The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking: Being Corrected by Another User for Posting False Political News Increases Subsequent Sharing of Low Quality, Partisan, and Toxic Content in a Twitter Field Experiment
Open accessAbstract
A prominent approach to combating online misinformation is to debunk false content. Here we investigate downstream consequences of social corrections on users’ subsequent sharing of other content. Being corrected might make users more attentive to accuracy, thus improving their subsequent sharing. Alternatively, corrections might not improve subsequent sharing - or even backfire - by making users feel defensive, or by shifting their attention away from accuracy (e.g., towards various social factors). We identified N=2,000 users who shared false political news on Twitter, and replied to their false tweets with links to fact-checking websites. We find causal evidence that being corrected decreases the quality, and increases the partisan slant and language toxicity, of the users’ subsequent retweets (but has no significant effect on primary tweets). This suggests that being publicly corrected by another user shifts one's attention away from accuracy - presenting an important challenge for social correction approaches.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Studies show being corrected could decrease the quality and increases language toxicity in subsequent retweets [76], even when the corrections came from a bot [5].”
From Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
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
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847 · cited 2×
“One highly infuential study found that claims rated false by fact-checking websites were shared more on Twitter than claims rated true by fact-checking websites [4], while another study of tweets during the 2016 Presidential Election found that conditional on exposure, there was no diference in the probability of shar…”
BackgroundA Theory of Psychological Reactance
Torrance, E. P., & Brehm, J. W. (1968) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1420824 · Cited by 4,758
Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aao2998 · Cited by 4,160
Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective
Shu, K., Sliva, A., Wang, S., Tang, J., & Liu, H. (2017) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3137597.3137600 · Cited by 3,304
What Makes Online Content Viral?
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353 · Cited by 3,178 · cited 1×
“Past studies have found that high-arousal emotional content [18] and content that is both emotional and moral [19, 20] is shared more (although see [21],”
BackgroundWhen Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · Cited by 3,173
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003 · Cited by 1,915
Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election
Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aau2706 · Cited by 1,803
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620939054 · Cited by 1,715
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Perrin, A. Social media usage. Pew Research Center (2015), 52-68.
- Wittenberg, C. and Berinsky, A. J. Misinformation and its correction. Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform (2020), 163.
- Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Collins, E. T. and Rand, D. G. The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science (2020).
- Warren, C. and Berger, J. The influence of humor on sharing. ACR North American Advances (2011).
- Hassan, N., Adair, B., Hamilton, J. T., Li, C., Tremayne, M., Yang, J. and Yu, C. The quest to automate fact-checking. Proceedings of the 2015 Computation+ Journalism Symposium. 2015.
- 10.5555/2390665.2390708 · DOI
- Potthast, M., Kiesel, J., Reinartz, K., Bevendorff, J. and Stein, B. A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05638 (2017). · arXiv
- Bode, L., Vraga, E. K. and Tully, M. Do the right thing: tone may not affect correction of misinformation on social media. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2020).
- Martel, C., Mosleh, M. and Rand, D. You're definitely wrong, maybe: Correction style has minimal effect on corrections of misinformation online. Media & Communication 2021, 9, 1, 1-14.
- Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J. and Wood, T. J. Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior (2019), 1-22.
- 10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9 · DOI
- An, J. and Weber, I. # greysanatomy vs.# yankees: Demographics and Hashtag Use on Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01973 (2016). · arXiv
- Chakraborty, A., Messias, J., Benevenuto, F., Ghosh, S., Ganguly, N. and Gummadi, K. P. Who makes trends? understanding demographic biases in crowdsourced recommendations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00139 (2017). · arXiv
- Freelon, D., Bossetta, M., Wells, C., Lukito, J., Xia, Y. and Adams, K. Black Trolls Matter: Racial and Ideological Asymmetries in Social Media Disinformation. Social Science Computer Review (2020), 0894439320914853.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007 · Cited by 1,360
Self-citationShifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online
Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2 · Cited by 1,155
Self-citationZhou, J., Zhang, Y., Luo, Q., Parker, A. G., & De Choudhury, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581318 · Cited by 288
“Studies show being corrected could decrease the quality and increases language toxicity in subsequent retweets [76], even when the corrections came from a bot [5].”
BackgroundSpread of misinformation on social media: What contributes to it and how to combat it
Chen, S., Xiao, L., & Kumar, A. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107643 · Cited by 239
Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents
Arechar, A. A., Allen, J., Berinsky, A. J., Cole, R., Epstein, Z., Garimella, K., Gully, A., Lu, J. G., Ross, R. M., Stagnaro, M. N., et al. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01641-6 · Cited by 188
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Mosleh, M., Martel, C., Eckles, D., & Rand, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-05-06
- Pages
- 1-13
- OpenAlex
- W3162145206
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 11
- FWCI
- 55.32
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- John Templeton Foundation
- Reset project of Omidyar Group?s Luminate Project Limited
- William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
- Jigsaw
- National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (174530)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- misinformation debunking, social correction, fact-checking, retweeting behavior, political news, content quality, partisanship, defensive reactions, Twitter, online misinformation
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
