Redistributive preferences: Why actual income is ultimately more important than perceived income

An emerging consensus claims that ‘subjective’ (mis)perceptions of income inequality better explain redistributive preferences than actual ‘objective’ conditions. In this article, we critically re-assess this view. We compare perceived and actual income positions as predictors for preferences for redistribution. We argue that perceived income is partly endogenous to actual income and its effect on preferences conditional on ideology. Using an original survey experiment from Switzerland, we show that the predictive power of perceived income is lower compared to actual income. Perceived income is only associated with redistribution preferences among centre-right respondents, but not among left-wing respondents. Furthermore, providing respondents with corrective information about their true position in the income hierarchy has no effect on redistribution preferences. These findings go against the new consensus about the superior explanatory power of subjective perceptions of income inequality. We argue instead that absolute objective conditions should be at the centre of explaining redistributive preferences.

Correction format has a limited role when debunking misinformation

Given that being misinformed can have negative ramifications, finding optimal corrective techniques has become a key focus of research. In recent years, several divergent correction formats have been proposed as superior based on distinct theoretical frameworks. However, these correction formats have not been compared in controlled settings, so the suggested superiority of each format remains speculative. Across four experiments, the current paper investigated how altering the format of corrections influences people’s subsequent reliance on misinformation. We examined whether myth-first, fact-first, fact-only, or myth-only correction formats were most effective, using a range of different materials and participant pools. Experiments 1 and 2 focused on climate change misconceptions; participants were Qualtrics online panel members and students taking part in a massive open online course, respectively. Experiments 3 and 4 used misconceptions from a diverse set of topics, with Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdworkers and university student participants. We found that the impact of a correction on beliefs and inferential reasoning was largely independent of the specific format used. The clearest evidence for any potential relative superiority emerged in Experiment 4, which found that the myth-first format was more effective at myth correction than the fact-first format after a delayed retention interval. However, in general it appeared that as long as the key ingredients of a correction were presented, format did not make a considerable difference. This suggests that simply providing corrective information, regardless of format, is far more important than how the correction is presented.

Correction Format has a Limited Role when Debunking Misinformation

Given that being misinformed can have negative ramifications, finding optimal corrective techniques has become a key focus of research. In recent years, several divergent correction formats have been proposed as superior corrective methods based on distinct theoretical frameworks. However, these correction formats have not been compared in controlled settings, so the suggested superiority of each format remains speculative. Across four experiments, the current paper investigated how altering the format of corrections influences peoples’ subsequent reliance on misinformation. We examined whether myth-first, fact-first, fact-only, or myth-only correction formats were most effective, using a range of different materials and participant pools. Experiments 1 and 2 focused on climate change misconceptions; participants were Qualtrics online panel members and students taking part in a massive open online course, respectively. Experiments 3 and 4 used misconceptions from a diverse set of topics, with Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdworkers and university student participants. We found that the impact of a correction on beliefs and inferential reasoning was largely independent of the specific format used. The clearest evidence for any potential relative superiority emerged in Experiment 4, which found that with a delayed retention interval, the myth-first format was more effective at myth correction than the fact-first format. However, in general it appeared that as long as the key ingredients of a correction were presented, format did not appear to make a considerable difference. This suggests that simply providing corrective information, regardless of format, is far more important than how the correction is presented.

Effects of misinformation on COVID-19 prevention and control in Nigeria

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of misinformation on COVID-19 prevention and control in Nigeria. Methods: This review adopted a documentary research method involving personal and official documents sourced from Google, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases from February 2020 to October 2020. Related information was extracted from newspapers, social media, journal articles and grey literatures. The searched areas were: COVID-19 outbreak in Nigeria, spread of misinformation on COVID-19 cases in Nigeria, updates of COVID-19 cases in Nigeria, and the effect of health misinformation on COVID-19 prevention and control. Results: Data from 31 reviewed literature shows that Social media poses a threat to public health by facilitating the widespread misinformation, especially during health crises. Social media platform (WhatsApp) was highly used in the spread of misinformation across the globe, thereby resulting in fear or tension which often kills faster than the disease itself. These experiences show that Nigeria is not just fighting against COVID-19, but also facing the battle of misinformation which can also be deadly. Conclusion: Misinformation is increasingly more sophisticated than ever and its potentials spread wider and faster in social media era resulting in fear or tension. Improved e-health literacy and dissemination of increased corrective information are highly recommended. Keywords: control; COVID-19; corona virus; misinformation; prevention.

Politically Motivated Avoidance in Social Networks: A Study of Facebook and the 2020 Presidential Election

This study considers politically motivated unfriending/unfollowing on Facebook in the lead up to the 2020 Presidential election. As social media has grown more central to public discourse, it has been suggested that these types of avoidance behaviors might contribute to the formation of partisan echo chambers, whereby users may limit their exposure to competing viewpoints and corrective information by eliminating the network ties that transmit it. Building on prior research, this study explores the relationship between politically motivated avoidance and user perceptions of social media’s credibility as a source of political information. A pre-election survey of voting age adults in the state of Florida is analyzed to identify both the frequency and predictors of politically motivated avoidance. The results suggest that avoidance is a function of both individual political characteristics and user perceptions of information credibility. The findings are considered in the context of previous literature, and important avenues for future research are discussed.

Reliable Sources? Correcting Misinformation in Polarized Media Environments

Providing corrective information can reduce factual misperceptions among the public but it tends to have little effect on people’s underlying attitudes. Our study examines how the impact of misinformation corrections is moderated by media choice. In our experiment, participants are asked to read a news article published by Fox News or MSNBC, each highlighting the positive economic impact of legal immigration in the United States. While the news content is held constant, our treatment manipulates whether participants are allowed to freely choose a media outlet or are randomly assigned. Our results demonstrate the importance of people’s ability to choose: While factual misperceptions are easily corrected regardless of how people gained access to information, subsequent opinion change is conditional on people’s prior willingness to seek out alternative sources. As such, encouraging people to broaden their media diet may be more effective to combat misinformation than disseminating fact-checks alone.

Prevalence of anger, engaged in sadness: engagement in misinformation, correction, and emotional tweets during mass shootings

PurposeThe goal of this study is to examine how tweets containing distinct emotions (i.e., emotional tweets) and different information types (i.e., misinformation, corrective information, and others) are prevalent during the initial phase of mass shootings and furthermore, how users engage in those tweets.Design/methodology/approachThe researchers manually coded 1,478 tweets posted between August 3–11, 2019, in the immediate aftermath of the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings. This manual coding approach systematically examined the distinct emotions and information types of each tweet.FindingsThe authors found that, on Twitter, misinformation was more prevalent than correction during crises and a large portion of misinformation had negative emotions (i.e., anger, sadness, and anxiety), while correction featured anger. Notably, sadness-exhibiting tweets were more likely to be retweeted and liked by users, but tweets containing other emotions (i.e., anger, anxiety, and joy) were less likely to be retweeted and liked.Research limitations/implicationsOnly a portion of the larger conversation was manually coded. However, the current study provides an overall picture of how tweets are circulated during crises in terms of misinformation and correction, and moreover, how emotions and information types alike influence engagement behaviors.Originality/valueThe pervasive anger-laden tweets about mass shooting incidents might contribute to hostile narratives and eventually reignite political polarization. The notable presence of anger in correction tweets further suggests that those who are trying to provide correction to misinformation also rely on emotion. Moreover, our study suggests that displays of sadness could function in a way that leads individuals to rely on false claims as a coping strategy to counteract uncertainty.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-03-2021-0121/

Backfire effects after correcting misinformation are strongly associated with reliability

The backfire effect is when a correction increases belief in the very misconception it is attempting to correct, and it is often used as a reason not to correct misinformation. The current study aimed to test whether correcting misinformation increases belief more than a no-correction control. Furthermore, we aimed to examine whether item-level differences in backfire rates were associated with test-retest reliability or theoretically meaningful factors. These factors included worldview-related attributes, namely perceived importance and strength of pre-correction belief, and familiarity-related attributes, namely perceived novelty and the illusory truth effect. In two nearly identical experiments, we conducted a longitudinal pre/post design with N = 388 and 532 participants. Participants rated 21 misinformation items and were assigned to a correction condition or test-retest control. We found that no items backfired more in the correction condition compared to test-retest control or initial belief ratings. Item backfire rates were strongly negatively correlated with item reliability (⍴ = -.61 / -.73) and did not correlate with worldview-related attributes. Familiarity-related attributes were significantly correlated with backfire rate, though they did not consistently account for unique variance beyond reliability. While there have been previous papers highlighting the non-replicable nature of backfire effects, the current findings provide a potential mechanism for this poor replicability. It is crucial for future research into backfire effects to use reliable measures, report the reliability of their measures, and take reliability into account in analyses. Furthermore, fact-checkers and communicators should not avoid giving corrective information due to backfire concerns.

A systematic review of narrative interventions: Lessons for countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation

Even if a small portion of the population refuses vaccination due to anti-vaccination conspiracy theories or misinformation, this poses a threat to public health. We argue that addressing conspiracy theories with only corrective information is not enough. Instead, considering that they are complex narratives embedded in personal and cultural worldviews, they should be encountered with counternarratives. To identify existing narrative interventions aimed at countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and, more generally, map prerequisites for a narrative intervention to be successful, we present a systematic review of experimental effects of exposure to pro-vaccine narratives on a range of vaccination outcomes, based on 17 studies and 97 comparisons. We did not find any narrative interventions aimed directly at conspiracy theories. However, the review allowed us to make evidence-based recommendations for future research and for public communicators. This might help pro-vaccine communication match anti-vaccine communication in its potential to spread and go viral.