Nudging Social Media toward Accuracy
Open accessAbstract
A meaningful portion of online misinformation sharing is likely attributable to Internet users failing to consider accuracy when deciding what to share. As a result, simply redirecting attention to the concept of accuracy can increase sharing discernment. Here we discuss the importance of accuracy and describe a limited-attention utility model that is based on a theory about inattention to accuracy on social media. We review research that shows how a simple nudge or prompt that shifts attention to accuracy increases the quality of news that people share (typically by decreasing the sharing of false content), and then discuss outstanding questions relating to accuracy nudges, including the need for more work relating to persistence and habituation as well as the dearth of cross-cultural research on these topics. We also make several recommendations for policy-makers and social media companies for how to implement accuracy nudges.
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
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?
System 1 processing can be countered with accuracy inducements.
“This is akin to more System 1 processing, which can be countered with accuracy inducements (Pennycook & Rand, 2022).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Pennycook & Rand, 2022
In “Using Accuracy Prompts to Improve Sharing Discernment” (page not provided), the paper reports that accuracy prompts make sharing more discerning, including among people low in cognitive reflection. But “Outstanding Questions and Future Directions” says it remains unclear whether prompts induce more reflection or instead change what people reflect about. The paper therefore supports accuracy inducements as a way to improve sharing decisions, not the stronger claim that they counter System 1 processing itself. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567 · see citing works
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271 · see citing works
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620939054 · Cited by 1,715 · see citing works
Self-citationEmotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1618923114 · Cited by 1,396 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Perhaps the content triggers some sort of moral or emotional response (Brady et al. 2017; Brady, crockett, and van Bavel 2020); or it could be reaffirming of one’s political (or other) identity (van Bavel and Pereira 2018); or it could simply seem amusing, interesting, or important (chen,…”
BackgroundPennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007 · Cited by 1,360 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationFighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1806781116 · Cited by 947 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Ideally, the results of these experiments would be shared with the public, including investigating potential negative externalities (such as decreasing sharing of accurate news from unknown, and thus distrusted, sources; Pennycook and rand 2019b).”
BackgroundSelf-citationDebunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation
Chan, M.-P. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2017) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617714579 · Cited by 898 · see citing works
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12476 · Cited by 879 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief
Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004 · Cited by 743 · see citing works
Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970.
Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0030806 · Cited by 635 · see citing works
Correcting for Bias in Psychology: A Comparison of Meta-Analytic Methods
Carter, E. C., Schönbrodt, F. D., Gervais, W. M., & Hilgard, J. (2019) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245919847196 · Cited by 588 · see citing works
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/uhbk9 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Self-citationPennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30073-5 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Self-citationScaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds
Allen, J., Arechar, A. A., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf4393 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Self-citationPausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news
Fazio, L. (2020) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-009 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Mosleh, M., Martel, C., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445642 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Self-citationDeveloping an accuracy-prompt toolkit to reduce COVID-19 misinformation online
Epstein, Z., Berinsky, A. J., Cole, R., Gully, A., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-71 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Self-citationExposure to social engagement metrics increases vulnerability to misinformation
Avram, M., Micallef, N., Patil, S., & Menczer, F. (2020) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-033 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
How Can Psychological Science Help Counter the Spread of Fake News?
van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., Maertens, R., Basol, M., Kácha, O., Rathje, S., & Traberg, C. S. (2021) · The Spanish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1017/sjp.2021.23 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Epstein, Z., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376232 · Cited by 67 · cited 1× · see citing works
“One clear point of synergy involves attempts to leverage crowdsourcing to identify misinformation at scale (Allen et al. 2021; epstein, Pennycook, and rand 2020; Pennycook and rand 2019a).”
BackgroundSelf-citationUnderstanding and Combating Misinformation Across 16 Countries on Six Continents
Arechar, A. A., Allen, J. N. L., Berinsky, A. J., Cole, R., Epstein, Z., Garimella, K., Gully, A., Lu, J. G., Ross, R. M., Stagnaro, M., et al. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/a9frz · Cited by 25 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Fortunately, some early evidence indicates that accuracy prompts are broadly effective across cultures (Arechar et al. 2022).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Ajzen Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 27– 58. Available from 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27. 11148298 · DOI · Paper page
- Arceneaux Kevin Gravelle Timothy B. Osmundsen Mathias Petersen Michael B. Reifler Jason Scotto Thomas J. 2021. Some people just want to watch the world burn: The prevalence, psychology and politics of the “need for chaos.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 376 (1822). Available from 10.1098/rstb.2020.0147. PMC7934998 33611991 · DOI
- Bago Bence Rand David G. Pennycook Gordon. 2020. Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 149 (8). Available from 10.31234/OSF.IO/29B4J. 31916834 · DOI · Paper page
- Barberis Nicholas C. 2013. Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (1): 173–96. Available from 10.1257/jep.27.1.173. · DOI
- Bordalo Pedro Gennaioli Nicola Shleifer Andrei. 2012. Salience theory of choice under risk. Quarterly Journal of Economics 127 (3): 1243–85. Available from 10.1093/QJE. · DOI
- Brady William J. Crockett Molly J. Van Bavel Jay J. 2020. The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Available from 10.31234/OSF.IO/PZ9G6. 32511060 · DOI
- Camerer Colin F. Loewenstein George Rabin Matthew. 2004. Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Chen Cathy X. Pennycook Gordon Rand David. 2021. What makes news sharable on social media? PsyArXiv. Available from 10.31234/OSF.IO/GZQCD. · DOI
- Grinberg Nir Joseph Kenneth Friedland Lisa Swire-Thompson Briony Lazer David. 2019. Fake news on twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science 363:374–78. 30679368
- Guess Andrew M. Lerner Michael Lyons Benjamin Montgomery Jacob M. Nyhan Brendan Reifler Jason Sircar Neelanjan. 2020. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 201920498. Available from 10.1073/pnas. 1920498117. PMC7355018 32571950 · DOI
- Guess Andrew M. Nyhan Brendan Reifler Jason. 2020. Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour 4 (5): 472–80. Available from 10.1038/s41562-020-0833-x. PMC7239673 32123342 · DOI · Paper page
- Koszegi Botond Szeidl Adam. 2012. A model of focusing in economic choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 128 (1): 53– 104. Available from 10.1093/QJE. · DOI
- Kozyreva Anastasia Lewandowsky Stephan Hertwig Ralph. 2020. Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 21:103–56. Available from 10.1177/1529100620946707. PMC7745618 33325331 · DOI · Paper page
- Lin Hause Pennycook Gordon Rand David G. 2022. Thinking more or thinking differently? Using drift-diffusion modeling to illuminate why accuracy prompts decrease misinformation sharing. PsyArXiv, 1– 14. Available from 10.31234/osf.io/kf8md. 36334467 · DOI
- Martel Cameron Pennycook Gordon Rand David G. 2020. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 5 (1). Available from 10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3. PMC7539247 33026546 · DOI · Paper page
- Mosleh Mohsen Pennycook Gordon Arechar Antonio A. Rand David. 2021. Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter. Nature Communications, 1– 20. Available from 10.31234/OSF.IO/QASWN. PMC7875970 33568667 · DOI
- Mosleh Mohsen Pennycook Gordon Rand David G. 2021. Field experiments on social media. PsyArXiv. Available from 10.31234/OSF.IO/DGMC2. · DOI
- Nieminen Sakari Rapeli Lauri. 2018. Fighting misperceptions and doubting journalists’ objectivity: A review of fact-checking literature. Political Studies Review. Available from 10.1177/1478929918786852. · DOI · Paper page
- Osmundsen Mathias Bor Alexander Vahlstrup Peter B. Bechmann Anja Petersen Michael B. 2021. Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind “fake news” sharing on Twitter. American Political Science Review. Available from 10.31234/osf.io/v45bk. · DOI
- Pennycook Gordon Bear Adam Collins Evan Rand David G. 2020. The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news ttories increases perceived accuracy of stories without warnings. Management Science. Available from 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478. · DOI
- Pennycook Gordon Rand David G. 2019b. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188: 39– 50. Available from 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011. 29935897 · DOI · Paper page
- Pennycook Gordon Rand David G. 2021a. Lack of partisan bias in the identification of fake (versus real) news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25 (9): 725–26. Available from 10.1016/J.TICS.2021.06.003. 34226127 · DOI · Paper page
- Roozenbeek Jon Freeman Alexandra F. van der Linden Sander. 2021. How accurate are accuracy nudge interventions? A pre-registered direct replication of Pennycook et al. (2020). Psychological Science 32 (7): 1169–78. PMC8641132 34114521
- Rothstein Hannah R. Sutton Alexander J. Borenstein Michael. 2006. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
- Stigler George J. 1950. The development of utility theory. Journal of Political Economy 58 (4): 307–27. Available from 10.1086/256962. · DOI
- Traberg Cecilie S. Roozenbeek Jon van der Linden Sander. 2022. Psychological inoculation against misinformation: Current evidence and future directions. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Capraro, V., & Celadin, T. (2023) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672221117691 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G.
- Corresponding author
- Rand, David G.
- Venue
- The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-03
- Volume
- 700
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 152-164
- ISSN
- 0002-7162 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3349
- PMC
- PMC9082967
- OpenAlex
- W4229051537
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 6
- FWCI
- 28.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Omidyar Network
- Miami Foundation
- John Templeton Foundation
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- misinformation sharing, social media, news sharing, habituation, cross-cultural research, social media policy
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
