Search

The purpose of this study is to arrive at a baseline understanding of how fact-checking interventions relate to a number of outcomes relevant to audiences’ resilience to false information. Previous research has primarily looked at the extent to which fact-checking is able to correct false beliefs. While belief correction is among the most urgent aims of fact-checking, there could be other relevant and more long-term benefits of factchecking that received relatively little attention in the academic literature. Therefore, this study focuses on key outcomes other than belief correction, such as trust in fact-checkers, critical thinking and future verification intentions. These outcomes are important to study because they point to possible long-term benefits of fact-checking. Our study tests these outcomes as a function of different fact-checking presentations (e.g., labels vs. no labels vs. truth sandwich) and information that varies with regard to its degree of truthfulness (e.g., mostly false vs. completely false). We also ask a number of open question to better understand sources of resistance to fact-checking. As a case study we aim to study this in the Dutch context aiming at 750 complete responses. Based on the outcomes we seek to provide practical recommendations for targeted fact-checking campaigns. This is the first study in a series of studies that will be conducted in the context of the Flemish-Dutch hub of the European Digital Media Observatory. More information on the hub can be found here: https://benedmo.eu/english/

The aim of this project is to better understand how individuals perceive and engage with information related to the Russia-Ukraine war. We will collect survey data in 19 countries to conduct a number of related studies.

This is Study 2 from the project "Mis- and Disinformation in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War". Rationale: Citizens are not very good at distinguishing false information from factually accurate information, and people’s capability of accurate deception detection may be even more compromised in fast-moving crisis settings such as the Russia-Ukraine war. In times of information overload, insecurity and biased information settings, it is extremely difficult to assess the credibility and honesty of (political) information. To make matters worse, people are not always motivated to arrive at the most accurate decisions. Hence, people are biased when it comes to the assessment of information as true or false - which could lead to severe misperceptions among audiences. Either a lack of motivation/reasoning or a confirmation bias may predict people’s susceptibility to misperceptions. In this paper, we explore the biased assessment of (un)truthfulness by looking at both individual level factors corresponding to (a lack of) motivated reasoning and country-level factors corresponding to resilience to disinformation. Citizens in more resilient countries may be better able to correctly distinguish false from accurate information (also see Humprecht et al., 2020). On the individual level, it could be expected that the more a false statement aligns with people’s existing beliefs about the conflict, the more likely it is deemed as accurate. In addition, the more people believe that there is DISinformation (not misinformation), the more likely they incorrectly label true statements as false (a backfire effect of being primed to think about fake news). MISinformation beliefs may correspond to more healthy levels of skepticism, and could thus correspond to a better equipped distinction between false and true statements.

This is Study 5 of the project "Mis- and Disinformation in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War" Rationale: Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have witnessed a substantial increase in the amount and seriousness of false information about the Russia-Ukraine war. In response to this, journalists and fact-checkers have strengthened their efforts to debunk false claims that are circulating online. They also verify statements that are factually correct but falsely accused to be incorrect. A fact-check typically includes an assessment of the veracity of a claim (e.g., true, false), an explanation that contextualizes the claim as well as a list of reliable sources. Despite the great efforts of fact-checkers and the numerous fact-checks that have been published since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have only a limited understanding of the efficacy of such fact-checks. This study seeks to understand how fact-checks relate to beliefs in mis- and disinformation about the Russia-Ukraine war. In this study, participants will rate the veracity of ten prominent statements about the Russia-Ukraine war before and after seeing a fact-check. Participants first see all ten statements and rate their veracity (pre-measure). They can then opt to see fact-checks for any of these statements. After seeing the fact-check they again rate the statements’ veracity (post-measure). We selected statements that were prominently circulating online and fact-checked by reliable journalists or fact-checkers. In addition, the statements have either a bias towards Ukraine or Russia.

This is a description of Study 1 of the project "Mis- and Disinformation in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War". Rationale: Mis- and disinformation may not only have detrimental consequences as an informational threat, but are also important to consider as a perceptual phenomenon. Especially in a communication era in which facts have become relative while Fake News is increasingly used as a weaponized term to attack and de-legitimize opponents, believing that misinformation (erroneous information in general) and disinformation (intentionally deceptive information) abound may have severe consequences for people’s political beliefs and behaviors. With this study, we explore the extent to which people in different countries perceive the threat of mis- and disinformation as salient, what sources they associate with the dissemination of false information, and why they think that falsehoods surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war are disseminated. Here, we theoretically argue for the relevance of distinguishing between mis- and disinformation beliefs when capturing the assessment of credibility and trustworthiness of information by citizens. As previous research has shown that perceptions of mis- and disinformation can have different ramifications for media use, information seeking and pro-social behaviors (Hameleers et al., 2021), it is important to explore how salient these different beliefs are across ‘most different’ national settings. In this study, we highlight the comparative scope of the project - as countries with different levels of press freedom, polarization, media trust and (geographical or socio-political) distance to the Russia-Ukraine war may also offer a different opportunity structure for perceptions of mis- and disinformation.

This is Study 3 of the project "Mis- and Disinformation in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War" Rationale: In this paper, we seek to understand which citizens are most and least likely to verify false and true information, depending on confirmation biases and need for cognition, as well as their pre-existing misinformation beliefs. A core question could be whether people inclined to believe that mis- and disinformation are omnipresent are also more likely to rate false information as false, or whether these cynical beliefs may spill-over to the verification efforts of true information as well. It can also be expected that intentions to fact-check information are partially driven by a confirmation bias: People are most likely to verify information that is incongruent with their prior beliefs. In addition, they are more likely to verify statements that they are less certain about. They are also more motivated to verify information on topics that are important to them. Additionally, the more people have a need for cognition and the higher their self-perceived media literacy, the stronger the intention to verify information.

Background: This paper presents part of a wider research project called TRESCA[1] which aims to develop trust in science through the innovation of communication practices. Connected with the topic of trust in sciences, in terms of the credibility and reliability of scientific information, a part of the project was dedicated to the assessment of the explanatory power of two main elements of communication: audio and video. Particular attention was given to how these two elements relate to the perception of citizens, mediating with the latent imaginaries, emotional charges and value judgements that are the basis of the framing of relevant news, and thus with the ability of people to distinguish between correct and false communication. Methods: To investigate these aspects, an ad hoc workshop was designed and implemented in three European countries with the aim of understanding how people interpret the content of a scientific communication video with particular attention to the role of images and audio. Some probe questions were carefully selected to explore content and latent imaginaries, emotional and critical aspects also related with the trust of the communication. Results: By involving citizens in discussions and innovation efforts, many suggestions and recommendations have been collected. In today’s everyday life, where the visual is very widespread, thanks to the ever-growing presence of social media, the power of images can exceed that of audio. Conclusions: Since watching a video without sound can mislead the real content of the message, especially when the source or the speaker aren’t recognisable. This can have many repercussions on people’s ability to evaluate the truthfulness of a news and, consequently, on the choice to grant trust - or distrust.

Supplemental material, Supplementary_Materials_August_21st for Personality and Social Capital by Marina Tulin, Bram Lancee and Beate Volker in Social Psychology Quarterly