Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the Effectiveness of General Warnings and Fact-Check Tags in Reducing Belief in False Stories on Social Media

By Katherine Clayton, S. Blair, Jonathan A. Busam, Samuel Forstner, John Glance, Guy Green, Anna Kawata, Akhila Kovvuri, Jonathan Martin, Evan Morgan and 7 more. Political Behavior, 2020

560 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/26cc053ad9aa1304a81aebf42945c57bac87b5cc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Communication

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Educative Interventions to Combat Misinformation: Evidence from a Field Experiment in India (2020, background): “These include providing warning labels on articles, attaching disputed tags to misinformation, and providing corrective information beside fake claims (Bode and Vraga 2015; Pennycook, Cannon, and Rand 2018; Clayton et al. 2019; Nyhan et al. 2019).”
Testing the Effectiveness of Correction Placement and Type on Instagram (2020, background): “A second study (Kim et al., n.d.) found that attention to corrective images on Twitter can reduce the credibility of a misinformation tweet, leading to reduced human papillomavirus (HPV) misperceptions.”
A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India (2020, background): “In addition, other studies evaluate the effectiveness of providing warnings about specific misinformation (33, 34).”
Facts and Myths about Misperceptions (2020, background): “Similarly, Clayton et al. (2019) find that participants from Mechanical Turk who are exposed to a general warning about the prevalence of misleading information on social media rate headlines from both legitimate and untrustworthy news sources as less accurate, suggesting that the warning causes an…”
Testing Logic-based and Humor-based Corrections for Science, Health, and Political Misinformation on Social Media (2019, background): “…providing factual alternatives to replace the debunked myth (Ecker, Lewandowsky, Cheung, & Maybery, 2015) or providing an explicit warning that recipients are about to be exposed to misinformation to place them on cognitive alert (Ecker, Lewandowsky, & Tang, 2010; but see Clayton et al., 2019).”
The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Headlines Increases Perceived Accuracy of Headlines Without Warnings (2020, result): “Our results add to a growing body of evidence (Wood and Porter 2018, Clayton et al. 2019, Nyhan et al. 2019) that back ﬁ re effects are in fact quite elusive and that, instead, people typically respond by updating in the direction of even coun-terattitudinal information.”
A Practical Guide to Doing Behavioral Research on Fake News and Misinformation (2020, methodology): “This research has looked at factors such as fact-checking (Brashier et al., 2021; Clayton et al., 2019; Pennycook, Bear, et al., 2020), emphasizing news sources/publishers (Dias et al., 2020), digital media literacy tips (Guess, Lerner, et al., 2020), inoculation and other educational approaches…”
Moderating with the Mob: Evaluating the Efficacy of Real-Time Crowdsourced Fact-Checking (2021, background): “Having high political knowledge (Clayton et al. 2020), which we define as individuals who successfully answered all four political knowledge questions on the survey, is one such characteristic.”
Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media (2018, unknown): “Blair S, et al. (2017) Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Working Paper. Available at https://www.dartmouth.edu/∼nyhan/fake-news-solutions.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2018. Brayton E (2”
The Debunking Handbook 2020 (2020, unknown): “Individuals have the ability to make a difference online: Corrections from users, experts, and algorithms (e.g., recommending related articles that contain a correction) can all be effective in reducing community misperceptions when responding to misinformation 103, 104, 105 .”
Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review (2023, background): “…2020), promote civic online reasoning (McGrew 2020; McGrew et al. 2018) and critical thinking (Lutzke et al. 2019), together with evaluations of credibility indicators (Bhuiyan et al. 2020; Nygren et al. 2019; Shao et al. 2018a; Pennycook et al. 2020a, b; Clayton et al. 2020; Ozturk et al. Fig.”
Creating News Literacy Messages to Enhance Expert Corrections of Misinformation on Twitter (2020, methodology): “Therefore, we combine corrections with NL messages to offer two potential ways of addressing misinformation that may be more effective together than when used separately (Clayton et al., 2019; Tully et al., 2019).”