The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks
The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/bjop.12383
复制
发表时间：
2020-02-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Chang, Ee Pin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ecker, Ullrich K. H.;O'Reilly, Ziggy;Chang, Ee Pin
事实核查已成为现代媒体格局的一个重要特征。然而，目前还不清楚最有效的事实核查形式是什么。一些人认为，重复虚假声明并将其贴上虚假标签的简单撤回可能会适得其反，因为它们提高了声明的熟悉度。更详细的反驳可能会提供一种更有希望的方法，但在社交媒体传播相关的严格空间限制下，可能不可行。在两个实验中，我们测试了(1)简单的“虚假标签”撤回是否真的无效或有害；以及(2)短格式(140个字符)的反驳是否比简单的撤回更有效。关于(1)，简单的收回减少了对虚假声明的信念，我们没有发现熟悉度驱动的适得其反的效应的证据。关于(2)，在延迟一周而不是一天之后，发现短格式反驳比简单的撤回更有效。然而，在这两个延迟中，它们都与减少错误信息-一致性推理有关。
Fact-checking has become an important feature of the modern media landscape. However, it is unclear what the most effective format of fact-checks is. Some have argued that simple retractions that repeat a false claim and tag it as false may backfire because they boost the claim's familiarity. More detailed refutations may provide a more promising approach, but may not be feasible under the severe space constraints associated with social-media communication. In two experiments, we tested whether (1) simple 'false-tag' retractions can indeed be ineffective or harmful; and (2) short-format (140-character) refutations are more effective than simple retractions. Regarding (1), simple retractions reduced belief in false claims, and we found no evidence for a familiarity-driven backfire effect. Regarding (2), short-format refutations were found to be more effective than simple retractions after a 1-week delay but not a one-day delay. At both delays, however, they were associated with reduced misinformation-congruent reasoning.