Cited by 94Misinformation and Its ImpactsCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Developing an accuracy-prompt toolkit to reduce COVID-19 misinformation online

Open access
Epstein, Ziv, Berinsky, Adam J., Cole, Rocky, Gully, Andrew, Pennycook, Gordon, Rand, David G.·2021·Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review

Abstract

Recent research suggests that shifting users’ attention to accuracy increases the quality of news they subsequently share online. Here we help develop this initial observation into a suite of deploy-able interventions for practitioners. We ask (i) how prior results generalize to other approaches for prompting users to consider accuracy, and (ii) for whom these prompts are more versus less effec-tive. In a large survey experiment examining participants’ intentions to share true and false head-lines about COVID-19, we identify a variety of different accuracy prompts that su¬ccessfully increase sharing

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 · 10.37016/mr-2020-71

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • A variety of successful accuracy prompts have been identified.

    “a variety of successful accuracy prompts have been identified25”
  • 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.”
  • 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.”
  • 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”

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

Authors
Epstein, Z., Berinsky, A. J., Cole, R., Gully, A., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G.
Affiliations
  • MIT Media Lab (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • University of Regina (CA)
Venue
Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review
Published
2021-05-18
ISSN
2766-1652 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3161219713
Cited by
93
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 7
FWCI
27.37
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)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • Miami Foundation
  • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • John Templeton Foundation
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  • Google
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, misinformation interventions, survey experiment

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