Correcting Political and Consumer Misperceptions: The Effectiveness and Effects of Rating Scale Versus Contextual Correction Formats

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Fact-Checking Effectiveness as a Function of Format and Tone: Evaluating FactCheck.org and FlackCheck.org (2018, background): “Most American fact-checking organizations employ visual rating systems to complement the contextual information conveyed in print (Amazeen et al., 2016).”
The Psychology of Fake News. (2021, background): “These include work on conspiracy belief [9], superstition [10], rumors [11], bullshit receptivity [12], andmisperceptions [13], among others.”
Creating News Literacy Messages to Enhance Expert Corrections of Misinformation on Twitter (2020, methodology): “, 2012; Vraga & Bode, 2017), often using nonpartisan fact-checking organizations (Amazeen et al., 2018; Garrett et al., 2013; Nyhan & Reifler, 2010).”
Testing the Effectiveness of Correction Placement and Type on Instagram (2020, background): “Previous misinformation research has focused on the effects of expert source credibility and confirmed its beneficial role in correcting misinformation across a range of expert sources, such as the news media (Nyhan and Reifler 2010; Thorson 2016), health organizations (Vraga and Bode 2017), governm”