Search

In this study, we investigate what leads people to fact-check online information, how they fact-check such information in practice, how fact-checking affects their judgments about the information's credibility, and how each of the above processes is affected by the salience of the information to readers' cultural identities. Eight pairs of adult participants were recruited from diverse cultural backgrounds to participate online in joint fact-checking of suspect Tweets. To examine their collaborative deliberations we developed a novel experimental design and analytical model. Our analyses indicate that the salience of online information to people's cultural identities influences their decision to fact-check it, that fact-checking deliberations are often non-linear and iterative, that collaborative fact-checking leads people to revise their initial judgments about the credibility of online information, and that when online information is highly salient to people's cultural identities, they apply different standards of credibility when fact-checking it. In conclusion, we propose that cultural identity is an important factor in the fact-checking of online information, and that joint fact-checking of online information by people from diverse cultural backgrounds may have significant potential as an educational tool to reduce people's susceptibility to misinformation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Gottlieb, Baker and Détienne.)

Argumentation is a social practice that can lead to epistemic outcomes, that is, to the construction of knowledge. Recent research in collaborative learning has pointed out the significance of affective and motivational aspects, as well as the influence of socio-relational concerns, which have been found to frequently take priority over epistemic ones. Our research objective is to investigate how the epistemic and socio-relational dimensions of students' argumentative interactions are intertwined. We apply discourse analysis to examine the interactions in a small group of four 11th-graders evaluating the nutritional acceptability of omnivorous and vegetarian diets. The epistemic dimension is analyzed in terms of the aims pursued by the participants and the epistemic outcomes achieved. The socio-relational dimension is analyzed in terms of fluctuations of interpersonal tensions and their relaxations. The results show a convergence of participants' epistemic aims and the epistemic statuses of the options. Most of the epistemic outcomes are produced in sequences in which socio-cognitive tension arises and then relaxes. Enduring high socio-cognitive tension and overcoming conflict seem to have encouraged the adoption of epistemic aims. Moreover, our findings suggest that driven by epistemic aims in high socio-cognitive tensed contexts, students can refine the conditions by which they engage in argumentation. These results call for further investigating on what constitutes an appropriate or productive level of interpersonal tension for learning. Educational implications are related to the design of argumentative learning environments promoting epistemic aims and outcomes through the encouragement of suitable socio-cognitive climates leading to them., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Brocos, Jiménez-Aleixandre and Baker.)