So What if They’re Lying to Us? Comparing Rhetorical Strategies for Discrediting Sources of Disinformation and Misinformation Using an Affect-Based Credibility Rating

Abstract

Despite growing research on false information, a theoretical framework to organize findings is lacking. We use affect control theory to fill this need and introduce the affect-based credibility rating for interpreting the effectiveness of rhetorical strategies in discrediting the source of falsehoods. The rating quantifies the difference in connotations between the labels used to characterize the source and an ideal, credible source. Successful discrediting amplifies the difference. We use the rating to compare rhetorical strategies for discrediting opponents as sources during rival information campaigns about the Equal Rights Amendment. We show claiming the opponent is spreading disinformation rather than misinformation (stating the opponent is spreading falsehoods deliberately, rather than unwittingly) appears more effective at discrediting, particularly when disinformation claims allege more sinister motives for lying. The new rating helps organize findings by enabling direct comparisons between strategies, thereby contributing toward efforts to detect and discredit falsehoods in media.