While research on flagging misinformation and disinformation has received much attention, we know very little about how the flagging of propaganda sources could affect news sharing on social media. Using a quasi-experimental design, we test the effect of source flagging on people’s actual sharing behaviors. By analyzing tweets (N = 49,126) posted by 30 China's media accounts before and after Twitter's practice of labeling state-affiliated media, we reveal the corrective role that flagging plays in preventing people's sharing of information from propaganda sources. The findings suggest that the corrective effect occurs immediately after these accounts are labeled as state-affiliated media and it leads to a long-term reduction in news sharing, particularly for political content. The results contribute to the understanding of how flagging efforts affect user engagement in real-world conversations and highlight that the effect of corrective measures takes place in a dynamic process.
AmazeenMichelle A.ThorsonEmilyMuddimanAshleyGravesLucas. 2018. “Correcting Political and Consumer Misperceptions: The Effectiveness and Effects of Rating Scale Versus Contextual Correction Formats.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(1):28–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016678186.
BauerPaul Corneliusvon HohenbergClemm Bernhard. 2021. “Believing and Sharing Information by Fake Sources: An Experiment.” Political Communication38 (6): 647–71. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/mrxvc.
4.
BimberBrucede ZúñigaHomero Gil. 2020. “The Unedited Public Sphere.” New Media & Society22(4):700–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819893980.
5.
BodeLeticiaVragaEmily K.. 2015. “In Related News, That Was Wrong: The Correction of Misinformation Through Related Stories Functionality in Social Media.” Journal of Communication65(4):619–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166.
6.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.FreemanJohn R.HittMatthew P.PevehouseJon C.W.. 2014. Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CampbellDonald TLaurence RossH.. 1968. “The Connecticut Crackdown on Speeding: Time-Series Data in Quasi-Experimental Analysis.” Law & Society Review3(1):33–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/3052794.
8.
ChaikenShelly. 1980. “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39(5):752–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752.
9.
ChungMyojungKimNuri. 2020. “When I Learn the News Is False: How Fact-Checking Information Stems the Spread of Fake News via Third-Person Perception.” Human Communication Research 47(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa010
10.
HameleersMichaelvan der MeerToni G.L.A.. 2020. “Misinformation and Polarization in a High-Choice Media Environment: How Effective Are Political Fact-Checkers?” Communication Research47(2):227–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218819671.
11.
HuangZhao AlexandreWangRui. 2020. “‘Panda Engagement’ in China’s Digital Public Diplomacy.” Asian Journal of Communication30(2):118–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2020.1725075.
KraftPatrick WKrupnikovYannaMilitaKerriRyanJohn BarrySorokaStuart. 2020. “Social Media and the Changing Information Environment: Sentiment Differences in Read Versus Recirculated News Content.” Public Opinion Quarterly 84(S1):195-215. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa015.
14.
LasswellHarold D.1938. Propaganda Technique in the World War. New York, NY: Peter Smith.
15.
LewandowskyStephanEckerUllrich K.H.SeifertColleen M.SchwarzNorbertCookJohn. 2012. “Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(3):106–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018.
16.
LiangFan. 2019. “The New Silk Road on Facebook: How China’s Official Media Cover and Frame a National Initiative for Global Audiences.” Communication & the Public4(4):261–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047319894654.
17.
MargolinDrew B.HannakAnikoWeberIngmar. 2018. “Political Fact-Checking on Twitter: When Do Corrections Have an Effect?” Political Communication35(2):196–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334018.
18.
MenaPaul. 2019. “Cleaning up Social Media: The Effect of Warning Labels on Likelihood of Sharing False News on Facebook.” Policy & Internet12(2):165–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.214.
19.
NassettaJackGrossKimberly. 2020. “State Media Warning Labels Can Counteract the Effects of Foreign Disinformation.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review1:1–11. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-45.
20.
NyhanBrendanPorterEthanReiflerJasonWoodThomas J.. 2020. “Taking Fact-Checks Literally but Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability.” Political Behavior42(3):939–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x.
21.
NyhanBrendanReiflerJason. 2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior32(2):303–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2.
22.
RamsayCraig R.MatoweLloydGrilliRobertoGrimshawJeremy M.ThomasRuth E.. 2003. “Interrupted Time Series Designs in Health Technology Assessment: Lessons from Two Systematic Reviews of Behavior Change Strategies.” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care19(4):613–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462303000576.
23.
SharmaMeghaYadavKapilYadavNitikaFerdinandKeith C. 2017. “Zika Virus Pandemic—Analysis of Facebook as a Social Media Health Information Platform.” American Journal of Infection Control45(3):301-02. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.08.022.
24.
ShinYouseop. 2017. Time Series Analysis in the Social Sciences: The Fundamentals. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
25.
SundarS. Shyam. 2008. “The MAIN Model: A Heuristic Approach to Understanding Technology Effects on Credibility.” In Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, ed. MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J., 73–100. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.073.
26.
TrillingDamianTolochkoPetroBurscherBjörn. 2017. “From Newsworthiness to Shareworthiness: How to Predict News Sharing Based on Article Characteristics.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94(1):38–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016654682.
WalterNathanCohenJonathanLance HolbertR.MoragYasmin. 2020. “Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom.” Political Communication37(3):350–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894.
29.
WoolleySamuel C.HowardPhilip N., eds. 2018. Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
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.
