事实很难获得:在社交媒体上辨别和分享事实信息

Fangjing Tu, Z. Pan, Xinle Jia
{"title":"事实很难获得:在社交媒体上辨别和分享事实信息","authors":"Fangjing Tu, Z. Pan, Xinle Jia","doi":"10.1093/jcmc/zmad021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n How credulous are we when engaging information on social media? Addressing this question, this article aims to understand how individuals’ epistemic vigilance, a set of cognitive mechanisms that comprise our system of precaution in social interactions, may operate and fall short. Reporting findings from two survey experiments (Study 1, N = 413; Study 2, N = 392), we show that participants tended to be skeptical toward social media news, were reasonably successful in identifying true news, and reported a tendency to share true rather than false news. In one study, social endorsement enticed a higher accuracy rating of news posts. In both studies, people judged attitudinally congruent news posts as being more accurate and reported a higher likelihood to share them. Individuals’ propensity to reflective thinking measured by cognitive reflection test potentially operated as a restraint on sharing inaccurate information and bolstered veracity anchoring in their information engagement.","PeriodicalId":14832,"journal":{"name":"J. Comput. Mediat. Commun.","volume":"216 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Facts are hard to come by: discerning and sharing factual information on social media\",\"authors\":\"Fangjing Tu, Z. Pan, Xinle Jia\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jcmc/zmad021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n How credulous are we when engaging information on social media? Addressing this question, this article aims to understand how individuals’ epistemic vigilance, a set of cognitive mechanisms that comprise our system of precaution in social interactions, may operate and fall short. Reporting findings from two survey experiments (Study 1, N = 413; Study 2, N = 392), we show that participants tended to be skeptical toward social media news, were reasonably successful in identifying true news, and reported a tendency to share true rather than false news. In one study, social endorsement enticed a higher accuracy rating of news posts. In both studies, people judged attitudinally congruent news posts as being more accurate and reported a higher likelihood to share them. Individuals’ propensity to reflective thinking measured by cognitive reflection test potentially operated as a restraint on sharing inaccurate information and bolstered veracity anchoring in their information engagement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"J. Comput. Mediat. Commun.\",\"volume\":\"216 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"J. Comput. Mediat. Commun.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Comput. Mediat. Commun.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当我们在社交媒体上获取信息时,我们有多容易轻信?为了解决这个问题,本文旨在了解个人的认知警惕性(一套认知机制,包括我们在社会互动中的预防系统)是如何运作和不足的。报告两个调查实验的结果(研究1,N = 413;研究2,N = 392),我们表明参与者倾向于对社交媒体新闻持怀疑态度,在识别真实新闻方面相当成功,并报告了分享真实新闻而不是虚假新闻的倾向。在一项研究中,社会认可吸引了更高的新闻帖子准确性评级。在这两项研究中,人们认为态度一致的新闻帖子更准确,并报告了更高的分享可能性。认知反射测试测量的个体反思性思维倾向可能对不准确信息的分享起到抑制作用,并在信息参与中加强真实性锚定。
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
Facts are hard to come by: discerning and sharing factual information on social media
How credulous are we when engaging information on social media? Addressing this question, this article aims to understand how individuals’ epistemic vigilance, a set of cognitive mechanisms that comprise our system of precaution in social interactions, may operate and fall short. Reporting findings from two survey experiments (Study 1, N = 413; Study 2, N = 392), we show that participants tended to be skeptical toward social media news, were reasonably successful in identifying true news, and reported a tendency to share true rather than false news. In one study, social endorsement enticed a higher accuracy rating of news posts. In both studies, people judged attitudinally congruent news posts as being more accurate and reported a higher likelihood to share them. Individuals’ propensity to reflective thinking measured by cognitive reflection test potentially operated as a restraint on sharing inaccurate information and bolstered veracity anchoring in their information engagement.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
To intervene or not to intervene: young adults' views on when and how to intervene in online harassment Effect of Parasitic Patch for the Radiation Characteristics Microstrip Antenna Planar Array with Distribution Edge An Optimized Vertical Handover Decision Model for the Heterogeneous DSRC/LTE Vehicular Networks Performance Evaluation of Optical Amplifiers in a Hybrid RoF-WDM Communication System A Non-hierarchical Multipath Routing Protocol Using Fuzzy Logic for Optimal Network Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Network
×
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