We collect (and briefly explain) major studies on fact-checking, fake news and misinformation
Anatomy of an online misinformation network
In this study, researchers analyze tweets from the run-up and aftermath of the 2016 U.S. presidential election to determine how the spread of misinformation relates to that of fact-checking.
Fake news has a relatively large audience, but it went deep with only a small portion of Americans. Fact-checkers also draw large audiences, but it doesn’t seem to bring the corrections to those who most need to read them.
In this study, researchers seek to understand the difference between tweets containing fake news and those that don’t by analyzing their metadata. Specifically, they use a sample of more than 1.5 million viral tweets collected on the 2016 U.S.
Three factors emerged as having an effect on rumor receptivity in this study: worldview, threat perception and prior exposure.
It’s often not enough for fact-checkers to simply correct online misinformation — they also have to create detailed counter-messages and alternative narratives if they want to change their audiences’ minds.
This study measures the extent to which algorithms and comments on Facebook that link to fact checks can effectively correct users' misconceptions about health news. Researchers tested this by exposing 613 survey participants to simulated news feeds with three condition.
Perceived social presence reduces fact-checking
This study of eight experiments aims to measure how social presence affects the way that people verify information online. It found that, when people think they're being judged by a large group of people online, they're less likely to fact-check claims than when they're alone.
This study attempts to determine the most effective way to correct misinformation on social media by testing both the content of corrections and how they're presented.