When is Disinformation (In)Credible? Experimental Findings on Message Characteristics and Individual Differences

Schaewitz, Leonie; Kluck, Jan P.; Klösters, Lukas; Krämer, Nicole C.

doi:10.1080/15205436.2020.1716983

Cited by 52 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Luo et al ( 2020 ) showed that reliability of the source (indexed by a high number of Facebook likes) increased the detection of real news but decreased the detection of fake news. In contrast, Schaewitz et al ( 2020 ) found no effect of source credibility (i.e., fictitious news sources that were rated on credibility) on fake news accuracy. Furthermore, Pennycook and Rand ( 2020 ) reported a negative association between analytical reasoning and susceptibility to fake news, regardless of whether a news source was present or absent, suggesting no moderating effect of source credibility on the relationship between analytical reasoning and fake news detection (also see Dias et al, 2020 for similar results).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…These additional features of full-length news articles as opposed to news headlines only inform the news evaluation process. To our knowledge only Schaewitz et al ( 2020 ) employed full articles and found that people with high compared to those with low need for cognition were less susceptible to misinformation via fake news. Their design, however, did not involve a systematic manipulation of news veracity as they only used fake news stories.…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This finding suggests that the source of a news item may be an important piece of information when evaluating the credibility of an article. Indeed, Luo et al ( 2020 ) showed that perceived credibility of news headlines was greater when paired with more credible news sources (but see Schaewitz et al, 2020 for no effect of news source on perceived credibility of fake news).…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The role of analytical reasoning and source credibility on the evaluation of real and fake full-length news articles

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Previous research has focused on accuracy associated with real and fake news presented in the form of news headlines only, which does not capture the rich context news is frequently encountered in real life. Additionally, while previous studies on evaluation of real and fake news have mostly focused on characteristics of the evaluator (i.e., analytical reasoning), characteristics of the news stimuli (i.e., news source credibility) and the interplay between the two have been largely ignored. To address these research gaps, this project examined the role of analytical reasoning and news source credibility on evaluation of real and fake full-length news story articles. The project considered both accuracy and perceived credibility ratings as outcome variables, thus qualifying previous work focused solely on news detection accuracy. Method We conducted two independent but parallel studies, with Study 2 as a direct replication of Study 1, employing the same design but in a larger sample (Study 1: N = 292 vs. Study 2: N = 357). In both studies, participants viewed 12 full-length news articles (6 real, 6 fake), followed by prompts to evaluate each article’s veracity and credibility. Participants were randomly assigned to view articles with a credible or non-credible source and completed the Cognitive Reflection Test as well as short demographic questions. Findings Consistent across both studies, higher analytical reasoning was associated with greater fake news accuracy, while analytical reasoning was not associated with real news accuracy. In addition, in both studies, higher analytical reasoning was associated with lower perceived credibility for fake news, while analytical reasoning was not associated with perceived credibility for real news. Furthermore, lower analytical reasoning was associated with greater accuracy for real (but not fake) news from credible compared to non-credible sources, with this effect only detected in Study 2. Conclusions The novel results generated in this research are discussed in light of classical vs. naturalistic accounts of decision-making as well as cognitive processes underlying news articles evaluation. The results extend previous findings that analytical reasoning contributes to fake news detection to full-length news articles. Furthermore, news-related cues such as the credibility of the news source systematically affected discrimination ability between real and fake news.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of analytical reasoning and source credibility on the evaluation of real and fake full-length news articles

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These additional features of full-length news articles as opposed to news headlines only inform the news evaluation process. To our knowledge only Schaewitz, Kluck, Klösters, and Krämer (2020) employed full articles and found that people with high compared to those with low need for cognition were less susceptible to misinformation via fake news. Their design, however, did not involve a systematic manipulation of news veracity as they only used fake news stories.…”

Section: Impact Of Analytical Reasoning On Real and Fake News Evaluatmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Role of Analytical Reasoning and Source Credibility on the Evaluation of Real and Fake Full-Length News Articles

Pehlivanoglu¹,

Lin²,

Deceus³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Previous research has focused on accuracy associated with real and fake news presented in the form of news headlines only which does not capture the rich context news is frequently encountered in real life. Additionally, while the impact of analytical reasoning on news evaluation accuracy has commonly been examined, the impact of news source credibility on real and fake news detection is understudied. To address these research gaps, this project examined the role of analytical reasoning and news source credibility on evaluation of real and fake full-length news story articles. The project considered both accuracy and perceived credibility ratings as outcome variables, thus qualifying previous work focused solely on news detection accuracy. Method: We conducted two independent but parallel studies, with Study 2 as a direct replication of Study 1, employing the same design but in a larger sample (Study 1: N = 292 vs. Study 2: N = 357). In both studies, participants viewed 12 full-length news articles (6 real, 6 fake), followed by prompts to evaluate each article’s veracity and credibility. Participants were randomly assigned to view articles with a credible or non-credible source and completed the Cognitive Reflection Test as well as short demographic questions.Findings: Consistent in both studies, higher analytical reasoning was associated with greater fake news accuracy, while analytical reasoning was not associated with real news accuracy. In addition, in both studies, higher analytical reasoning was associated with lower perceived credibility for fake news, while analytical reasoning was not associated with perceived credibility for real news. Furthermore, lower analytical reasoning was associated with greater accuracy for real (but not fake) news from credible compared to non-credible sources, with this effect only detected in Study 2. Conclusions: The novel findings generated in this research are discussed in light of classical vs. naturalistic accounts of decision-making as well as cognitive processes underlying news articles evaluation. The results extend previous findings that analytical reasoning contributes to fake news detection to full-length news articles. Furthermore, news-related cues such as the credibility of the source systematically affected discrimination ability between real and fake news.

show abstract

“…Misinformation refers to inadvertently spreading inaccurate or misleading information, e.g. owing to journalistic mistakes (Schaewitz et al, 2020). More generally, misinformation may refer to any piece of information that is 'initially processed as valid but that is subsequently retracted or corrected' (Lewandowsky et al, 2012).…”

Section: 'False Information': Misinformation Disinformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical assistance in the field of risk communication

Maxim¹,

Mazzocchi²,

Broucke³

et al. 2021

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report assesses peer-reviewed and grey literature on risk communication concepts and practices, as requested by the European Commission to support the implementation of a 'General Plan for Risk Communication', i.e. an integrated framework for EU food safety risk assessors and risk managers at Union and national level, as required by the revised EU General Food Law Regulation. We conducted a scoping review of social research studies and official reports in relation to risk communication in the following areas: understanding and awareness of risk analysis roles and tasks, reducing misunderstanding of the different meaning of the terms 'hazard' and 'risk', tackling misinformation and disinformation, enhancing confidence in EU food safety, taking account of risk perceptions, key factors in trade-offs about risks, audience segmentation and tools, channels and mechanisms for coordinated risk communications. We structured our findings as follows: i) definitions of key concepts, ii) audience analysis and information requirements, iii) risk profiling, models and mechanisms, iv) contributions to communication strategies. We make several recommendations for consideration by the Commission, both in terms of actions to support the design and implementation of the general plan, and research needs that we consider crucial to further inform appropriate risk communication in the EU. EFSA carried out a targeted consultation of experts and a public consultation open to all interested parties including the general public, in preparing and finalising this report.

show abstract

When is Disinformation (In)Credible? Experimental Findings on Message Characteristics and Individual Differences

Cited by 52 publications

References 41 publications

The role of analytical reasoning and source credibility on the evaluation of real and fake full-length news articles

The role of analytical reasoning and source credibility on the evaluation of real and fake full-length news articles

The Role of Analytical Reasoning and Source Credibility on the Evaluation of Real and Fake Full-Length News Articles

Technical assistance in the field of risk communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About