CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A prosocial fake news intervention with durable effects

Orosz, Gábor, Paskuj, Benedek, Faragó, Laura, Krekó, Péter·2023·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-023-30867-7PMC PMC9996558
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present online intervention promoted family-based prosocial values—in terms of helping family members—among young adults to build resistance against fake news. This preregistered randomized controlled trial study is among the first psychological fake news interventions in Eastern Europe, where the free press is weak and state-sponsored misinformation runs riot in mainstream media. In this intervention, participants were endowed with an expert role and requested to write a letter to their digitally less competent relatives explaining six strategies that help fake news recognition. Compared to the active control group there was an immediate effect (d = 0.32) that persisted until the follow-up four weeks later (d = 0.22) on fake news accuracy ratings of the young, advice-giving participants. The intervention also reduced the bullshit receptivity of participants both immediately after the intervention and in the long run. The present work demonstrates the power of using relevant social bonds for motivating behavior change among Eastern European participants. Our prosocial approach with its robust grounding in human psychology might complement prior interventions in the fight against misinformation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-023-30867-7

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Chen, X., Sin, S. C. J., Theng, Y. L. & Lee, C. S. Deterring the spread of misinformation on social network sites: A social cognitive theory-guided intervention. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 52, 1–4 (2015).
  2. Lutzke, L., Drummond, C., Slovic, P. & Árvai, J. Priming critical thinking: Simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Glob. Environ. Change 58, 101964 (2019). · DOI
  3. Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Good news about bad news: Gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. J. Cognit. 3, 2 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Jolley, D. & Douglas, K. M. Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47, 459–469 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Maertens, R., Anseel, F. & van der Linden, S. Combating climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. J. Environ. Psychol. 70, 101455 (2020). · DOI
  6. Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 1–10 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S. & Nygren, T. Prebunking interventions based on “inoculation” theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harvard Kennedy Sch. Misinf. Rev. 1, 1–15 (2020).
  8. Scheibenzuber, C., Hofer, S. & Nistor, N. Designing for fake news literacy training: A problem-based undergraduate online-course. Comput. Hum. Behav. 121, 106796 (2021). · DOI
  9. Zerback, T., Töpfl, F. & Knöpfle, M. The disconcerting potential of online disinformation: Persuasive effects of astroturfing comments and three strategies for inoculation against them. New Media Soc. 23, 1080–1098 (2020). · DOI
  10. Banerjee, S., Chua, A. Y. K. & Kim, J. J. Don’t be deceived: Using linguistic analysis to learn how to discern online review authenticity. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 68, 1525–1538 (2017).
  11. Guess, A. M. et al. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 15536–15545 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hameleers, M. Separating truth from lies: Comparing the effects of news media literacy interventions and fact-checkers in response to political misinformation in the US and Netherlands. Inf. Commun. Soc. 25, 110–126 (2022). · DOI
  13. Kahne, J. & Bowyer, B. Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. Am. Educ. Res. J. 54, 3–34 (2017). · DOI
  14. McGrew, S., Smith, M., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T. & Wineburg, S. Improving university students’ web savvy: An intervention study. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 485–500 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Antunovic, D., Parsons, P. & Cooke, T. R. ‘Checking’ and googling: Stages of news consumption among young adults. Journalism 19, 632–648 (2018). · DOI
  16. Rathje, S., Roozenbeek, J., Traberg, C. S., Van Bavel, J. J., & Linden, S. Letter to the editors of Psychological Science: Meta-Analysis reveals that accuracy nudges have little to no effect for U.S. conservatives: Regarding Pennycook et al. (2020). https://doi.org/10.25384/SAGE.12594110.v2 (2022). · DOI
  17. Roozenbeek, J., Freeman, A. L. & van der Linden, S. How accurate are accuracy-nudge interventions? A preregistered direct replication of Pennycook et al. (2020). Psychol. Sci. 32, 1169–1178 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  18. Grant, A. M. & Shandell, M. S. Social motivation at work: The organizational psychology of effort for, against, and with others. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 73, 301–326 (2022). · DOI
  19. Yeager, D. S. et al. Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic self-regulation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 559–580 (2014). · DOI
  20. Andorka, R. Társadalmi változások és társadalmi problémák, 1940–1990. Stat. Szle. 70, 301–324 (1992).
  21. Hankiss, E. East European Alternatives (Oxford University Press, 1990).
  22. Füstös, L. & Szakolczai, Á. Kontinuitás és diszkontinuitás az érték-preferenciákban (1977–1998). Szociol. Szemle 9, 54–73 (1999).
  23. Grant, A. M. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 393–417 (2007). · DOI
  24. Grant, A. M. & Hofmann, D. A. It’s not all about me: Motivating hospital hand hygiene by focusing on patients. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1494–1499 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  25. Paunesku, D. et al. Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychol. Sci. 26, 784–793 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  26. Fiske, S. T. Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology (Wiley, 2018).
  27. Yeager, D. S. & Dweck, C. S. Why interventions to influence adolescent behavior often fail but could succeed. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 101–122 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  28. Kross, E. et al. Self-talk as a regulatory mechanism: How you do it matters. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 106, 304–324 (2014). · DOI
  29. Aronson, E. The power of self-persuasion. Am. Psychol. 54, 875–884 (1999). · DOI
  30. Aronson, E., Fried, C. & Stone, J. Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. Am. J. Public Health 81, 1636–1638 (1991). · DOI · Paper page
  31. Stone, J., Aronson, E., Crain, A. L., Winslow, M. P. & Fried, C. B. Inducing hypocrisy as a means of encouraging young adults to use condoms. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20, 116–128 (1994). · DOI · Paper page
  32. Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 21, 103–156 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  33. Walton, G. M. & Wilson, T. D. Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychol. Rev. 125, 617–655 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  34. Hertwig, R. & Grüne-Yanoff, T. Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 973–986 (2017). · DOI
  35. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J. & Fugelsang, J. A. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 10, 549–563 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  36. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  37. Guess, A. M. & Munger, K. Digital literacy and online political behavior. Polit. Sci. Res. Methods 11, 1–19 (2020).
  38. Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. The need for cognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 42, 116–131 (1982). · DOI · Paper page
  39. Frederick, S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 25–42 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Thomson, K. S. & Oppenheimer, D. M. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 11, 99–113 (2016). · DOI
  41. Bozóki, A. & Hegedűs, D. An externally constrained hybrid regime: Hungary in the European Union. Democratization 25, 1173–1189 (2018). · DOI
  42. Krekó, P. & Enyedi, Z. Explaining Eastern Europe: Orbán’s laboratory of illiberalism. J. Democr. 29, 39–51 (2018). · DOI
  43. Helmus, T. C. et al. Russian Social Media Influence: Understanding Russian Propaganda in Eastern Europe (Rand Corporation, 2018). · DOI
  44. Grant, A. M. & Mayer, D. M. Good soldiers and good actors: prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 900–912 (2009). · DOI
  45. Georgiou, N., Delfabbro, P. & Balzan, R. COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs and their relationship with perceived stress and pre-existing conspiracy beliefs. Pers. Individ. Differ. 166, 110201 (2020). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 24

Metadata

Authors
Orosz, G., Paskuj, B., Faragó, L., & Krekó, P.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-03-09
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/s41598-023-30867-7
PMC
PMC9996558
Cited by
24
References
19
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review