4.4 Article

Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL
卷 147, 期 12, 页码 1865-1880

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/xge0000465

关键词

fake news; news media; social media; fluency; illusory truth effect

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [MH081902]
  3. Templeton World Charity Foundation
  4. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [U01MH081902] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 2016 U.S. presidential election brought considerable attention to the phenomenon of fake news: entirely fabricated and often partisan content that is presented as factual. Here we demonstrate one mechanism that contributes to the believability of fake news: fluency via prior exposure. Using actual fake-news headlines presented as they were seen on Facebook, we show that even a single exposure increases subsequent perceptions of accuracy, both within the same session and after a week. Moreover, this illusory truth effect for fake-news headlines occurs despite a low level of overall believability and even when the stories are labeled as contested by fact checkers or are inconsistent with the reader's political ideology. These results suggest that social media platforms help to incubate belief in blatantly false news stories and that tagging such stories as disputed is not an effective solution to this problem. It is interesting, however, that we also found that prior exposure does not impact entirely implausible statements (e.g., The earth is a perfect square). These observations indicate that although extreme implausibility is a boundary condition of the illusory truth effect, only a small degree of potential plausibility is sufficient for repetition to increase perceived accuracy. As a consequence, the scope and impact of repetition on beliefs is greater than has been previously assumed.

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

4.4
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