强调出版商并不能有效降低社交媒体上错误信息的易感性

Nicholas C. Dias, Gordon Pennycook, David G. Rand
{"title":"强调出版商并不能有效降低社交媒体上错误信息的易感性","authors":"Nicholas C. Dias, Gordon Pennycook, David G. Rand","doi":"10.37016/mr-2020-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Survey experiments with nearly 7,000 Americans suggest that increasing the visibility of publishers is an ineffective, and perhaps even counterproductive, way to address misinformation on social media. Our findings underscore the importance of social media platforms and civil society organizations evaluating interventions experimentally rather than implementing them based on intuitive appeal.","PeriodicalId":93289,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"78","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas C. Dias, Gordon Pennycook, David G. Rand\",\"doi\":\"10.37016/mr-2020-001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Survey experiments with nearly 7,000 Americans suggest that increasing the visibility of publishers is an ineffective, and perhaps even counterproductive, way to address misinformation on social media. Our findings underscore the importance of social media platforms and civil society organizations evaluating interventions experimentally rather than implementing them based on intuitive appeal.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"78\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 78

摘要

对近7000名美国人进行的调查实验表明,提高出版商的知名度是解决社交媒体上错误信息的无效方法,甚至可能适得其反。我们的研究结果强调了社交媒体平台和民间社会组织通过实验评估干预措施的重要性,而不是基于直觉吸引力来实施干预措施。
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
Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media
Survey experiments with nearly 7,000 Americans suggest that increasing the visibility of publishers is an ineffective, and perhaps even counterproductive, way to address misinformation on social media. Our findings underscore the importance of social media platforms and civil society organizations evaluating interventions experimentally rather than implementing them based on intuitive appeal.
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
20.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Taking the power back: How diaspora community organizations are fighting misinformation spread on encrypted messaging apps Who reports witnessing and performing corrections on social media in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and France? The spread of synthetic media on X #SaveTheChildren: A pilot study of a social media movement co-opted by conspiracy theorists US-skepticism and transnational conspiracy in the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election
×
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