Understanding and Reducing Online Misinformation Across 16 Countries...
summary
A global experiment (16 countries, N = 33,480) shows people who score higher on analytic thinking and who care about accuracy or democracy reliably distinguish true from false COVID claims, while political conservatism correlates with worse discernment in most nations. Brief interventions — an accuracy prompt (improves sharing quality ~20%) and simple digital‑literacy tips (about half that effect) — reduce intended sharing of false headlines. Crowdsourced lay ratings (≈15–20 people per headline) classify true vs false with crowd AUC > 0.9. Field messages to Twitter users cut links to low‑quality outlets.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (16)
- 0:00Start
- 3:05A global view
- 3:47Basic Design
- 4:45Sample False Headlines
- 5:14Sample True Headlines
- 6:14Accuracy Condition
- 8:07Cognitive Perspective
- 11:20Social Perspectives
- 12:13Ideological Perspective
- 15:22Sharing Condition
- 18:54Prompt Condition
- 22:37Variation Across Headlines
- 23:52Tips Condition
- 32:20Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds
- 35:21Cross-cultural Replication
- 37:07Partisanship on Birdwatch
related talks
34mThe Psychology of Fake News (And What Tech Can Do About It)
45mHow to do effective research in an irrational world
38mDesign for Cognitive Bias: Using Mental Shortcuts for Good
26mBuild AI Systems for Discernment, Not Approval
41mDesign for Cognitive Bias
21mI've been manipulated!: Designing Second Screen Experiences for Critical Viewing of Reality TV
09mFalse Positives vs. False Negatives: The Effects of Recovery Time and Cognitive Costs on Input ...
43mExploiting Curiosity and Context: How to Make People Click on a Dangerous Link...