Cited by 81

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Reasoned Approach to Dealing With Fake News

Britt, M. Anne, Rouet, Jean-François, Blaum, Dylan, Millis, Keith·2019·Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Abstract

We now have almost no filters on information that we can access, and this requires a much more vigilant, knowledgeable reader. Learning false information from the web can have dire consequences for personal, social, and personal decision making. Given how our memory works and our biases in selecting and interpreting information, now more than ever we must control our own cognitive and affective processing. As examples: Simply repeating information can increase confidence in its perceived truth; initial incorrect information remains available and can continue to have an effect despite learning the corrected information; and we are more likely to accept information that is consistent with our beliefs. Information evaluation requires readers (a) to set and monitor their goals of accuracy, coherence, and completeness; (b) to employ strategies to achieve these goals; and (c) to value this time- and effort-consuming systematic evaluation. Several recommendations support a reasoned approach to fake news and manipulation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2372732218814855

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011911 · DOI
  2. 10.1080/13546789508256909 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/BF00127118 · DOI
  4. 10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6 · DOI
  5. 10.1080/01638530701739207 · DOI
  6. Britt M. A., 2013, Reading: From words to multiple texts, 160
  7. Britt M. A., 2018, Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading
  8. 10.1007/s10648-014-9278-y · DOI
  9. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5 · DOI
  10. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011821 · DOI
  11. Grice H. P., 1975, Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, 41
  12. 10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Kintsch W., 1998, Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition
  14. Kopp K. J., 2013, Selecting and using information from multiple documents for argumentation
  15. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.12.002 · DOI
  16. 10.2307/1229439 · DOI
  17. 10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366 · DOI
  18. Loftus E. F., 1979, Eyewitness testimony
  19. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1080/07370008.2013.769997 · DOI
  21. 10.1002/acp.3391 · DOI
  22. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1787/9789264204256-en · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00034.x · DOI
  25. Perfetti C. A., 1999, The construction of mental representations during reading, 99
  26. 10.5964/ejop.v8i2.456 · DOI
  27. 10.1177/0146167202286008 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1037/a0014038 · DOI
  29. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0005 · DOI
  30. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0017 · DOI
  31. 10.3758/BF03208784 · DOI
  32. 10.1080/135467896394564 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/07370008.2013.769996 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1007/BF00710663 · DOI
  35. 10.1080/13546780701527674 · DOI
  36. 10.1177/0741088309333019 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 81

Metadata

Authors
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Blaum, D., & Millis, K.
Affiliations
  • Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, USA
  • Université of Poitiers, France
Venue
Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Published
2019-03
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
94-101
ISSN
  • 2372-7322
  • 2372-7330
Cited by
81
References
4
Language
en

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