The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions

Garrett, R. Kelly; Weeks, Brian E.

doi:10.1145/2441776.2441895

Cited by 94 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fact-checks are displayed immediately below the pro/con point ( Figure 2). While this maximizes visibility, it also highlights competing claims [19], overshadows the discussion section, and obfuscates when the fact-check happened with respect to the discussion. In fact, this could have been a factor in the drop in commenting rates after a fact-check occurred.…”

Section: Discussion and Design Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This design gives librarians the opportunity to frame the factchecks in a conversational (though professional) manner that maximizes receptivity (e.g. by framing the fact-check in an affirming manner that heightens the chance that people will respect the authoritative information and update their prior beliefs [19,32]). …”

Section: Discussion and Design Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, people's values and self-perception may not be aligned with their actual behavior. And second, opinions may have changed, but only for those whose prior beliefs were not threatened by the factcheck [19]. On the whole, it appears that there was little evident short-term opinion change, at least as exhibited through the adoption of other users' pro/con points.…”

Section: Informing Public Dialoguementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Fact-checks provide a wealth of information and explicit guidance to the reader about whether to believe the claim or not. Unfortunately, establishing the legitimacy of fact-checks can be challenging because the format of a fact-check juxtaposes the claim and the fact-check, creating an environment of competing claims [19]. This is problematic because those whose prior beliefs are threatened by the result of the fact-check are psychologically prone to dismiss counter-attitudinal information and delegitimate the source of the challenging information [31,33,34,46], sometimes even strengthening belief in the misinformation [37].…”

Section: What: Framing Authoritative Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a delicate design task because having one's political beliefs challenged can actually reinforce the original belief. For example, Garrett [19] shows that even introducing a small delay between showing a false claim and a correction of the claim to someone whose prior beliefs are bolstered by the false claim significantly improves the participants' receptivity to updating their prior belief and reduces their likelihood of rejecting the legitimacy of the fact-check. We now step through a few of the difficult design choices arising from this tension.…”

Section: From the Perspective Of Living Voters Guide Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Integrating on-demand fact-checking with public dialogue

Kriplean

Bonnar

Borning

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work &Amp; Social Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public dialogue plays a key role in democratic society. Such dialogue often contains factual claims, but participants and readers are left wondering what to believe, particularly when contributions to such dialogue come from a broad spectrum of the public. We explore the design space for introducing authoritative information into public dialogue, with the goal of supporting constructive rather than confrontational discourse. We also present a specific design and realization of an archetypal sociotechnical system of this kind, namely an on-demand fact-checking service integrated into a crowdsourced voters guide powered by deliberating citizens. The fact-checking service was co-designed with and staffed by professional librarians. Our evaluation examines the service from the perspectives of both users and librarians.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Design Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussion and Design Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Informing Public Dialoguementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: What: Framing Authoritative Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: From the Perspective Of Living Voters Guide Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Integrating on-demand fact-checking with public dialogue

Kriplean

Bonnar

Borning

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work &Amp; Social Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Misinformation and How to Correct It

Cook

Ecker²,

Lewandowsky³

2015

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing prevalence of misinformation in society may adversely affect democratic decision making, which depends on a well-informed public. False information can originate from a number of sources including rumors, literary fiction, mainstream media, corporate-vested interests, governments, and nongovernmental organizations. The rise of the Internet and user-driven content has provided a venue for quick and broad dissemination of information, not all of which is accurate. Consequently, a large body of research spanning a number of disciplines has sought to understand misinformation and determine which interventions are most effective in reducing its influence. This essay summarizes research into misinformation, bringing together studies from psychology, political science, education, and computer science. Cognitive psychology investigates why individuals struggle with correcting misinformation and inaccurate beliefs, and why myths are so difficult to dislodge. Two important findings involve (i) various "backfire effects," which arise when refutations ironically reinforce misconceptions, and (ii) the role of worldviews in accentuating the persistence of misinformation. Computer scientists simulate the spread of misinformation through social networks and develop algorithms to automatically detect or neutralize myths. We draw together various research threads to provide guidelines on how to effectively refute misconceptions without risking backfire effects.

show abstract

Online misinformation about climate change

Treen

Williams

O’Neill

2020

WIREs Climate Change

203

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policymakers, scholars, and practitioners have all called attention to the issue of misinformation in the climate change debate. But what is climate change misinformation, who is involved, how does it spread, why does it matter, and what can be done about it? Climate change misinformation is closely linked to climate change skepticism, denial, and contrarianism. A network of actors are involved in financing, producing, and amplifying misinformation. Once in the public domain, characteristics of online social networks, such as homophily, polarization, and echo chambers—characteristics also found in climate change debate—provide fertile ground for misinformation to spread. Underlying belief systems and social norms, as well as psychological heuristics such as confirmation bias, are further factors which contribute to the spread of misinformation. A variety of ways to understand and address misinformation, from a diversity of disciplines, are discussed. These include educational, technological, regulatory, and psychological‐based approaches. No single approach addresses all concerns about misinformation, and all have limitations, necessitating an interdisciplinary approach to tackle this multifaceted issue. Key research gaps include understanding the diffusion of climate change misinformation on social media, and examining whether misinformation extends to climate alarmism, as well as climate denial. This article explores the concepts of misinformation and disinformation and defines disinformation to be a subset of misinformation. A diversity of disciplinary and interdisciplinary literature is reviewed to fully interrogate the concept of misinformation—and within this, disinformation—particularly as it pertains to climate change. This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Communication

show abstract

The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions

Cited by 94 publications

References 42 publications

Integrating on-demand fact-checking with public dialogue

Integrating on-demand fact-checking with public dialogue

Misinformation and How to Correct It

Online misinformation about climate change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About