4.7 Article

The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada

期刊

NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 236-243

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01278-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [2028485]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/V004883/1]
  3. Munk School of Global Affairs Public Policy
  4. Faculty of Arts & Science at the University of Toronto
  5. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  6. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [2028485] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. ESRC [ES/V004883/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fact-checks can reduce belief in misperceptions about COVID-19, especially among the groups who are most vulnerable to these claims. However, these effects do not persist over time.
Widespread misperceptions about COVID-19 and the novel coronavirus threaten to exacerbate the severity of the pandemic. We conducted preregistered survey experiments in the United States, Great Britain and Canada examining the effectiveness of fact-checks that seek to correct these false or unsupported beliefs. Across three countries with differing levels of political conflict over the pandemic response, we demonstrate that fact-checks reduce targeted misperceptions, especially among the groups who are most vulnerable to these claims, and have minimal spillover effects on the accuracy of related beliefs. However, these reductions in COVID-19 misperception beliefs do not persist over time in panel data even after repeated exposure. These results suggest that fact-checks can successfully change the COVID-19 beliefs of the people who would benefit from them most but that their effects are ephemeral. Experiments in the United States, Great Britain and Canada show that fact-checks can reduce belief in misperceptions about COVID-19, especially among the groups who are most vulnerable to these claims. However, these effects do not persist over time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据