We present two studies evaluating the effectiveness of flagging inaccurate political posts on social media. In Study 1, we tested fact-checker flags, peer-generated flags, and a flag indicating that the publisher self-identified as a source of humor. We predicted that all would be effective, that their effectiveness would depend on prior beliefs, and that the self-identified humor flag would work best. Conducting a 2-wave online experiment (N = 218), we found that self-identified humor flags were most effective, reducing beliefs and sharing intentions, especially among those predisposed to believe the post. We found no evidence that warnings from fact checkers or peers were beneficial. Compared to the alternatives, participants exposed to self-identified humor flags exhibited less reactance to and had more positive appraisals of the flagging system. The second study (N = 610) replicated the findings of the first and provides a preliminary test of what makes this flag work.

中文翻译：

---

标记Facebook虚假信息：自我识别的幽默警告优于事实检查器和同伴警告

我们目前进行两项研究，以评估在社交媒体上标记不正确的政治职位的有效性。在研究1中，我们测试了事实检查者标记，同伴生成的标记以及指示发布者自我标识为幽默来源的标记。我们预测所有人都会有效，他们的有效性将取决于先前的信念，并且自我识别的幽默标志会发挥最佳作用。进行2波在线实验（ N = 218），我们发现自我识别的幽默标志最有效，可以减少信仰并分享意图，尤其是那些倾向于相信该职位的人。我们没有发现证据表明事实检查者或同伴的警告是有益的。与替代方案相比，暴露于自我识别的幽默标志的参与者对标志系统的反应较少，并且得到了更积极的评价。第二项研究（ N  = 610）复制了第一项研究的发现，并对使该标志起作用的原因进行了初步测试。