Evaluating the truthfulness of fake news through online searches increases the chances of believing misinformation

Conventional wisdom suggests that searching online to evaluate the veracity of misinformation would reduce belief in it. But a new study by a team of researchers shows the opposite occurs: Searching to evaluate the truthfulness of false news articles actually increases the probability of believing misinformation.

The findings, which appear in the journal Nature, offer insights into the impact of search engines' output on their users -- a relatively under-studied area.

"Our study shows that the act of searching online to evaluate news increases belief in highly popular misinformation -- and by notable amounts," says Zeve Sanderson, founding executive director of New York University's Center for Social Media and Politics (CSMaP) and one of the paper's authors.

The reason for this outcome may be explained by search-engine outputs -- in the study, the researchers found that this phenomenon is concentrated among individuals for whom search engines return lower-quality information.

"This points to the danger that 'data voids' -- areas of the information ecosystem that are dominated by low quality, or even outright false, news and information -- may be playing a consequential role in the online search process, leading to low return of credible information or, more alarming, the appearance of non-credible information at the top of search results," observes lead author Kevin Aslett, an assistant professor at the University of Central Florida and a faculty research affiliate at CSMaP.

In the newly published Nature study, Aslett, Sanderson, and their colleagues studied the impact of using online search engines to evaluate false or misleading views -- an approach encouraged by technology companies and government agencies, among others.

To do so, they recruited participants through both Qualtrics and Amazon's Mechanical Turk -- tools frequently used in running behavioral science studies -- for a series of five experiments and with the aim of gauging the impact of a common behavior: searching online to evaluate news (SOTEN).

The first four studies tested the following aspects of online search behavior and impact:
 

• The effect of SOTEN on belief in both false or misleading and true news directly within two days an article's publication (false popular articles included stories on COVID-19 vaccines, the Trump impeachment proceedings, and climate events)
• Whether the effect of SOTEN can change an individual's evaluation after they had already assessed the veracity of a news story
• The effect of SOTEN months after publication
• The effect of SOTEN on recent news about a salient topic with significant news coverage -- in the case of this study, news about the Covid-19 pandemic

A fifth study combined a survey with web-tracking data in order to identify the effect of exposure to both low- and high-quality search-engine results on belief in misinformation.

By collecting search results using a custom web browser plug-in, the researchers could identify how the quality of these search results may affect users' belief in the misinformation being evaluated.

The study's source credibility ratings were determined by NewsGuard, a browser extension that rates news and other information sites in order to guide users in assessing the trustworthiness of the content they come across online.

Across the five studies, the authors found that the act of searching online to evaluate news led to a statistically significant increase in belief in misinformation.

This occurred whether it was shortly after the publication of misinformation or months later.

This finding suggests that the passage of time -- and ostensibly opportunities for fact checks to enter the information ecosystem -- does not lessen the impact of SOTEN on increasing the likelihood of believing false news stories to be true.

Moreover, the fifth study showed that this phenomenon is concentrated among individuals for whom search engines return lower-quality information.

"The findings highlight the need for media literacy programs to ground recommendations in empirically tested interventions and search engines to invest in solutions to the challenges identified by this research," concludes Joshua A. Tucker, professor of politics and co-director of CSMaP, another of the paper's authors.

Read more at Science Daily

Social media experiment reveals potential to 'inoculate' millions of users against misinformation

Short animations giving viewers a taste of the tactics behind misinformation can help to "inoculate" people against harmful content on social media when deployed in YouTube's advert slot, according to a major online experiment led by the University of Cambridge.

Working with Jigsaw (https://jigsaw.google.com/), a unit within Google dedicated to tackling threats to open societies, a team of psychologists from the universities of Cambridge and Bristol created 90-second clips designed to familiarise users with manipulation techniques such as scapegoating and deliberate incoherence.

This "pre-bunking" strategy pre-emptively exposes people to tropes at the root of malicious propaganda, so they can better identify online falsehoods regardless of subject matter.

Researchers behind the Inoculation Science project (https://inoculation.science/) compare it to a vaccine: by giving people a "micro-dose" of misinformation in advance, it helps prevent them falling for it in future -- an idea based on what social psychologist's call "inoculation theory."

The findings, published in Science Advances, come from seven experiments involving a total of almost 30,000 participants -- including the first "real world field study" of inoculation theory on a social media platform -- and show a single viewing of a film clip increases awareness of misinformation.

The videos introduce concepts from the "misinformation playbook," illustrated with relatable examples from film and TV such as Family Guy or, in the case of false dichotomies, Star Wars ("Only a Sith deals in absolutes").

"YouTube has well over 2 billion active users worldwide. Our videos could easily be embedded within the ad space on YouTube to prebunk misinformation," said study co-author Prof Sander van der Linden, Head of the Social Decision-Making Lab (SDML) at Cambridge, which led the work.

"Our research provides the necessary proof of concept that the principle of psychological inoculation can readily be scaled across hundreds of millions of users worldwide."

Lead author Dr Jon Roozenbeek from Cambridge's SDML describes the team's videos as "source agnostic," avoiding biases people have about where information is from, and how it chimes -- or not -- with what they already believe.

"Our interventions make no claims about what is true or a fact, which is often disputed. They are effective for anyone who does not appreciate being manipulated," he said.

"The inoculation effect was consistent across liberals and conservatives. It worked for people with different levels of education, and different personality types. This is the basis of a general inoculation against misinformation."

Google -- YouTube's parent company -- is already harnessing the findings. At the end of August, Jigsaw will roll out a prebunking campaign across several platforms in Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic to get ahead of emerging disinformation relating to Ukrainian refugees. The campaign is designed to build resilience to harmful anti-refugee narratives, in partnership with local NGOs, fact checkers, academics, and disinformation experts.

"Harmful misinformation takes many forms, but the manipulative tactics and narratives are often repeated and can therefore be predicted," said Beth Goldberg, co-author and Head of Research and Development for Google's Jigsaw unit.

"Teaching people about techniques like ad-hominem attacks that set out to manipulate them can help build resilience to believing and spreading misinformation in the future.

"We've shown that video ads as a delivery method of prebunking messages can be used to reach millions of people, potentially before harmful narratives take hold," Goldberg said.

The team argue that pre-bunking may be more effective at fighting the misinformation deluge than fact-checking each untruth after it spreads -- the classic 'debunk' -- which is impossible to do at scale, and can entrench conspiracy theories by feeling like personal attacks to those who believe them.

"Propaganda, lies and misdirections are nearly always created from the same playbook," said co-author Prof Stephan Lewandowsky from the University of Bristol. "We developed the videos by analysing the rhetoric of demagogues, who deal in scapegoating and false dichotomies."

"Fact-checkers can only rebut a fraction of the falsehoods circulating online. We need to teach people to recognise the misinformation playbook, so they understand when they are being misled."

Six initial controlled experiments featured 6,464 participants, with the sixth experiment conducted a year after the first five to ensure earlier findings could be replicated.

Data collection for each participant was comprehensive, from basic information -- gender, age, education, political leanings -- to levels of numeracy, conspiratorial thinking, news and social media checking, "bullshit receptivity," and a personality inventory, among other "variables."

Factoring all this in, the team found that inoculation videos improved people's ability to spot misinformation, and boosted their confidence in being able to do so again. The clips also improve the quality of "sharing decisions": whether or not to spread damaging content.

Two of the animations were then tested "in the wild" as part of a vast experiment on YouTube, with clips positioned in the pre-video advert slot that provides an option to skip after five seconds.

Google Jigsaw exposed around 5.4 million US YouTubers to an inoculation video, with almost a million watching for at least 30 seconds. The platform then gave a random 30% of users that watched a voluntary test question within 24 hours of their initial viewing.

The clips aimed to inoculate against misinformation tactics of hyper-emotive language and use of false dichotomies, and the questions -- based on fictional posts -- tested for detection of these tropes. YouTube also gave a "control" group of users who had not viewed a video the same test question. In total, 22,632 users answered a question.

Despite the intense "noise" and distractions on YouTube, ability to recognise manipulation techniques at the heart of misinformation increased by 5% on average.

Google say the unprecedented nature of the experiment means there is no direct data comparison available. However, increases in brand awareness from advertising on YouTube -- known as "brand lift" -- are typically limited to 1% in surveys of under 45,000 users.

"Users participated in tests around 18 hours on average after watching the videos, so the inoculation appears to have stuck," said van der Linden.

Read more at Science Daily

In spreading politics, videos may not be much more persuasive than their text-based counterparts

It might seem that video would be a singularly influential medium for spreading information online. But a new experiment conducted by MIT researchers finds that video clips have only a modestly larger impact on political persuasion than the written word does.

"Our conclusion is that watching video is not much more persuasive than reading text," says David Rand, an MIT professor and co-author of a new paper detailing the study's results.

The study comes amid widespread concern about online political misinformation, including the possibility that technology-enabled "deepfake" videos could easily convince many people watching them to believe false claims.

"Technological advances have created new opportunities for people to falsify video footage, but we still know surprisingly little about how individuals process political video versus text," says MIT researcher Chloe Wittenberg, the lead author on the paper. "Before we can identify strategies for combating the spread of deepfakes, we first need to answer these more basic questions about the role of video in political persuasion."

The paper, "The (Minimal) Persuasive Advantage of Political Video over Text," is published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The co-authors are Adam J. Berinsky, the Mitsui Professor of Political Science; Rand, the Erwin H. Schell Professor and Professor of Management Science and Brain and Cognitive Sciences; Ben Tappin, a postdoc in the Human Cooperation Lab; and Chloe Wittenberg, a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science.

Believability and persuasion

The study operates on a distinction between the credibility of videos and their persuasiveness. That is, an audience might find a video believable, but their attitudes might not change in response. Alternately, a video might not seem credible to a large portion of the audience but still alter viewers' attitudes or behavior.

For example, Rand says, "When you watch a stain remover ad, they all have this same format, where some stain gets on a shirt, you pour the remover on it, and it goes in the washer and hey, look, the stain is gone. So, one question is: Do you believe that happened, or was it just trickery? And the second question is: How much do you want to buy the stain remover? The answers to those questions don't have to be tightly related."

To conduct the study, the MIT researchers performed a pair of survey experiments involving 7,609 Americans, using the Lucid and Dynata platforms. The first study involved 48 ads obtained through the Peoria Project, an archive of political materials. Survey participants either watched an ad, read a transcript of the ad, or received no information at all. (Each participant did this multiple times.) For each ad, participants were asked whether the message seemed believable and whether they agreed with its main message. They were then shown a series of questions measuring whether they found the subject personally important and whether they wanted more information.

The second study followed the same format but involved 24 popular video clips about Covid-19, taken from YouTube.

Overall, the results showed that video performed somewhat better than written text on the believability front but had a smaller relative advantage when it came to persuasion. Participants were modestly more likely to believe that events actually occurred when they were shown in a video as opposed to being described in a written transcript. However, the advantage of video over text was only one-third as big when it came to changing participants' attitudes and behavior.

As a further indication of this limited persuasive advantage of video versus text, the difference between the "control condition" (with participants who received no information) and reading text was as great as that between reading the transcript and watching the video.

These differences were surprisingly stable across groups. For instance, in the second study, there were only small differences in the effects seen for political versus nonpolitical messages about Covid-19, suggesting the findings hold across varying types of content. The researchers also did not find significant differences among the respondents based on factors such as age, political partisanship, and political knowledge.

"Seeing may be believing," Berinsky says, "but our study shows that just because video is more believable doesn't mean that it can change people's minds."

Questions about online behavior

The scholars acknowledge that the study did not exactly replicate the conditions in which people consume information online, but they suggest that the main findings yield valuable insight about the relative power of video versus text.

"It's possible that in real life things are a bit different," Rand says. "It's possible that as you're scrolling through your newsfeed, video captures your attention more than text would. You might be more likely to look at it. This doesn't mean that video is inherently more persuasive than text -- just that it has the potential to reach a wider audience."

That said, the MIT team notes there are some clear directions for future research in this field -- including the question of whether or not people are more willing to watch videos than to read materials.

Read more at Science Daily

Red-flagging misinformation could slow the spread of fake news on social media

The dissemination of fake news on social media is a pernicious trend with dire implications for the 2020 presidential election. Indeed, research shows that public engagement with spurious news is greater than with legitimate news from mainstream sources, making social media a powerful channel for propaganda.

A new study on the spread of disinformation reveals that pairing headlines with credibility alerts from fact-checkers, the public, news media and even AI, can reduce peoples' intention to share. However, the effectiveness of these alerts varies with political orientation and gender. The good news for truth seekers? Official fact-checking sources are overwhelmingly trusted.

The study, led by Nasir Memon, professor of computer science and engineering at the New York University Tandon School of Engineering and Sameer Patil, visiting research professor at NYU Tandon and assistant professor in the Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering at Indiana University Bloomington, goes further, examining the effectiveness of a specific set of inaccuracy notifications designed to alert readers to news headlines that are inaccurate or untrue.

The work, "Effects of Credibility Indicators on Social Media News Sharing Intent," published in the Proceedings of the 2020 ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, involved an online study of around 1,500 individuals to measure the effectiveness among different groups of four so-called "credibility indicators" displayed beneath headlines:

• Fact Checkers: "Multiple fact-checking journalists dispute the credibility of this news"
• News Media: "Major news outlets dispute the credibility of this news"
• Public: "A majority of Americans disputes the credibility of this news"
• AI: "Computer algorithms using AI dispute the credibility of this news"

"We wanted to discover whether social media users were less apt to share fake news when it was accompanied by one of these indicators and whether different types of credibility indicators exhibit different levels of influence on people's sharing intent," says Memon. "But we also wanted to measure the extent to which demographic and contextual factors like age, gender, and political affiliation impact the effectiveness of these indicators."

Participants -- over 1,500 U.S. residents -- saw a sequence of 12 true, false, or satirical news headlines. Only the false or satirical headlines included a credibility indicator below the headline in red font. For all of the headlines, respondents were asked if they would share the corresponding article with friends on social media, and why.

"Upon initial inspection, we found that political ideology and affiliation were highly correlated to responses and that the strength of individuals' political alignments made no difference, whether Republican or Democrat," says Memon. "The indicators impacted everyone regardless of political orientation, but the impact on Democrats was much larger compared to the other two groups."

The most effective of the credibility indicators, by far, was Fact Checkers: Study respondents intended to share 43% fewer non-true headlines with this indicator versus 25%, 22%, and 22% for the "News Media," "Public," and "AI" indicators, respectively.

Effects of Political Affiliation

The team found a strong correlation between political affiliation and the propensity of each of the credibility indicators to influence intention to share. In fact, the AI credibility indicator actually induced Republicans to increase their intention to share non-true news:

• Democrats intended to share 61% fewer non-true headlines with the Fact Checkers indicator (versus 40% for Independents and 19% for Republicans)
• Democrats intended to share 36% fewer non-true headlines with the News Media indicator (versus 29% for Independents and 4.5% for Republicans)
• Democrats intended to share 37% fewer non-true headlines with the Public indicator, (versus 17% for Independents and 6.7% for Republicans)
• Democrats intended to share 40% fewer non-true headlines with the AI indicator (versus 16% for Independents)
• Republicans intended to share 8.1% more non-true news with the AI indicator

Republicans are less likely to be influenced by credibility indicators, more inclined to share fake news on social media.

Patil says that while fact-checkers are the most effective kind of indicator, regardless of political affiliation and gender, fact-checking is a very labor-intensive. He says the team was surprised by the fact that Republicans were more inclined to share news that was flagged as not credible using the AI indicator.

"We were not expecting that, although conservatives may tend to trust more traditional means of flagging the veracity of news," he says, adding that the team will next examine how to make the most effective credibility indicator -- fact-checkers -- efficient enough to handle the scale inherent in today's news climate.

"This could include applying fact checks to only the most-needed content, which might involve applying natural language algorithms. So, it is a question, broadly speaking, of how humans and AI could co-exist," he explains.

The team also found that males intended to share non-true headlines one and half times more than females, with the differences largest for the Public and News Media indicators.

Men are less likely to be influenced by credibility indicators, more inclined to share fake news on social media. But indicators, especially those from fact-checkers, reduce intention to share fake news across the board.

Read more at Science Daily

Correcting vaccine misinformation is a difficult process, study shows

The number of girls receiving HPV vaccines in Denmark plummeted after vaccine misinformation spread through Danish media outlets from 2013 to 2016. Health officials launched a campaign in 2017 aiming to correct the misinformation and encourage girls to get vaccinated.

New research from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill shows that, despite substantial progress, about 26,000 Danish girls remain unvaccinated as a result of vaccine misinformation. About 33,000 girls are born annually in Denmark. Among the unvaccinated girls, researchers expect to see as many as 180 avoidable cases of cervical cancer and 45 deaths.

The researchers found that misinformation in Danish media outlets from 2013-2016 led to vaccinations dropping by 50.4%. An information campaign geared toward concerned parents helped increase vaccine uptake again, but uptake is still below the level before misinformation began, showing how difficult it is to undo the damages misinformation causes.

The study results were published Jan. 7 in Vaccine. The paper's lead author is UNC-Chapel Hill Latané Distinguished Professor of Economics Peter R. Hansen. Hansen worked with Noel Brewer, professor of health behavior at Carolina and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center member, and Matthias Schmidblaicher, graduate student in the Department of Economics at the European University Institute, on the research.

"Denmark is a good case study to see how a country deals with vaccine misinformation. By using anecdotal stories, media can create a false equivalence between outrageous claims and scientific facts," Hansen said. "The media stories that include inaccurate information cut HPV vaccine uptake in half. Recovery has been slow and costly. Resources are being used to combat misinformation instead of being used for healthcare benefits."

The HPV vaccine is safe and can prevent six cancers, including up to 90% of cervical cancers. Receiving the vaccine at 11- or 12-years-old is important because the vaccine is most effective at that time and infections often begin at 13-years-old.

The Danish Health Agency, Danish Cancer Society and Danish Medical Association partnered on the information campaign, which was funded by the Danish Parliament's Health and Senior Citizen's Committee and the Danish Cancer Society. The campaign cost about $1 million USD in taxpayer funds, and aimed to provide information to people hesitant about the vaccine, as opposed to people unwilling to get the vaccine for their children, who likely wouldn't change their minds, the study said. The campaign focused on sharing personal stories from women with cervical cancer on social media and digital platforms.

Read more at Science Daily