Misinformation often involves sensitive topics, and individuals may attempt to correct their peers using uncivil tones. We examined the effect of civil versus uncivil corrections on the perceived success of the correction and the reported relationship consequences. We used three-wave panel data consisting of 1513 participants in the first wave, and followed 686 individuals who participated in all three waves. Our results indicate that demographic variables were important predictors of the frequency and tone of correction. Furthermore, individuals reported an equal number of successful and unsuccessful correction experiences. Importantly, we found that more frequent civil correction was associated with a higher likelihood of success, and a successful correction experience was associated with positive relationship outcomes. In contrast, uncivil correction was associated with negative relationship consequences. In addition, individuals with higher appraisal literacy and those correcting close ties were more likely to report successful correction experiences.
AndersonAAYeoSKBrossardD, et al. (2018) Toxic talk: how online incivility can undermine perceptions of media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research30(1): 156–168.
5.
BodeLVragaEK (2015) In related news, that was wrong: the correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media: in related news. Journal of Communication65(4): 619–638.
6.
BodeLVragaEK (2018) See something, say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Communication33(9): 1131–1140.
CoenenL (2022) The indirect effect is omitted variable bias. A cautionary note on the theoretical interpretation of products-of-coefficients in mediation analyses. European Journal of Communication37(6): 585–703.
11.
CraigMVijaykumarS (2023) One dose is not enough: the beneficial effect of corrective COVID-19 information is diminished if followed by misinformation. Social Media + Society9(2): 20563051231161298.
12.
CroissantYMilloG (2008) Panel data econometrics in PLM package. Journal of Statistical Software27(2): 1–43.
13.
DahlbergL (2001) The internet and democratic discourse: exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society4(4): 615–633.
14.
DahlgrenP (2005) The internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22(2): 147–162.
15.
DariusP (2022) Who polarizes Twitter? Ideological polarization, partisan groups and strategic networked campaigning on Twitter during the 2017 and 2021 German Federal elections “Bundestagswahlen.”Social Network Analysis and Mining12(151): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-022-00958-w
16.
DostalJM (2021) Germany’s federal election of 2021: multi-crisis politics and the consolidation of the six-party system. The Political Quarterly92(4): 662–672.
17.
DuffyATandocELingR (2020) Too good to be true, too good not to share: the social utility of fake news. Information, Communication & Society23(13): 1965–1979.
18.
EckerUKHAngLC (2019) Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Political Psychology40(2): 241–260.
19.
EckerUKHLewandowskySFentonO, et al. (2014) Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition42(2): 292–304.
20.
EisenbergerNI (2012) The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience13(6): 421–434.
21.
FlynnDJNyhanBReiflerJ (2017) The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology38(S1): 127–150.
22.
GagrčinE (2022) Your social ties, your personal public sphere, your responsibility: how users construe a sense of personal responsibility for intervention against uncivil comments on Facebook. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 22 August. DOI: 10.1177/14614448221117499.
23.
GohDLingRHuangL, et al. (2019) News sharing as reciprocal exchanges in social cohesion maintenance. Information, Communication & Society22(8): 1128–1144.
24.
GoyanesMBorahPGil de ZúñigaH (2021) Social media filtering and democracy: effects of social media news use and uncivil political discussions on social media unfriending. Computers in Human Behavior120(3): 106759.
25.
GreeneCMMurphyG (2021) Quantifying the effects of fake news on behavior: evidence from a study of COVID-19 misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied27(4): 773–784.
26.
GunasekaraFIRichardsonKCarterK, et al. (2014) Fixed effects analysis of repeated measures data. International Journal of Epidemiology43(1): 264–269.
27.
HeissR (2020) Fighting health infodemics: the role of citizen empowerment. Eurohealth26(3): 23–25.
28.
HeissR (2021) The affective foundation of political opinion expression on social media: a panel analysis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research33(1): 57–75.
29.
HeissRNanzAMatthesJ (2023) Social media information literacy: conceptualization and associations with information overload, news avoidance, and conspiracy mentality. Computers in Human Behavior148: 107908.
30.
HernandezEAnduizaERicoG (2021) Affective polarization and the salience of elections. Electoral Studies69: 102203.
31.
Holt-LunstadJSmithTBBakerM, et al. (2015) Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science10(2): 227–237.
32.
HungerSHutterSKanolE (2023) The mobilisation potential of anti-containment protests in Germany. West European Politics46(4): 812–840.
33.
JenningsJStroudNJ (2021) Asymmetric adjustment: partisanship and correcting misinformation on Facebook. New Media & Society25: 1501–1521.
34.
Jones-JangSMMortensenTLiuJ (2021) Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist65(2): 371–388.
35.
KahanDM (2017) Misinformation and identity-protective cognition. Yale Law & Economics Research Paper587: 1–12.
36.
KahneJBowyerB (2017) Educating for democracy in a partisan age: confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal54(1): 3–34.
37.
KimYKimY (2019) Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: the mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion. Computers in Human Behavior99: 219–227.
38.
KuruOCampbellSWBayerJB, et al. (2022) Encountering and correcting misinformation on WhatsApp. In: WassermanHMadrid-MoralesD (eds) Disinformation in the Global South. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 88–107.
39.
McKaySTenoveC (2021) Disinformation as a threat to deliberative democracy. Political Research Quarterly74(3): 703–717.
40.
McLaughlinCVitakJ (2012) Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media & Society14(2): 299–315.
41.
MargolinDBHannakAWeberI (2018) Political fact-checking on Twitter: when do corrections have an effect?Political Communication35(2): 196–219.
42.
MarwickAEboydD (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
43.
MasulloGMKimJ (2021) Exploring “angry” and “like” reactions on uncivil Facebook comments that correct misinformation in the news. Digital Journalism9(8): 1103–1122.
44.
MillerCHLaneLTDeatrickLM, et al. (2007) Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: the effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research33: 219–240.
45.
MoslehMMartelCEcklesD, et al. (2021) Perverse downstream consequences of debunking: being corrected by another user for posting false political news increases subsequent sharing of low quality, partisan, and toxic content in a Twitter field experiment. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, 7May, pp. 1–13. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
46.
NanzAMatthesJ (2022) Seeing political information online incidentally. Effects of first- and second-level incidental exposure on democratic outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior133: 107285.
47.
NishiyamaK (2021) Democratic education in the fourth generation of deliberative democracy. Theory and Research in Education19(2): 109–126.
48.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2015) Displacing misinformation about events: an experimental test of causal corrections. Journal of Experimental Political Science2(1): 81–93.
49.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6(2): 259–283.
50.
PasquettoIVJahaniEAtrejaS, et al. (2022) Social debunking of misinformation on WhatsApp: the case for strong and in-group ties. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6: 1–35.
51.
PennycookGRandDG (2022) Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. Nature Communications13(1): 1–12.
52.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
53.
SettleJE (2018) Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
SharmaMYadavKYadavN, et al. (2017) Zika virus pandemic-analysis of Facebook as a social media health information platform. American Journal of Infection Control45(3): 301–302.
55.
SharonAJBaram-TsabariA (2020) Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?Science Education104(5): 873–894.
56.
SmythSM (2019) The Facebook conundrum: is it time to usher in a new era of regulation for big tech?International Journal of Cyber Criminology13(2): 578–595.
57.
SobierajSBerryJM (2011) From incivility to outrage: political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication28(1): 19–41.
58.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2017) Political discussion and deliberation online. In: KenskiKJamiesonKH (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 837–850.
59.
SunYLuF (2022) How misinformation and rebuttals in online comments affect people’s intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines: the roles of psychological reactance and misperceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly100: 145–171.
60.
TandocECLimDJrLingR (2020) Diffusion of disinformation: how social media users respond to fake news and why. Journalism21(3): 381–398.
61.
ThorsonE (2016) Belief echoes: the persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication33(3): 460–480.
62.
TianXSolomonDHBrisiniKSC (2020) How the comforting process fails: psychological reactance to support messages. Journal of Communication70(1): 13–24.
63.
TullyMBodeLVragaEK (2020) Mobilizing users: does exposure to misinformation and its correction affect users’ responses to a health misinformation post?Social Media + Society6(4): 2056305120978377.
64.
Van AelstPStrömbäckJAalbergT, et al. (2017) Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association41(1): 3–27.
65.
VragaEKBodeL (2017) Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication39(5): 621–645.
66.
VragaEKBodeL (2018) I do not believe you: how providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society21(10): 1337–1353.
67.
VragaEKBodeL (2020) Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Communication37(1): 136–144.
68.
WalterNTukachinskyR (2020) 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 Research47(2): 155–177.
69.
WalterNCohenJHolbertRL, et al. (2020) Fact-checking: a meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication37(3): 350–375.
70.
WaruwuBKTandocECDuffyA, et al. (2021) Telling lies together? Sharing news as a form of social authentication. New Media & Society23(9): 2516–2533.
71.
WongDFloridiL (2022) Meta’s oversight board: a review and critical assessment. Minds and Machines33: 261–284.
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.
