"Results from Study 2: percentage of headlines participants said they would be likely to share, separately for each combination of headline veracity (true vs. false) and condition (control vs. treatment). For this visualization, we discretize sharing intentions
using the scale midpoint (i.e., 1–3 = 0, 4–6 = 1) to give a more easily interpretable measurement; all analyses are conducted using the full (nondiscretized) scale, and plotting the average (nondiscretized) sharing intentions looks qualitatively similar. For the equivalent plot using mean sharing intentions instead of the discretized percentages, see Figure S1 in the Supplemental Material available online. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals."

University of California, Berkeley

- positive relationship between treatment and discernment
- in treatment condition, sharing intentions for true headlines were significantly higher than false headlines, while in the control, there was no difference
- sharing discernment 2.8 times higher in treatment than in control
- sharing discernment in treatment was not moderated by the Cognitive reflection Test, science knowledge, the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale, or political preferences

Study 2 Results

Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological science, 31(7), 770-780.

Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on
Social Media: Experimental Evidence for
a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention

Study 2 Graph

"Relationship between the effect of the treatment in Study 2 and the average accuracy rating from participants in the accuracy condition of Study 1 as a function of headline veracity (true vs. false). The dashed line shows the best-fitting regression."

Learn Before

Related