A number of solutions have been proposed to address concerns about misinformation online, including encouraging experts to engage in corrections of misinformation being shared and improving media literacy among the American public. This study combines these approaches to examine whether news literacy (NL) messages on social media enhance the effectiveness of expert correction of misinformation on Twitter. Two experiments suggest that expert organizations can successfully correct misinformation on social media across two controversial issues with a single tweet. However, three different NL messages did not improve the effectiveness of expert corrections. We discuss the difficulties of crafting NL messages that break through the clutter on social media and suggest guidelines for organizations attempting to address misinformation online.
AdornatoA. (2017). Mobile and social media journalism: A practical guide. SAGE.
2.
AmazeenM. A.ThorsonE.MuddimanA.GravesL. (2018). Correcting political and consumer misperceptions: The effectiveness and effects of rating scale versus contextual correction formats. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 28–58. https://doi.org/10.11772F1077699016678186
3.
AshleyS.MakslA.CraftS. (2017). News media literacy and political engagement: What’s the connection?Journal of Media Literacy Education, 9, 79–98. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2017-9-1-6
4.
BodeL.VragaE. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65, 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166
5.
BulgerM.DavisonP. (2018). The promises, challenges, and futures of media literacy. Data & Society Research Institute. https://datasociety.net/
6.
Cavazos-RehgP.KraussM.GruczaR.BierutL. (2014). Characterizing the followers and tweets of a marijuana-focused Twitter handle. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(6), Article e157. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3247
7.
ClaytonK.BlairS.BusamJ. A.ForstnerS.GlanceJ.GreenG.. . .NyhanB. (2019). 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 Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0
8.
CliffordS.JeritJ. (2014). Is there a cost to convenience? An experimental comparison of data quality in laboratory and online studies. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.5
9.
CookG. (2001). The discourse of advertising (2nd ed.). Routledge.
10.
CookJ.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
11.
CraftS.AshleyS.MakslA. (2016). Elements of news literacy: A focus group study of how teenagers define news and why they consume it. Electronic News, 10, 143–160. https://doi.org/10.11772F1931243116656716
12.
CraftS.AshleyS.MakslA. (2017). News media literacy and conspiracy theory endorsement. Communication and the Public, 7, 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317725539
13.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763
14.
Del VicarioM.BessiA.ZolloF.PetroniF.ScalaA.CaldarelliG.. . . QuattrociocchiW. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson.
17.
FieldA. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition. SAGE.
18.
GarrettR. K.NisbetE. C.LynchE. K. (2013). Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking? The role of contextual cues and naïve theory. Journal of Communication, 63, 617–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12038
19.
GarrettR. K.WeeksB. E. (2013). The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1047–1058). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441895
20.
GuessA.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign (working paper). http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf
21.
GuilloryJ. J.GeraciL. (2013). Correcting erroneous inferences in memory: The role of source credibility. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.10.001
22.
HameleersM.van der MeerT. G. L. A. (2019). Misinformation and polarization in a high-choice media environment: How effective are political fact-checkers?Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218819671
23.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
KahneJ.BowyerB. (2017). Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216679817
26.
KingA. J.BolN.CumminsR. G.JohnK. K. (2019). Improving visual behavior research in communication science: An overview, review, and reporting recommendations for using eye-tracking methods. Communication Methods and Measures, 13, 149–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1558194
27.
KlurfeldJ.SchneiderH. (2014). News literacy: Teaching the internet generation to make reliable information choices. The Brookings Institution.
28.
LevayK. E.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433
29.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.CookJ. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
30.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
31.
MachinD.van LeeuwenT. (2005). Language style and lifestyle: The case of a global magazine. Media, Culture & Society, 27, 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443705054151
32.
MargolinD. B.HannakA.WeberI. (2018). Political fact-checking on Twitter: When do corrections have an effect?Political Communication, 35, 196–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334018
33.
MarwickA. E.LewisR. (2017). Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data & Society Research Institute. https://datasociety.net/
34.
MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41, 1042–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
35.
MihailidisP. (2014). Media literacy and the emerging citizen. Peter Lang.
36.
MihailidisP.ViottyS. (2017). Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: Civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in “post-fact” society. American Behavioral Scientist, 61, 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217701217
37.
MindichD. T. Z. (2005). Tuned out: Why Americans under 40 don’t follow the news. Oxford University Press.
38.
NeckaE. A.CacioppoS.NormanG. J.CacioppoJ. T. (2016). Measuring the prevalence of problematic respondent behaviors among MTurk, campus, and community participants. PLOS ONE, 11(6), Article e0157732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157732
39.
NyhanB.PorterE.ReiflerJ.WoodT. J. (2019). Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x
40.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
41.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33, 459–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017
O’KeefeD. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x
44.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2017). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news stories increases perceived accuracy of stories without warnings. Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3035384
PotterW. J. (2004). Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach. SAGE.
47.
PotterW. J. (2019). Media literacy (9th ed.). SAGE.
48.
RedlawskD. P.CivettiniA. J. W.EmmersonK. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”?Political Psychology, 31, 563–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x
49.
ReedyJ.WellsC.GastilJ. (2014). How voters become misinformed: An investigation of the emergence and consequences of false factual beliefs. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 1399–1418. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12102
ShinJ.ThorsonK. (2017). Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication, 67, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12284
TullyM.VragaE. K. (2017). Effectiveness of a news media literacy advertisement in partisan versus nonpartisan online media contexts. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61, 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273923
57.
TullyM.VragaE. K.SmithsonA. B. (2018). News media literacy, perceptions of bias, and interpretation of news. Journalism. Advance online publication.
58.
TullyM.VragaE. K.BodeL. (2019). Designing and testing news literacy messages for social media. Mass Communication and Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2019.1604970
59.
van der LindenS. L.LeiserowitzA. A.FeinbergG. D.MaibachE. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLOS ONE, 10, Article e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
60.
van der LindenS. L.LeiserowitzA. A.RosenthalS.MaibachE. W. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
61.
VragaE. K.BodeL. (2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39, 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776
62.
VragaE. K.BodeL. (2018). I do not believe you: How providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 21, 1337–1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883
63.
VragaE. K.BodeL.SmithsonA. B.Troller-RenfreeS. (2016). Blurred lines: Defining social, news, and political posts on Facebook. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(3), 272-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2016.1160265
64.
VragaE. K.TullyM. (2015). Media literacy messages and hostile media perceptions: Processing of nonpartisan versus partisan political information. Mass Communication and Society, 18, 422–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.1001910
65.
VragaE. K.TullyM. (2016). Effective messaging to communicate news media literacy concepts to diverse publics. Communication and the Public, 1, 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047316670409
66.
VragaE. K.TullyM.AkinH.RojasH. (2012). Modifying perceptions of hostility and credibility of news coverage of an environmental controversy through media literacy. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 13, 942–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884912455906
67.
WalterN.MurphyS. T. (2018). How to unring the bell: A metanalytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85, 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564
68.
WalterN.TukachinskyR. (2019). A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: How powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it?Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219854600
WoodT.PorterE. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41, 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y
72.
YoungD. G.JamiesonK. H.PoulsenS.GoldringA. (2018). Fact-checking effectiveness as a function of format and tone: Evaluating FactCheck.org and FlackCheck.org. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017710453
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
