Effects of factchecking warning labels and social endorsement cues on climate change fake news credibility and engagement on social media

From Digital Culture & Society

Koch, T. K., Frischlich, L., & Lermer, E. (2023). Effects of fact‐checking warning labels and social endorsement cues on climate change fake news credibility and engagement on social media. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 53(6), 495–507. https://ocul-bu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OCUL_BU/p5aakr/cdi_crossref_primary_10_1111_jasp_12959 https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12959

Contents 1 Context 2 Overview 3 Strengths and Weaknesses 4 Assessment

[edit] Context

The urgent problem of online fake news and its effects are discussed in this article, especially as it relates to social media interventions. Social media companies use a range of tactics to stop false information, but little study has been done on how these tactics work together. The research makes use of the heuristic-systematic model of information processing (HSM) to examine two interventions at the same time: eliminating social endorsement cues to reduce the heuristic influence and adding fact-checker warning flags to initiate systematic processing. The study, which involved 571 people and was carried out in Germany, shows that warning labels successfully lower the perceived credibility and self-reported chance of spreading false information about climate change. The absence of social endorsement cues, however, does not appear to have a major effect. The study highlights the impact of human dispositions, including political inclination, educational attainment, and cognitive styles, on reactions to false information. The results raise doubts about the usefulness of warning labels in encouraging methodical processing but also advance our understanding of how effective they are in thwarting false information.

[edit] Overview

The article aims to tackle essential inquiries concerning the efficacy of initiatives aimed at countering false information on social media platforms. The study uses the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) as a theoretical framework to examine how users' judgments of the credibility of fake news, their inclination to amplify such information, and their perceptions are affected by the absence of social endorsement cues and warning labels. An online experiment with a between-subjects design is used in the research, and social endorsement cues and warning labels are manipulated. The study provides a thorough background for the research by methodically describing the sample, methods, supplies, and measurements. Multivariate regression models incorporating control variables including age, education, political orientation, analytical thinking, and involvement are used in quantitative studies, including preliminary and major analyses. Notable results show that warning labels are useful in lowering perceived credibility and amplification likelihood, while social endorsement cues have no discernible effect. The practical importance of the study is emphasized by exploring the ramifications of the results in the discussion section. The article's conclusion emphasizes the importance of the HSM framework, provides useful advice, and suggests combining systematic processing-focused measures with warning labels to improve the effectiveness of social media interventions against fake news.

[edit] Strengths and Weaknesses

The article's scientific rigour and thorough approach to examining the efficacy of interventions against fake news are its strongest strengths. The study's internal validity is increased by including a well-thought-out online experiment that manipulates social endorsement cues and warning labels using a strong between-subjects design. The research is more transparent and replicable because of the thorough description of the sample, hiring practices, and assessment tools. The Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM), a theoretical framework, is incorporated into the study to provide its theoretical depth and enable a more nuanced understanding of the interactions between various interventions and cognitive and attitudinal characteristics. Complexity and depth are further added to the analyses by the study's assessment of a variety of cognitive and attitudinal variables, such as educational level, analytical thinking, engagement, and political inclination. This comprehensive approach recognizes the complex nature of users' engagement with fake news, noting that users' responses are influenced by variables other than the mere existence of warning labels or social endorsement indicators. The limited generalizability of the article's findings resulting from the utilization of a convenience sample of German participants is a noteworthy limitation. Concerns are raised regarding the external validity of the study's conclusions due to the sample's disproportionate presence of women and students. To improve the findings' generalizability, future studies should strive for more representative and diverse samples, ideally with a worldwide perspective. The experiment stimulus's dependence on a single bogus news article presents another vulnerability. The selection technique may limit the generalizability of the study's findings to other types of fake news with higher emotional valence, even if it is appropriate and typical in fake news research. A more thorough grasp of the efficacy of therapies in various circumstances may be obtained by repeating the study with diverse stimuli. Finally, a deeper examination of the warning labels' boundary requirements would enhance the article. Further research could explore the durability of these effects and potential variations dependent on the substance of fake news. The observed impacts on perceived credibility and amplification likelihood are examined. Knowing the precise circumstances in which warning labels work best can help build more focused and sophisticated treatments.

[edit] Assessment

To sum up, this paper makes a significant addition to the field of fake news research by exhibiting meticulous methodology and a thorough approach to examining the efficacy of treatments. The study's careful methodology, well-thought-out online experiment, and incorporation of a strong theoretical framework are its main merits. The paper offers important insights into the complex interactions between warning labels, social endorsement cues, and different cognitive and attitudinal characteristics, even while limitations like sample generalizability and stimulus diversity are noted. Researchers in the domains of communication, media studies, and psychology would especially benefit from this study, which provides methodological insights and theoretical foundation for more research on interventions including fake news. The study's recommendation that systematic processing interventions be implemented in addition to warning signs could have practical ramifications for educators and practitioners working on media literacy projects. The post presents detailed findings that policymakers and platform developers might use to counteract the spread of disinformation on social media. Given the circumstances, this study adds significant depth to our knowledge of how users engage with fake news and the potential effectiveness of countermeasures.

Ar19qn 15:09, 1 December 2023 (EST)