Truth be told: How "true" and "false" labels influence user engagement with fact-checks

被引:12
作者
Aruguete, Natalia [1 ]
Bachmann, Ingrid [2 ,3 ]
Calvo, Ernesto [4 ]
Valenzuela, Sebastian [5 ,7 ]
Ventura, Tiago [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nacl Quilmes UNQ, Bernal, Argentina
[2] Pontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Santiago, Chile
[3] Millennium Nucleus Digital Inequal & Opportun NUDO, Santiago, Chile
[4] Univ Maryland, College Pk, MD USA
[5] Millennium Inst Fdn Res Data IMFD, Santiago, Chile
[6] Georgetown Univ, Georgetown, WA 20057 USA
[7] Pontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Sch Commun, Alameda 340, Santiago 8115500, Chile
关键词
Computational methods; experiments; fact-checking; misinformation; motivated reasoning; social media; HOT COGNITION; NEWS; MISINFORMATION;
D O I
10.1177/14614448231193709
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
When do users share fact-checks on social media? We describe a survey experiment conducted during the 2019 election in Argentina measuring the propensity of voters to share corrections to political misinformation that randomly confirm or challenge their initial beliefs. We find evidence of selective sharing-the notion that individuals prefer to share pro-attitudinal rather than counter-attitudinal fact-checks. This effect, however, is conditioned by the type of adjudication made by fact-checkers. More specifically, in line with motivated reasoning processes, respondents report a higher intent to share confirmations (i.e. messages fact-checked with a "true" rating) compared with refutations (i.e. messages fact-checked with a "false" rating). Experimental results are partially confirmed with a regression discontinuity analysis of observational data of Twitter and replicated with additional experiments. Our findings suggest that fact-checkers could increase exposure to their verifications on social media by framing their corrections as confirmations of factually correct information.
引用
收藏
页码:1443 / 1464
页数:22
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]   Reinforcing attitudes in a gatewatching news era: Individual-level antecedents to sharing fact-checks on social media [J].
Amazeen, Michelle A. ;
Vargo, Chris J. ;
Hopp, Toby .
COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, 2019, 86 (01) :112-132
[2]  
Barbieri F., 2020, FINDINGS ASS COMPUTA
[3]   What Makes Online Content Viral? [J].
Berger, Jonah ;
Milkman, Katherine L. .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2012, 49 (02) :192-205
[4]  
Bolsen T., 2019, MOTIVATED REASONING, DOI [10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-923, DOI 10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228637.001.0001/ACREFORE-9780190228637-E-923]
[5]  
Buntain C., 2023, Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, V3, P1
[6]   Winning! Election returns and engagement in social media [J].
Calvo, Ernesto ;
Ventura, Tiago ;
Aruguete, Natalia ;
Waisbord, Silvio .
PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (03)
[7]   Do tabloids poison the well of social media? Explaining democratically dysfunctional news sharing [J].
Chadwick, Andrew ;
Vaccari, Cristian ;
O'Loughlin, Ben .
NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY, 2018, 20 (11) :4255-4274
[8]  
Christensen KR., 2020, OXFORD HDB NEGATION, P725
[9]   ARE THERE BASIC EMOTIONS [J].
EKMAN, P .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1992, 99 (03) :550-553
[10]   The Selective Communication of Political Information [J].
Ekstrom, Pierce D. ;
Lai, Calvin K. .
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PERSONALITY SCIENCE, 2021, 12 (05) :789-800