Nature study
paperCredibility Rating
Gold standard. Rigorous peer review, high editorial standards, and strong institutional reputation.
Rating inherited from publication venue: Nature
Empirical study on how framing affects user engagement with misinformation corrections, relevant to understanding human factors in combating AI-generated disinformation and designing effective corrective interventions.
Paper Details
Metadata
Summary
This four-country survey experiment examines how framing fact-checks influences user engagement with corrections to misinformation. The study compared semantically identical content presented either as confirmation frames (affirming accurate information) or refutation frames (denying false claims). Despite being logically equivalent, confirmation frames generated significantly higher engagement rates and reduced self-reported negative emotions related to polarization. These findings have important implications for designing misinformation interventions, particularly for health-related false claims and harmful speech, suggesting that how fact-checks are presented substantially affects their effectiveness and emotional impact.
Cited by 1 page
| Page | Type | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| AI-Era Epistemic Infrastructure | Approach | 59.0 |
Cached Content Preview
Framing fact-checks as a “confirmation” increases engagement with corrections of misinformation: a four-country study | Scientific Reports
Skip to main content
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Advertisement
Framing fact-checks as a “confirmation” increases engagement with corrections of misinformation: a four-country study
Download PDF
Download PDF
Subjects
Human behaviour
Psychology
Abstract
Previous research has extensively investigated why users spread misinformation online, while less attention has been given to the motivations behind sharing fact-checks. This article reports a four-country survey experiment assessing the influence of confirmation and refutation frames on engagement with online fact-checks. Respondents randomly received semantically identical content, either affirming accurate information (“It is TRUE that p ”) or refuting misinformation (“It is FALSE that not p ”). Despite semantic equivalence, confirmation frames elicit higher engagement rates than refutation frames. Additionally, confirmation frames reduce self-reported negative emotions related to polarization. These findings are crucial for designing policy interventions aiming to amplify fact-check exposure and reduce affective polarization, particularly in critical areas such as health-related misinformation and harmful speech.
Similar content being viewed by others
Prominent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but increase scepticism
Article
Open access
10 June 2024
Inoculation reduces social media engagement with affectively polarized content in the UK and US
Article
Open access
26 January 2025
Positive, global, and health or environment framing bolsters public support for climate policies
Article
Open access
20 October 2022
Introduction
Fact-checking is today the first line of defense against misinformation 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . It is frequently defined as “the practice of systematically publishing assessments of the validity of claims made b
... (truncated, 51 KB total)9bcc06d40d1e3e58 | Stable ID: MjJkNDFlMT