More Like this

1. Timing matters when correcting fake news

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020043118  

   Brashier, Nadia M.; Pennycook, Gordon; Berinsky, Adam J.; Rand, David G. (January 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   null (Ed.)

   Countering misinformation can reduce belief in the moment, but corrective messages quickly fade from memory. We tested whether the longer-term impact of fact-checks depends on when people receive them. In two experiments (total N = 2,683), participants read true and false headlines taken from social media. In the treatment conditions, “true” and “false” tags appeared before, during, or after participants read each headline. Participants in a control condition received no information about veracity. One week later, participants in all conditions rated the same headlines’ accuracy. Providing fact-checks after headlines ( debunking ) improved subsequent truth discernment more than providing the same information during ( labeling ) or before ( prebunking ) exposure. This finding informs the cognitive science of belief revision and has practical implications for social media platform designers. 

   more » « less
2. Impact of gist intervention on automated system interpretability and user decision making

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00594-2  

   Gleaves, Lydia P; Broniatowski, David A (December 2024, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications)

   Abstract As they become more common, automated systems are also becoming increasingly opaque, challenging their users’ abilities to explain and interpret their outputs. In this study, we test the predictions of fuzzy-trace theory—a leading theory of how people interpret quantitative information—on user decision making after interacting with an online decision aid. We recruited a sample of 205 online crowdworkers and asked them to use a system that was designed to detect URLs that were part of coordinated misinformation campaigns. We examined how user endorsements of system interpretability covaried with performance on this coordinated misinformation detection task and found that subjects who endorsed system interpretability displayed enhanced discernment. This interpretability was, in turn, associated with both objective mathematical ability and mathematical self-confidence. Beyond these individual differences, we evaluated the impact of a theoretically motivated intervention that was designed to promote sensemaking of system output. Participants provided with a “gist” version of system output, expressing the bottom-line meaning of that output, were better able to identify URLs that might have been part of a coordinated misinformation campaign, compared to users given the same information presented as verbatim quantitative metrics. This work highlights the importance of enabling users to grasp the essential, gist meaning of the information they receive from automated systems, which benefits users regardless of individual differences. 

   more » « less
3. Protecting memory from misinformation: Warnings modulate cortical reinstatement during memory retrieval

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008595117  

   Karanian, Jessica M.; Rabb, Nathaniel; Wulff, Alia N.; Torrance, McKinzey G.; Thomas, Ayanna K.; Race, Elizabeth (January 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   Exposure to even subtle forms of misleading information can significantly alter memory for past events. Memory distortion due to misinformation has been linked to faulty reconstructive processes during memory retrieval and the reactivation of brain regions involved in the initial encoding of misleading details (cortical reinstatement). The current study investigated whether warning participants about the threat of misinformation can modulate cortical reinstatement during memory retrieval and reduce misinformation errors. Participants watched a silent video depicting a crime (original event) and were given an initial test of memory for the crime details. Then, participants listened to an auditory narrative describing the crime in which some original details were altered (misinformation). Importantly, participants who received a warning about the reliability of the auditory narrative either before or after exposure to misinformation demonstrated less susceptibility to misinformation on a final test of memory compared to unwarned participants. Warned and unwarned participants also demonstrated striking differences in neural activity during the final memory test. Compared to participants who did not receive a warning, participants who received a warning (regardless of its timing) demonstrated increased activity in visual regions associated with the original source of information as well as decreased activity in auditory regions associated with the misleading source of information. Stronger visual reactivation was associated with reduced susceptibility to misinformation, whereas stronger auditory reactivation was associated with increased susceptibility to misinformation. Together, these results suggest that a simple warning can modulate reconstructive processes during memory retrieval and reduce memory errors due to misinformation. 

   more » « less
4. Multiple-choice quizzes improve memory for misinformation debunks, but do not reduce belief in misinformation

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00488-9  

   Collier, Jessica R; Pillai, Raunak M; Fazio, Lisa K (December 2023, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications)

   Fact-checkers want people to both read and remember their misinformation debunks. Retrieval practice is one way to increase memory, thus multiple-choice quizzes may be a useful tool for fact-checkers. We tested whether exposure to quizzes improved people’s accuracy ratings for fact-checked claims and their memory for specific information within a fact check. Across three experiments, 1551 US-based online participants viewed fact checks (either health- or politics-related) with or without a quiz. Overall, the fact checks were effective, and participants were more accurate in rating the claims after exposure. In addition, quizzes improved participants’ memory for the details of the fact checks, even 1 week later. However, that increased memory did not lead to more accurate beliefs. Participants’ accuracy ratings were similar in the quiz and no-quiz conditions. Multiple-choice quizzes can be a useful tool for increasing memory, but there is a disconnect between memory and belief. 

   more » « less
5. The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook

   https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211013861  

   Yang, Kai-Cheng; Pierri, Francesco; Hui, Pik-Mai; Axelrod, David; Torres-Lugo, Christopher; Bryden, John; Menczer, Filippo (January 2021, Big Data & Society)

   null (Ed.)

   The global spread of the novel coronavirus is affected by the spread of related misinformation—the so-called COVID-19 Infodemic—that makes populations more vulnerable to the disease through resistance to mitigation efforts. Here, we analyze the prevalence and diffusion of links to low-credibility content about the pandemic across two major social media platforms, Twitter and Facebook. We characterize cross-platform similarities and differences in popular sources, diffusion patterns, influencers, coordination, and automation. Comparing the two platforms, we find divergence among the prevalence of popular low-credibility sources and suspicious videos. A minority of accounts and pages exert a strong influence on each platform. These misinformation “superspreaders” are often associated with the low-credibility sources and tend to be verified by the platforms. On both platforms, there is evidence of coordinated sharing of Infodemic content. The overt nature of this manipulation points to the need for societal-level solutions in addition to mitigation strategies within the platforms. However, we highlight limits imposed by inconsistent data-access policies on our capability to study harmful manipulations of information ecosystems. 

   more » « less