Source-credibility information and social norms improve truth discernment and reduce engagement with misinformation online

Abstract

Misinformation on social media is a pervasive challenge. In this study (N = 415) a social-media simulation was used to test two potential interventions for countering misinformation: a credibility badge and a social norm. The credibility badge was implemented by associating accounts, including participants’, with a credibility score. Participants’ credibility score was dynamically updated depending on their engagement with true and false posts. To implement the social-norm intervention, participants were provided with both a descriptive norm (i.e., most people do not share misinformation) and an injunctive norm (i.e., sharing misinformation is the wrong thing to do). Both interventions were effective. The social-norm intervention led to reduced belief in false claims and improved discrimination between true and false claims. It also had some positive impact on social-media engagement, although some effects were not robust to alternative analysis specifications. The presence of credibility badges led to greater belief in true claims, lower belief in false claims, and improved discrimination. The credibility-badge intervention also had robust positive impacts on social-media engagement, leading to increased flagging and decreased liking and sharing of false posts. Cumulatively, the results suggest that both interventions have potential to combat misinformation and improve the social-media information landscape.

Source Credibility Labels and Other Nudging Interventions in the Context of Online Health Misinformation: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Another experiment, this time with "credibility badges"-which indicated the credibility score of each source-showed that the participants' capacity to discriminate between accurate and false information was significantly improved by the presence of such badges, leading to a decrease in their acceptance of the latter and an increase in their belief in the former (Prike et al 2024).…”

Nudge-based misinformation interventions are effective in information environments with low misinformation prevalence

“…Many of these interventions are based on nudge theory, which posits that small changes in choice architecture in the information environment can meaningfully impact decision-making processes 12 . In the realm of misinformation, nudge-based interventions typically attempt to reduce misinformation sharing that may occur due to inattentiveness to information veracity 13 by priming people to consider (1) the accuracy of encountered information (i.e., accuracy nudges 14,15 ) or (2) the attitudes or behaviors of others as they pertain to misinformation sharing (i.e., social-norm nudges 16,17 ). Nudge-based misinformation interventions are proposed to be effective because they draw people's attention to the importance of veracity, subsequently increasing the www.nature.com/scientificreports/ weight placed on veracity as a criterion during decision-making processes (in line with the limited-attention utility model 13 ).…”

“…In experimental settings, nudge-based misinformation interventions have generally shown to have a beneficial, though small, impact on engagement behavior through either directly reducing intent to share false information or improving "sharing discernment" (i.e., increasing the proportion of true relative to false information participants report they would share 10,[15][16][17][18] ). However, despite these positive findings, studies assessing the effectiveness of nudge-based misinformation interventions do not always appropriately consider the structure of the social-media information environment.…”

“…The nudge comprised a combined accuracy and social-norm prompt. The prompt was conceptually modelled off prior research [15][16][17] ; however, the exact content of the accuracy prompt slightly differed from that used in most accuracy-prompt research in that the accuracy prompt was made explicit. This alteration was made to maximize statistical power for observing a differential effect of the misinformation-proportion conditions, given effect sizes observed in accuracy-prompt research are typically small to very small 15,34 .…”