元分析,在这些实验中,参与者对真实和虚假新闻帖子进行评估,并随机选择不看警示标签或在高比例的虚假帖子上看警示标签。警告标签平均有效地减少了对虚假标题的相信(减少了 27.6%)和分享(减少了 24.7%)。虽然对事实核查人员信任度较低的参与者的警告效果较小,但即使是对事实核查人员最不信任的人,警告标签也能显著减少对虚假新闻的相信(减少 12.9%)和分享(减少 16.7%)。这些结果表明,事实核查员警示标签是一种广泛有效的打击错误信息的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers

Warning labels from professional fact-checkers are one of the most widely used interventions against online misinformation. But are fact-checker warning labels effective for those who distrust fact-checkers? Here, in a first correlational study (N = 1,000), we validate a measure of trust in fact-checkers. Next, we conduct meta-analyses across 21 experiments (total N = 14,133) in which participants evaluated true and false news posts and were randomized to either see no warning labels or to see warning labels on a high proportion of the false posts. Warning labels were on average effective at reducing belief in (27.6% reduction), and sharing of (24.7% reduction), false headlines. While warning effects were smaller for participants with less trust in fact-checkers, warning labels nonetheless significantly reduced belief in (12.9% reduction), and sharing of (16.7% reduction), false news even for those most distrusting of fact-checkers. These results suggest that fact-checker warning labels are a broadly effective tool for combatting misinformation.

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
Nature Human Behaviour
Nature Human Behaviour Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
36.80
自引率
1.00%
发文量
227
期刊介绍: Nature Human Behaviour is a journal that focuses on publishing research of outstanding significance into any aspect of human behavior.The research can cover various areas such as psychological, biological, and social bases of human behavior.It also includes the study of origins, development, and disorders related to human behavior.The primary aim of the journal is to increase the visibility of research in the field and enhance its societal reach and impact.
期刊最新文献
Mind the gap between education policy and practice Challenges in developing STEM sign language for inclusive education Replay shapes abstract cognitive maps for efficient social navigation Ethical challenges in translating brain–computer interfaces Observational and genetic evidence disagree on the association between loneliness and risk of multiple diseases
×
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