 Study Design: The procedure was the same as experiment 1, but the headlines were only shown once in the familiarization phase. This was to see if seeing the headlines once was enough to see an effect in moral judgements. 

Results:  Results overall were the same as experiment 1's and significantly supported the hypothesis. However, the moral condemnation ratings dropped less when the participants only saw the headline once. This suggests a negative correlation between amount of exposure and moral condemnation rating. 

Misinformation and Morality Experiment 2: Single Exposure to Headlines

Study Design: This experiment tested if telling people to think deliberately about their decisions before logging their answers had an affect on moral judgements. The procedure was identical to the other two experiments, except the subjects were split into two groups: a deliberative-thinking group and a control. 

Results: Participants expressed significantly less condemnation of previously seen headlines than new headlines and significantly more condemnation when induced to think deliberately as opposed to intuitively.

Misinformation and Morality Experiment 3: Deliberative vs Intuitive Thinking

Study Design: This experiment used the same procedure as experiments 1-3, but omitted the warnings that the headlines were false. This was to see if the effect on moral condemnation was due to participants believing that the repeated headlines were more truthful than non-repeated headlines. 

Results: Results showed that the effects of prior exposure on moral condemnation appears to be independent of its effect on judgements of accuracy, liking, and popularity.

Misinformation and Morality Experiment 4: Testing the Role of Accuracy Judgements

Study Design: Subjects were shown 6 of 12 headlines 4 times during a familiarization phase. Then, during a judgement phase, they were shown a mixture of previously seen and new headlines. They had to rate the headlines in a variety of criteria, including how unethical it would be to share the headlines, how likely they were to engage in social media behaviors like "liking", sharing, or posting negative comments, accuracy beliefs, and reading comprehension. 

Results: The moral condemnation results supported the study’s hypothesis that people will rate headlines they have seen earlier as less unethical to publish as compared to those they had not seen previously. The intended social-media behaviors results showed people were significantly more likely to share or “like” a previously seen headline and were less likely to block or unfollow the person who posted the previously seen headline as opposed to new headlines. Additionally, the study’s findings argued that accuracy beliefs had no significant effects on the results of the participants’ moral judgements.

Misinformation and Morality Experiment 1: Prior Exposure and Ethicality Ratings

Effron and Raj conducted four experiments to test how repeatedly encountering a fake-news headline affected one's perception of how ethical it would be to propagate. NOTE: In experiments 1-3, subjects were warned that all of the headlines they would see were false. 

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

Syracuse University

Repetition can also impact moral judgements when it comes to condemning fake-news headlines. According to a study by Effron and Raj (containing 4 experiments), encountering a fake-news headline multiple times can make it seem less unethical to share, even when the subject knows the headlines is false. 

An Extension of the Effect of Repetition: Misinformation and Moral Judgements

Effron, D. A., &amp; Raj, M. (2019). Misinformation and Morality: Encountering Fake-News Headlines Makes Them Seem Less Unethical to Publish and Share. Psychological Science, 31(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619887896 

Learn Before

Related

Learn After