Cited by 188Misinformation and Its ImpactsAcademic Publishing and Open AccessComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Pausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news

Open access
Fazio, Lisa·2020·Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review

Abstract

In an online experiment, participants who paused to explain why a headline was true or false indicated that they were less likely to share false information compared to control participants. Their intention to share accurate news stories was unchanged. These results indicate that adding “friction” (i.e., pausing to think) before sharing can improve the quality of information shared on social media.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.37016/mr-2020-009

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fazio, L.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Fazio, Lisa
Venue
Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review
Published
2020-02-10
ISSN
2766-1652 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3005166752
Cited by
187
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 2
FWCI
36.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Facebook
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
misinformation, social media, information quality

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