Correction format has a limited role when debunking misinformation.
Correction format has a limited role when debunking misinformation.
复制标题
在揭穿错误信息时，更正格式的作用有限。
DOI：
10.1186/s41235-021-00346-6
复制
发表时间：
2021-12-29
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ecker UKH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Swire-Thompson B;Cook J;Butler LH;Sanderson JA;Lewandowsky S;Ecker UKH
鉴于被误导可能会产生负面影响，寻找最佳的纠正技术已成为研究的重点。近年来，基于不同的理论框架，已经提出了几种不同的校正格式作为上级。然而，这些纠正形式尚未在受控环境中进行比较，因此每种形式的建议优效性仍然是推测性的。在四个实验中，本文研究了改变更正的格式如何影响人们随后对错误信息的依赖。我们使用一系列不同的材料和参与者库，研究了神话优先、事实优先、仅事实或仅神话的纠正格式是否最有效。实验1和2的重点是气候变化的误解，参与者Qualtrics在线小组成员和学生参加了一个大规模的开放式在线课程，分别。实验3和4使用了来自不同主题的误解，亚马逊土耳其机器人众包工作者和大学生参与者。我们发现，更正对信念和推理的影响在很大程度上与所使用的具体格式无关。任何潜在的相对优势的最明确的证据出现在实验4中，它发现，神话第一格式更有效地纠正神话比事实第一格式后，延迟保留间隔。然而，一般来说，只要提出了更正的关键内容，格式就不会产生很大的差别。这表明，简单地提供纠正信息，无论格式如何，都比如何提出纠正更为重要。 在线版本包含补充材料，可通过10.1186/s41235-021-00346-6获得。
Given that being misinformed can have negative ramifications, finding optimal corrective techniques has become a key focus of research. In recent years, several divergent correction formats have been proposed as superior based on distinct theoretical frameworks. However, these correction formats have not been compared in controlled settings, so the suggested superiority of each format remains speculative. Across four experiments, the current paper investigated how altering the format of corrections influences people’s subsequent reliance on misinformation. We examined whether myth-first, fact-first, fact-only, or myth-only correction formats were most effective, using a range of different materials and participant pools. Experiments 1 and 2 focused on climate change misconceptions; participants were Qualtrics online panel members and students taking part in a massive open online course, respectively. Experiments 3 and 4 used misconceptions from a diverse set of topics, with Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdworkers and university student participants. We found that the impact of a correction on beliefs and inferential reasoning was largely independent of the specific format used. The clearest evidence for any potential relative superiority emerged in Experiment 4, which found that the myth-first format was more effective at myth correction than the fact-first format after a delayed retention interval. However, in general it appeared that as long as the key ingredients of a correction were presented, format did not make a considerable difference. This suggests that simply providing corrective information, regardless of format, is far more important than how the correction is presented. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41235-021-00346-6.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
11.2
作者：
GLASS, GV;PECKHAM, PD;SANDERS, JR
通讯作者：
SANDERS, JR
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Howard, MW;Kahana, MJ
通讯作者：
Kahana, MJ
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
BJORK, RA;WHITTEN, WB
通讯作者：
WHITTEN, WB
DOI：
10.4269/ajtmh.20-0812
发表时间：
2020-10
期刊：
The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene
影响因子：
--
作者：
Islam MS;Sarkar T;Khan SH;Mostofa Kamal AH;Hasan SMM;Kabir A;Yeasmin D;Islam MA;Amin Chowdhury KI;Anwar KS;Chughtai AA;Seale H
通讯作者：
Seale H
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Ecker, Ullrich K. H.;Lewandowsky, Stephan;Tang, David T. W.
通讯作者：
Tang, David T. W.