Prominent Misinformation Interventions Reduce Misperceptions But

Nature Human Behaviour volume 8, pages 1545–1553 (2024)Cite this article An Author Correction to this article was published on 19 July 2024 Current interventions to combat misinformation, including fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation, may have unintended consequences for democracy. We propose that these interventions may increase scepticism towards all information, including accurate information. Across three online survey experiments in three diverse countries (the United States, Poland and Hong Kong; total n = 6,127), we tested the negative spillover effects of existing strategies and compared them with three... We examined how exposure to fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation affects individuals’ perception of both factual and false information, as well as their trust in key democratic institutions.

Our results show that while all interventions successfully reduce belief in false information, they also negatively impact the credibility of factual information. This highlights the need for further improved strategies that minimize the harms and maximize the benefits of interventions against misinformation. Scholars, observers and policymakers worry that information that is false, fabricated, untrustworthy or unsubstantiated by credible evidence can have dramatic consequences for democracy. These worries are sparked by recent events feared to be triggered by misleading claims. For instance, Trump tweeting that the 2020 election was rigged allegedly mobilized his supporters and led to what we now know as the Capitol Riots on 6 January 2021. Similarly, false information claiming that COVID vaccines are harmful may have led to clusters of communities refusing effective vaccines for pandemic mitigation1,2.

Some research suggests that continued exposure to misinformation may lead to lasting misperceptions as a result of increased familiarity with factually inaccurate information3,4,5. Other work goes as far as saying that misinformation can influence political behaviour or election outcomes6. Because of such fears, institutions, agencies, platforms and scholars have directed plentiful resources to determining how to fight misinformation and make citizens more resilient. Combined efforts have resulted in well-known and established intervention strategies—namely, fact-checking, media literacy, and news media covering and correcting misinformation. These interventions are hoped to counter the spread of and belief in misinformation. From 2016 to 2018 alone, an estimated 50 independent fact-checking organizations were established7, and numerous news outlets incorporated fact-checking practices as part of their business, such as the ‘Reality Check’ page on the BBC’s...

Media literacy interventions also burgeoned8,9,10. These aim to prevent rather than correct the potential impact of misinformation by educating the public on how to critically evaluate the quality of information9. Examples of this are Facebook’s ‘10 Tips to Spot Fake News’ and professional (journalistic) training programmes offered by the growing organization First Draft. Finally, news media organizations increased their coverage of misinformation more generally with the aim of raising awareness about its prevalence and effects. News media, whether partisan or not, increasingly focus on fake news and misinformation. Plotting the occurrence of the terms ‘fake news’, ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ in major US newspapers over time (as archived by LexisNexis) and the frequency of people searching for these terms on Google Search and...

For example, whereas there were 1,979 articles mentioning one of the terms in 2010, there were 9,012 such articles in 2017. Received 2023 May 26; Accepted 2024 Apr 10; Issue date 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit... The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from... To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Current interventions to combat misinformation, including fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation, may have unintended consequences for democracy. We propose that these interventions may increase scepticism towards all information, including accurate information. Across three online survey experiments in three diverse countries (the United States, Poland and Hong Kong; total n = 6,127), we tested the negative spillover effects of existing strategies and compared them with three... We examined how exposure to fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation affects individuals’ perception of both factual and false information, as well as their trust in key democratic institutions. Our results show that while all interventions successfully reduce belief in false information, they also negatively impact the credibility of factual information. This highlights the need for further improved strategies that minimize the harms and maximize the benefits of interventions against misinformation.

Subject terms: Politics and international relations; Cultural and media studies; Science, technology and society This study reveals that current interventions against misinformation erode belief in accurate information. The authors argue that future strategies should shift their focus from only fighting falsehoods to also nurturing trust in reliable news. The Unintended Consequences of Combating Misinformation: A Global Examination The proliferation of misinformation poses a significant threat to democratic societies, influencing public opinion, political behavior, and even inciting violence, as evidenced by events like the January 6th Capitol riot and vaccine hesitancy during... To counter this threat, various strategies have emerged, including fact-checking, media literacy initiatives, and increased news coverage of misinformation.

However, these interventions, while well-intentioned, may inadvertently produce negative consequences, raising concerns about their efficacy and potential to erode public trust. Established fact-checking organizations, integrated fact-checking initiatives by major news outlets, and burgeoning media literacy programs have become commonplace since 2016. These efforts aim to debunk false claims, educate the public on critical evaluation of information, and raise awareness about the prevalence of misinformation. Despite these efforts, the terms "fake news," "misinformation," and "disinformation" have become increasingly prevalent in news coverage and online searches, suggesting a growing public awareness of the issue, yet not necessarily a decrease in... While some research suggests that fact-checking can be effective under certain conditions, other studies indicate it can be insufficient or even backfire, reinforcing inaccurate beliefs. Similarly, media literacy interventions and warnings about misinformation can create unintended spillover effects, fostering skepticism towards both false and accurate information.

Furthermore, news media attention to misinformation, while intended to raise awareness, may paradoxically decrease trust in science and politics. This complex landscape necessitates a deeper examination of how to improve interventions against misinformation while minimizing their negative spillover effects. A recent study conducted across the United States, Poland, and Hong Kong examined the effects of different approaches to fact-checking, media literacy, and news coverage of misinformation, focusing on their impact on misperceptions, skepticism,... The study highlights how the delivery of these interventions can significantly influence their effectiveness and potential for unintended consequences. These international instances demonstrate the potency and adaptability of creative remediation techniques in dealing with POP pollution. They demonstrate the possibility for cleaner and healthier ecosystems on a global scale by providing insightful information on the flexibility and beneficial effects of various strategies (Blair et al., 2023).

The lessons learnt and ongoing problems of combating Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in soil and water must be examined in the thorough examination of new remediation solutions. Still, many open questions about inoculation research in the context of misinformation remain, including the lack of cross-cultural research, conceptual confusion around the term “prebunking”, potentially undesirable side effects of the inoculation treatment, as... The overwhelming majority of inoculation and misinformation research (Badrinathan & Chauchard, 2023; Blair et al., 2023) has been conducted in predominantly Western, Educated, Industrialized, and Rich Democracies (WEIRD). In the context of misinformation this seems especially prudent given that citizens in other parts of the world likely have very different relationships and histories with (state-controlled) media, propaganda, and censorship suggesting there could... Efforts to tackle false information through fact-checking or media literacy initiatives increases the public's skepticism toward "fake news." However, they also breed distrust in genuine, fact-based news sources, a UZH-led study using online survey... Studies have shown that few people actually come across false information in their day-to-day lives.

And yet, concerns about the harm "fake news" may do have increased in recent years. High-profile events such as the Capitol Riots, vaccine-hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have fueled these concerns. At the same time, fact-checking initiatives are on the rise. Major news platforms like BBC and CNN have incorporated fact-checking into their regular offerings, while media literacy campaigns have flourished, with programs designed to educate the public on how to make sense of what... A study conducted by the Universities of Zurich, California and Warsaw now shows that these efforts have given rise to an unintended paradox: the very tools used to combat misinformation are fomenting distrust in... Interventions foster a broader sense of doubt

The researchers conducted three online survey experiments involving 6,127 participants in the US, Poland and Hong Kong to test the effectiveness of three corrective strategies currently used to combat misinformation -- fact-checking, media literacy... The idea of the redesigned strategies was to foster a critical, yet not overly skeptical, engagement with information. For instance, rather than focusing on whether news is either true or false, one of the redesigned strategies emphasized understanding political biases in news reporting.

People Also Search

• Prominent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but ...
• (PDF) Prominent Misinformation Interventions Reduce Misperceptions but ...
• Effective Misinformation Interventions Decrease Misperceptions While ...
• Interventions to counter misinformation: Lessons from the Global North ...
• Interventions against misinformation also increase skepticism toward ...
• PDF Prominent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but ...
• Countering Misinformation: Evidence, Knowledge Gaps, and Implications ...