Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can an Algorithm Reduce the Perceived Bias of News? Testing the Effect of Machine Attribution on News Readers’ Evaluations of Bias, Anthropomorphism, and Credibility

Waddell, T. Franklin·2019·Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
DOI 10.1177/1077699018815891
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although accusations of editorial slant are ubiquitous to the contemporary media environment, recent advances in journalism such as news writing algorithms may hold the potential to reduce readers’ perceptions of media bias. Informed by the Modality-Agency-Interactivity-Navigability (MAIN) model and the principle of similarity attraction, an online experiment ( n = 612) was conducted to test if news attributed to an automated author is perceived as less biased and more credible than news attributed to a human author. Results reveal that perceptions of bias are attenuated when news is attributed to a journalist and algorithm in tandem, with positive downstream consequences for perceived news credibility.

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 · 10.1177/1077699018815891

Cites

7 of 7 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

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1293488 · DOI
  2. 10.1177/1461444812465137 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Appleman A. Sundar S. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 93(1) 59-79. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1177/1745691610393980 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1177/0265407597143008 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.4324/9781315713793-23 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/107769906504200104 · DOI
  9. Chaiken S., Liberman A., Eagly A. E. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman J. S., Bargh J. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  10. Chen S., Chaiken S. (1999). The heuristic systematic model in its broader context. In Chaiken S., Trope Y. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  11. 10.1080/17512786.2014.883116 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1177/2053168015622072 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1080/21670811.2014.976400 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1145/2001269.2001288 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1080/21670811.2015.1096748 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.013 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1111/0162-895X.00318 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1006/jesp.1994.1008 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/1464884916641269 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  21. 10.1177/1931243111407618 · doi:10.1177/1931243111407618
  22. 10.1177/00936502093330 · doi:10.1177/00936502093330
  23. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00318.x · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1080/21670811.2015.1081822 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/03637756609375482 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1177/0265407512452989 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Moskowitz G. B., Skurnik I., Galinsky A. D. (1999). The history of dual-process notions, and the future of preconscious control. In Chaiken S., Trope Y. (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 12-40). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  30. 10.1162/105474603322761289 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1080/15213260802669433 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.005 · DOI
  33. O’Keefe D. J. (2015). Trends and prospects in persuasion theory and research. In O’Keefe D. J. (Ed.), Persuasion: Theory and research (pp. 214-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  34. Reeves B., Nass C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press.
  35. 10.4324/9781315259222 · DOI
  36. 10.1037/h0028429 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Sundar S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In Metzger M. J., Flanagin A. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73-100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  38. 10.1002/9781118426456.ch3 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x · Paper page
  40. 10.4135/9781412976046.n11 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577 · Paper page
  42. 10.1080/08838150701820858 · DOI
  43. 10.1080/21670811.2014.976409 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Waddell, T. F.
Venue
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-01-25
Volume
96
Issue
1
Pages
82-100
ISSN
  • 1077-6990
  • 2161-430X
DOI
10.1177/1077699018815891
Cited by
122
References
7
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.