ABSTRACT

This study tested the effectiveness of fact-check format (regular vs. satirical) to refute different types of false information. Specifically, we conducted a pre-registered online survey experiment (N = 849) that compared the effects of regular fact-checkers and satirist refutations in response to mis- and disinformation about crime rates. The findings illustrated that both fact-checking formats – factual and satirical – were equally effective in lowering issue agreement and perceived credibility in response to false information. Instead of a backfire effect, moreover, the regular fact-check was particularly effective among people who agreed with the fact-check information; for satirical fact-checking, the effect was found across-the-board. Both formats were ineffective in decreasing affective polarization; it rather increased polarization under specific conditions (satire; agreeing with the fact-check).

摘要

本研究测试了事实核查格式（常规与讽刺）反驳不同类型虚假信息的有效性。具体来说，我们进行了预先注册的在线调查实验（N = 849) 比较了常规事实核查员和讽刺作家反驳对犯罪率错误和虚假信息的反应效果。调查结果表明，事实核查的形式——事实的和讽刺的——在降低问题一致性和响应虚假信息时的可信度方面同样有效。此外，定期的事实核查并没有产生适得其反的效果，而是在同意事实核查信息的人群中特别有效；对于讽刺事实核查，这种影响是全面的。两种形式都不能有效减少情感两极分化；它反而在特定条件下增加了两极分化（讽刺；同意事实核查）。