Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines the impact of source congeniality and its interaction with partisanship on the effectiveness of debunking false information on Twitter in the United States. Conducted in February 2022, a survey experiment revealed that most respondents paid little attention to correction source information. Politically congenial sources failed to enhance the effectiveness of corrective tags, whereas politically uncongenial sources and Twitter as the correction source weakened debunking’s persuasiveness, especially among Democrats. Republicans consistently exhibited higher misperception levels, unaffected by the correction source. The study highlights the persistent influence of belief-consistent false information and inattention as challenges in using corrective tags to counter false information on social media. The results underscore the need for more compelling corrections and increased public trust in debunking efforts in the United States.

Keywords

debunking source congeniality partisanship social media

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amazeen

M. A.

Krishna

2023. “Processing Vaccine Misinformation: Recall and Effects of Source Type on Claim Accuracy via Perceived Motivations and Credibility.” International Journal of Communication 17:560–82.

Anspach

N. M.

Carlson

T. N.

2020. “What to Believe? Social Media Commentary and Belief in Misinformation.” Political Behavior 42(3):697–718. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9515-z.

Arnold

J. R.

Reckendorf

Wintersieck

A. L.

2021. “Source Alerts Can Reduce the Harms of Foreign Disinformation.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. Published online May 10. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-68.

Barrett

2019. Tackling Domestic Disinformation: What the Social Media Companies Need to Do. New York, NY: Center for Business and Human Rights, NYU Stern.

Benegal

S. D.

Scruggs

L. A.

2018. “Correcting Misinformation about Climate Change: The Impact of Partisanship in an Experimental Setting.” Climatic Change 148(1):61–80. doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2192-4.

Benkler

Faris

Roberts

2018. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bennett

W. L.

Livingston

2018. “The Disinformation Order: Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions.” European Journal of Communication. Published online April 2. doi:10.1177/0267323118760317.

Berinsky

A. J.

2017. “Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation.” British Journal of Political Science 47(2):241–62. doi:10.1017/S0007123415000186.

Boczkowski

P. J.

Mitchelstein

Matassi

2018. “‘News Comes across When I’m in a Moment of Leisure’: Understanding the Practices of Incidental News Consumption on Social Media.” New Media & Society 20(10):3523–39. doi:10.1177/1461444817750396.

10.

Bode

Vraga

E. K.

2015. “In Related News, That Was Wrong: The Correction of Misinformation Through Related Stories Functionality in Social Media.” Journal of Communication 65(4):619–38. doi:10.1111/jcom.12166.

11.

Bode

Vraga

E. K.

2018. “See Something, Say Something: Correction of Global Health Misinformation on Social Media.” Health Communication 33(9):1131–40. doi:10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312.

12.

Brandtzaeg

P. B.

Følstad

Ángeles Chaparro Domínguez

2018. “How Journalists and Social Media Users Perceive Online Fact-Checking and Verification Services.” Journalism Practice 12(9): 1109–29. doi:10.1080/17512786.2017.1363657.

13.

Calvert

R. L.

1985. “The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice.” The Journal of Politics 47(2):530–55. doi:10.2307/2130895.

14.

Clayton

Blair

Busam

J. A.

Forstner

Glance

Green

Kawata

Kovvuri

Martin

Morgan

Sandhu

Sang

Scholz-Bright

Welch

A. T.

Wolff

A. G.

Zhou

Nyhan

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 Behavior 42(4):1073–95. doi: 10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0.

15.

Coppock

McClellan

O. A.

2019. “Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics 6(1):205316801882217. doi:10.1177/2053168018822174.

16.

Ecker

U. K. H.

Antonio

L. M.

2021. “Can You Believe It? An Investigation into the Impact of Retraction Source Credibility on the Continued Influence Effect.” Memory & Cognition 49(4):631–44. doi:10.3758/s13421-020-01129-y.

17.

Ecker

U. K. H.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Schmid

Fazio

L. K.

Brashier

Kendeou

Vraga

E. K.

Amazeen

M. A.

2022. “The Psychological Drivers of Misinformation Belief and Its Resistance to Correction.” Nature Reviews Psychology 1(1):13–29. doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y.

18.

Farnsworth

Lichter

2019. “Partisan Targets of Media Fact-Checking: Examining President Obama and the 113th Congress.” Virginia Social Science Journal 53:51–62.

19.

Garrett

R. K.

Bond

R. M.

2021. “Conservatives’ Susceptibility to Political Misperceptions.” Science Advances 7(23):eabf1234. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf1234.

20.

Gillespie

2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

21.

Graves

2016. Deciding What’s True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

22.

Greene

1999. “Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach.” Political Psychology 20(2):393–403.

23.

Grinberg

Joseph

Friedland

Swire-Thompson

Lazer

2019. “Fake News on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.” Science 363(6425):374–78. doi:10.1126/science.aau2706.

24.

Guillory

J. J.

Geraci

2013. “Correcting Erroneous Inferences in Memory: The Role of Source Credibility.” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2(4):201–9. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.10.001.

25.

Harvey

2019. “Help Us Shape Our Approach to Synthetic and Manipulated Media.” Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/synthetic_manipulated_media_policy_feedback.html

26.

Jennings

Stroud

N. J.

2021. “Asymmetric Adjustment: Partisanship and Correcting Misinformation on Facebook.” New Media & Society 25(7):1501–21. doi:10.1177/14614448211021720.

27.

Jeppesen

Hoechsmann

iowyth hezel ulthiin VanDyke

McKee

2022. The Capitol Riots: Digital Media, Disinformation, and Democracy Under Attack. London, UK: Routledge.

28.

Jurkowitz

Mitchell

2020. “Republicans and Democrats Distrust Social Media Sites for Political and Election News.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/29/an-oasis-of-bipartisanship-republicans-and-democrats-distrust-social-media-sites-for-political-and-election-news/

29.

Kahan

D. M.

Jenkins-Smith

Braman

2011. “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.” Journal of Risk Research 14(2):147–74. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.

30.

Kraft

P. W.

Davis

N. R.

Davis

Heideman

Neumeyer

J. T.

Young Park

2022. “Reliable Sources? Correcting Misinformation in Polarized Media Environments.” American Politics Research 50(1):17–29. doi:10.1177/1532673X211041570.

31.

Kreiss

2018. “The Media Are about Identity, Not Information.” In Trump and the Media, eds. Boczkowski

P. J.

Papacharissi

, 93–9. CA, USA: MIT Press.

32.

Kuklinski

J. H.

Quirk

P. J.

Jerit

Schwieder

Rich

R. F.

2000. “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.” The Journal of Politics 62(3):790–816.

33.

Lazer

D. M. J.

Baum

M. A.

Benkler

Berinsky

A. J.

Greenhill

K. M.

Menczer

Metzger

M. J.

Nyhan

Pennycook

Rothschild

Schudson

Sloman

S. A.

Sunstein

C. R.

Thorson

E. A.

Watts

D. J.

Zittrain

J. L.

2018. “The Science of Fake News.” Science 359(6380):1094–96. doi:10.1126/science.aao2998.

34.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Ecker

Albarracín

Amazeen

M. A.

Kendeou

Lombardi

Newman

E. J.

Pennycook

Porter

Rand

D. G.

Rapp

D. N.

Reifler

Roozenbeek

Schmid

Seifert

C. M.

Sinatra

G. M.

Swire-Thompson

van der Linden

Vraga

E. K.

Wood

T. J.

Zaragoza

M. S.

2020. The Debunking Handbook 2020. doi:10.17910/b7.1182

35.

Mena

Barbe

Chan-Olmsted

2020. “Misinformation on Instagram: The Impact of Trusted Endorsements on Message Credibility.” Social Media + Society 6(2): 2056305120935102. doi:10.1177/2056305120935102.

36.

Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

2015. “Psychological Approaches to Credibility Assessment Online.” In The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, ed. Sundar

S. S.

, 445–66. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

37.

Montgomery

J. M.

Nyhan

Torres

2018. “How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It.” American Journal of Political Science 62(3):760–75.

38.

Moon

W.-K.

Chung

Jones-Jang

S. Mo.

2022. “How Can We Fight Partisan Biases in the COVID-19 Pandemic? AI Source Labels on Fact-Checking Messages Reduce Motivated Reasoning.” Mass Communication and Society 0(0):1–25. doi:10.1080/15205436.2022.2097926.

39.

Nassetta

Gross

2020. “State Media Warning Labels Can Counteract the Effects of Foreign Disinformation.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. Published online October 30. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-45.

40.

Nyhan

2021. “Why the Backfire Effect Does Not Explain the Durability of Political Misperceptions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(15). doi:10.1073/pnas.1912440117.

41.

Nyhan

Porter

Reifler

Wood

T. J.

2020. “Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability.” Political Behavior 42(3):939–60. doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x.

42.

Nyhan

Reifler

2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior 32(2):303–30. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2.

43.

Ognyanova

Lazer

Robertson

R. E.

Wilson

2020. “Misinformation in Action: Fake News Exposure Is Linked to Lower Trust in Media, Higher Trust in Government When Your Side Is in Power.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. Published online June. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-024.

44.

Pennycook

Rand

D. G.

2019a. “Fighting Misinformation on Social Media Using Crowdsourced Judgments of News Source Quality.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(7):2521–26. doi:10.1073/pnas.1806781116.

45.

Pennycook

Rand

D. G.

2019b. “Lazy, Not Biased: Susceptibility to Partisan Fake News Is Better Explained by Lack of Reasoning than by Motivated Reasoning.” Cognition 188:39–50. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011.

46.

Petrocik

J. R.

2009. “Measuring Party Support: Leaners Are Not Independents.” Electoral Studies 28(4):562–72. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2009.05.022.

47.

Pornpitakpan

2004. “The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34(2):243–81. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x.

48.

Porter

Wood

T. J.

2019. “False Alarm: The Truth about Political Mistruths in the Trump Era.” Elements in American Politics 90. doi:10.1017/9781108688338.

49.

Rich

T. S.

Milden

Wagner

M. T.

2020. “Research Note: Does the Public Support Fact-Checking Social Media? It Depends Who and How You Ask.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. Published online November 2. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-46.

50.

Robertson

C. T.

Mourão

R. R.

Thorson

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/Politics 25(2):217–37. doi:10.1177/1940161219898055.

51.

Roth

Pickles

2020. “Updating Our Approach to Misleading Information.” Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html

52.

Shearer

Mitchell

2021. “News Use Across Social Media Platforms in 2020.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. Retrieved June 5, 2021, from https://www.journalism.org/2021/01/12/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-in-2020/

53.

Shin

Thorson

2017. “Partisan Selective Sharing: The Biased Diffusion of Fact-Checking Messages on Social Media.” Journal of Communication 67(2):233–55. doi:10.1111/jcom.12284.

54.

Shin

Wang

Y.-T.

2022. “Twitter and Endorsed (Fake) News: The Influence of Endorsement by Strong Ties, Celebrities, and a User Majority on Credibility of Fake News During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” International Journal of Communication 16:23.

55.

Slater

M. D.

Rouner

1996. “How Message Evaluation and Source Attributes May Influence Credibility Assessment and Belief Change.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73(4):974–91. doi:10.1177/107769909607300415.

56.

Swire

Berinsky

A. J.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K. H.

2017. “Processing Political Misinformation: Comprehending the Trump Phenomenon.” Royal Society Open Science 4(3):160802. doi:10.1098/rsos.160802.

57.

Swire-Thompson

Ecker

U. K. H.

Lewandowsky

Berinsky

A. J.

2020. “They Might Be a Liar But They’re My Liar: Source Evaluation and the Prevalence of Misinformation.” Political Psychology 41(1):21–34. doi:10.1111/pops.12586.

58.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

1986. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds. Austin

W. G.

Worchel

Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

59.

Thorson

2016. “Belief Echoes: The Persistent Effects of Corrected Misinformation.” Political Communication 33(3):460–80. doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1102187.

60.

Thorson

2018. “Comparing Approaches to Journalistic Fact Checking.” In Misinformation and Mass Audiences, eds. Southwell

B. G.

Thorson

E. A.

Sheble

, 249–62. Austion, TX: University of Texas Press.

61.

Thorson

2021. “The Effect of Corrections and Corrected Misinformation.” In The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism, eds. Tumber

Waisbord

, 548–58. London, UK: Routledge.

62.

Tully

2021. “News Literacy and Misinformation.” In The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism, eds. Tumber

Waisbord

, 480–488. London, UK: Routledge.

63.

Twitter. n.d.-a. “Community Notes.” Retrieved March 15, 2023, from https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en.html

64.

Twitter. n.d.-b. “Synthetic and Manipulated Media Policy.” Retrieved October 4, 2020, from https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/manipulated-media

65.

Vosoughi

Roy

Aral

2018. “The Spread of True and False News Online.” Science 359(6380):1146–51. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559.

66.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

2017. “Using Expert Sources to Correct Health Misinformation in Social Media.” Science Communication 39(5):621–45. doi:10.1177/1075547017731776.

67.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

2018. “I Do Not Believe You: How Providing a Source Corrects Health Misperceptions across Social Media Platforms.” Information, Communication & Society 21(10):1337–53. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883.

68.

Walker

Gottfried

2019. “Republicans Far More Likely than Democrats to Say Fact-Checkers Tend to Favor One Side.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved August 14, 2023, from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/27/republicans-far-more-likely-than-democrats-to-say-fact-checkers-tend-to-favor-one-side/

69.

Wintersieck

Fridkin

Kenney

2021. “The Message Matters: The Influence of Fact-Checking on Evaluations of Political Messages.” Journal of Political Marketing 20(2):93–120. doi:10.1080/15377857.2018.1457591.

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.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB

Source Matters? Exploring the Effects of Source Congeniality on Corrections of False Information on Twitter

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material