We collect (and briefly explain) major studies on fact-checking, fake news and misinformation
In one of the first quantifications of fake news in Europe, the authors found that, in France and Italy, users generally spend less time on selected fake news websites than they do on those of genuine media outlets.
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.
This study challenges the view that "expressive responding" — responses made to express support, rather than belief in something — is widespread.
In a report published on Poynter, student researchers at the Duke Reporters' Lab reviewed the work of 37 regional media outlets that fact-checked political claims during the election cycle that ended in November 2016.
Corrections were effective in changing Israeli Jews' historical misperceptions — but feelings of control also play a role.
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.
There's a positive correlation between analytical thinking and the capacity to distinguish fake news from real.
On Twitter, those who follow or are followed by people who correct their facts are more likely to accept the correction than those who are confronted by strangers.
People tend to update their beliefs towards the correct answer regardless of their partisan preference.