The majority of fact-checking labels in the United States are intense and this decreases engagement intention

Author:

Xue Haoning1ORCID,Zhang Jingwen1ORCID,Shen Cuihua1ORCID,Wojcieszak Magdalena1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Communication, University of California , Davis, USA

Abstract

Abstract Fact-checking labels have been widely accepted as an effective misinformation correction method. However, there is limited theoretical understanding of fact-checking labels’ impact. This study theorizes that language intensity influences fact-checking label processing and tests this idea through a multi-method design. We first rely on a large-scale observational dataset of fact-checking labels from 7 U.S. fact-checking organizations (N = 33,755) to examine the labels’ language intensity and then use a controlled online experiment in the United States (N = 656) to systematically test the causal effects of fact-checking label intensity (low, moderate, or high) and fact-checking source (professional journalists or artificial intelligence) on perceived message credibility of and the intention to engage with fact-checking messages. We found that two-thirds of existing labels were intense. Such high-intensity labels had null effects on messages’ perceived credibility, yet decreased engagement intention, especially when labels were attributed to AI. Using more intense labels may not be an effective fact-checking approach.

Funder

University of California Davis

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Reference75 articles.

1. People believe misinformation is a threat because they assume others are gullible;Altay;New Media & Society,2023

2. Correcting political and consumer misperceptions: The effectiveness and effects of rating scale versus contextual correction formats;Amazeen;Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,2018

3. Reinforcing attitudes in a gatewatching news era: Individual-level antecedents to sharing fact-checks on social media;Amazeen;Communication Monographs,2019

4. Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale;Appelman;Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,2016

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3