CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122Misinformation and Its ImpactsCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactJournalism and Media Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can Fighting Misinformation Have a Negative Spillover Effect? How Warnings for the Threat of Misinformation Can Decrease General News Credibility

Open access
van der Meer, Toni G. L. A., Hameleers, Michael, Ohme, Jakob·2023·Journalism Studies
DOI 10.1080/1461670x.2023.2187652
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the battle against misinformation, do negative spillover effects of communicative efforts intended to protect audiences from inaccurate information exist?Given the relatively limited prevalence of misinformation in people's news diets, this study explores if the heightened salience of misinformation as a persistent societal threat can have an unintended spillover effect by decreasing the credibility of factually accurate news.Using an experimental design (N = 1305), we test whether credibility ratings of factually accurate news are subject to exposure to misinformation, corrective information, misinformation warnings, and news media literacy (NML) interventions relativizing the misinformation threat.Findings suggest that efforts like warning about the threat of misinformation can prime general distrust in authentic news, hinting toward a deception bias in the context of fear of misinformation being salient.Next, the successfulness of NML interventions is not straight forward if it comes to avoiding that the salience of misinformation distorts people's creditability accuracy.We conclude that the threats of the misinformation order may not just be remedied by fighting false information, but also by reestablishing trust in legitimate news.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1461670x.2023.2187652

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10.31235/osf.io/a3rzm · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 122

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
van der Meer, T. G. L. A., Hameleers, M., & Ohme, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Weizenbaum Institute (DE)
Corresponding author
van der Meer, Toni G. L. A.
ORCID
Venue
Journalism Studies
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-03-16
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
803-823
ISSN
  • 1461-670X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9699
DOI
10.1080/1461670x.2023.2187652
OpenAlex
W4327555979
Cited by
121
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 13
FWCI
51.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journalism Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Universitätsbibliothek der FU Berlin Hochschulschriftenstelle u. Dokumentenserver (cc-by)
Funders
  • Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
Keywords
misinformation, news credibility, spillover effects, corrective information

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