There have been many attempts to use prebunking strategies to address the problem of misinformation. While extant research supports their efficacy, it also finds that they could make people suspicious even of true information. This study employs survey experiments in Taiwan to assess the effect of warning messages, with or without mentioning punishments one might incur if spreading misinformation, on people’s beliefs in false and true news, and their subsequent intention to share the information with others. The findings suggest that warning messages mentioning monetary punishments are the most effective in affecting people’s beliefs and intentions to behave.
AltJEMarshallJLassenD (2016) Credible sources and sophisticated voters: when does new information induce economic voting?The Journal of Politics78(2): 327–342.
2.
ApukeODOmarB (2021) Fake news and COVID-19: modelling the predictors of fake news sharing among social media users. Telematics and Informatics56: 101475.
3.
BerinskyAJHuberGALenzGS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20(3): 351–368.
4.
BlairRAGottliebJNyhanB, et al. (2024) Interventions to counter misinformation: lessons from the Global North and applications to the Global South. Current Opinion in Psychology55: 101732.
5.
BrodaEStrömbäckJ (2024) Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news: lessons from an Interdisciplinary, Systematic Literature Review. Annals of the International Communication Association48: 139–166.
6.
ChandlerJRosenzweigCMossAJ, et al. (2019) Online panels in social science research: expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods51: 2022–2038.
7.
ClaytonKBlairSBusamJA, et al. (2020) Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behavior42: 1073–1095.
8.
CoppockAMcClellanOA (2019) Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics6(1): 2053168018822174.
9.
EckerUKHLewandowskySCookJ, et al. (2022) The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology1: 13–29.
10.
GoldsteinJAChaoJGrossmanS, et al. (2024) How persuasive is AI-generated propaganda?PNAS Nexus3(2): 034.
11.
GuayBBerinskyAJPennycookG, et al. (2023) How to think about whether misinformation interventions work. Nature Human Behaviour7: 1231–1233.
12.
KangMSheenGCH (2024) The making of the boy who cried wolf: fake news and media skepticism. Political Science Research and Methods. Epub ahead of print 7March. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2024.7.
13.
KuklinskiJHQuirkPJJeritJ, et al. (2000) Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics62(3): 790–816.
14.
LeeE-JJangJW (2023) How political identity and misinformation priming affect truth judgments and sharing intention of Partisan news. Digital Journalism11(1): 226–245.
15.
LimC (2018) Checking how fact-checkers check. Research & Politics5(3): 2053168018786848.
16.
MaWWKChanA (2014) Knowledge sharing and social media: altruism, perceived online attachment motivation, and perceived online relationship commitment. Computers in Human Behavior39: 51–58.
17.
MafteiAHolmanA-CMerliciI-A (2022) Using fake news as means of cyber-bullying: the link with compulsive internet use and online moral disengagement. Computers in Human Behavior127: 107032.
18.
MartelCRandDG (2023) Misinformation warning labels are widely effective: a review of warning effects and their moderating features. Current Opinion in Psychology54: 101710.
19.
McDevittMChaffeeS (2000) Closing gaps in political communication and knowledge: effects of a school intervention. Communication Research27(3): 259–292.
20.
NorrisP (2023) In Praise of Skepticism: Trust but Verify. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
PennycookGRandDG (2021) The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences25(5): 388–402.
22.
PlumeCJSladeEL (2018) Sharing of sponsored advertisements on social media: a uses and gratifications perspective. Information Systems Frontiers20: 471–483.
23.
PriceVZallerJ (1993) Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. The Public Opinion Quarterly57(2): 133–164.
24.
RasmussenSHR (2016) Education or personality traits and intelligence as determinants of political knowledge?Political Studies64(4): 1036–1054.
25.
RiniR (2021) Weaponized skepticism: an analysis of social media deception as applied political epistemology. In: EdenbergEHannonM (eds) Political Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.31–48.
26.
RobertsonCTMourãoRRThorsonE (2020) Who uses fact-checking sites? The impact of demographics, political antecedents, and media use on fact-checking site awareness, attitudes, and behavior. The International Journal of Press/Politics25(2): 217–237.
RoozenbeekJVan der LindenSGoldbergB, et al. (2022) Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances8(34): eabo6254.
29.
RossRMRandDGPennycookG (2021) Beyond “fake news”: analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news headlines. Judgment and Decision Making16(2): 484–504.
30.
SheenGCHTungHHWuW-C (2024) Tell me the truth? Dictatorship and the commitment to media freedom. Journal of Theoretical Politics36(1): 37–63.
31.
TayLQHurlstoneMJKurzT, et al. (2022) A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation. British Journal of Psychology113: 591–607.
32.
ThorsonE (2016) Belief echoes: the persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication33(3): 460–480.
33.
Van DuynECollierJ (2019) Priming and fake news: the effects of elite discourse on evaluations of news media. Mass Communication and Society22(1): 29–48.
