CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 390Misinformation and Its ImpactsCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention

Open access
Pennycook, Gordon, McPhetres, Jonathon, Zhang, Yunhao, Lu, Jackson G., Rand, David Gertler·2020
DOI 10.31234/osf.io/uhbk9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Across two studies with over 1,600 U.S. adults recruited online, we present evidence that people share false claims about COVID-19 partly because they simply fail to think sufficiently about whether or not content is accurate when deciding what to share. In Study 1, participants were far worse at discerning between true and false content when deciding what they would share on social media relative to when they are asked directly about accuracy. Furthermore, cognitive reflection and science knowledge were associated with stronger discernment. In Study 2, we found that a simple accuracy reminder at the beginning of the study – i.e., judging the accuracy of a non-COVID-19-related headline – more than doubled the level of truth discernment in participants’ sharing intentions. Our results, which mirror those found previously for political fake news, suggest that nudging people to think about accuracy is a simple way to improve choices about what to share on social media.

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 · 10.31234/osf.io/uhbk9

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • There is mixed research regarding whether corrections may actually increase belief in the original misinformation or in other misleading claims that fail to get corrected.

    “Moreover, there is mixed research regarding whether corrections may actually increase belief in the original misinformation 121,124-126 or in other misleading claims that fail to get corrected 127 .”

    From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [127]

    Citation 127 is attached to the suggestion that corrections may increase belief in other misleading claims that go uncorrected. The Statement of Relevance and Discussion describe an accuracy nudge that improved sharing decisions, not corrections or their effects on belief in uncorrected claims. Searches for correction backfire and uncorrected misinformation found no passage addressing that point; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • There is a disconnect between perceptions of accuracy and sharing intentions: even when participants are good at distinguishing true and false headlines when asked to judge accuracy, this ability often does not translate to sharing.

    “Recent work has observed that there is a disconnect between perceptions of accuracy and sharing intentions: Even when participants are quite good at distinguishing between true and false headlines (if they are asked to judge accuracy), this ability to discern truth from falsehood often does not translate to sharing24–26.”

    From Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

  • Prompting participants to think about accuracy reduces the disconnect between accuracy judgments and sharing intentions and thereby increases the quality of news shared.

    “Evidence for the role of inattention comes from experiments in which prompting participants to think about the concept of accuracy – for example, by asking them to evaluate the accuracy of a random headline at the beginning of the study – reduces the disconnect between accuracy judgments and sharing intentions, and thereby increases the quality of news shared24–26.”

    From Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

  • There is a dissociation between accuracy judgments and sharing intentions observed in past work.

    “given the dissociation between accuracy judgments and sharing intentions observed in past work24–26”

    From Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

  • The accuracy prompts are effective because they draw attention back to accuracy.

    “and that the accuracy prompts are effective because they draw attention back to accuracy24,26”

    From Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Regina (CA)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Pennycook, Gordon
ORCID
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2020-03-17
DOI
10.31234/osf.io/uhbk9
OpenAlex
W4232317699
Cited by
390
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 113 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation
  • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • Miami Foundation
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
COVID-19 misinformation, social media sharing, truth discernment, fake news, cognitive reflection, scientific knowledge

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