Martel, C., Mosleh, M., & Rand, D. G. (2021). You’re definitely wrong, maybe: Correction style has minimal effect on corrections of misinformation online. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/3519

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

Researchers studied the causal effects of correction strength (direct or hedged) and explanatory depth (simple vs. detailed) on how participants reacted to misinformation to make conclusions about whether corrective measures are effective in combatting and minimizing the spread of misinformation. They found very little effect of any corrective measures in contributing to people’s engagement with misinformation, but people do become more aware and critical of misinformation once they encounter some sort of corrective measure. People who are more analytical in nature are also more likely to accept information that has been corrected, no matter the correction strength and depth. 

You’re definitely wrong, maybe: Correction style has minimal effect on corrections of misinformation online

- Recruited 2,228 participants from Lucid, an online sampling platform
- Participants were shown 28 randomly selected actual headlines from social media - half of the headlines contained accurate information obtained from mainstream news outlets and the other half contained fake news collected from Snopes; half of the headlines were preferred by the Democratic Party and the other half by the Republican Party
- After seeing a headline, participants had to decide if they want to share it or not – sharing a correct headline or not sharing a fake headline meant the participants could continue with the next headlines; incorrectly sharing fake news results in no more headlines shown
- Participants that end up not sharing any fake news at all were excluded from the corrective measures part of the study

You’re definitely wrong, maybe: Correction style has minimal effect on corrections of misinformation online Methodology

- Because hedged corrections were perceived as less aggressive, they were more effective than direct corrections in allowing participants to maintain a positive outlook despite the corrective message
- Very weak correlations between the strength (direct vs. hedged) and depth (simple vs. detailed) of corrective messages
- Overall, the type and tone of corrective messages do not have huge impacts on user experience and perception of misinformative posts
- Analytic thinking and actively open-minded thinking both increased the likelihood at which people accept accurate information or fake information that has corrections

You’re definitely wrong, maybe: Correction style has minimal effect on corrections of misinformation online Discussion

- H1: “hedged corrections will be perceived as less aggressive and more polite than direct corrections”
- H2: “detailed corrections will be perceived as more informative and less unhelpful than simple corrections”
- H3: “hedged, detailed corrections will elicit greater reply likelihood”
- H4: “hedged, detailed corrections will predict greater acceptance of information, whereas direct and simple corrections will predict increased resistance of information”
- H5: “more analytic or actively open-minded individuals will have greater reply likelihood and acceptance of information in response to more detailed correction”

Learn Before

Related