IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v8y2024i10d10.1038_s41562-024-01973-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers

Author

Listed:
  • Cameron Martel

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • David G. Rand

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Abstract

Warning labels from professional fact-checkers are one of the most widely used interventions against online misinformation. But are fact-checker warning labels effective for those who distrust fact-checkers? Here, in a first correlational study (N = 1,000), we validate a measure of trust in fact-checkers. Next, we conduct meta-analyses across 21 experiments (total N = 14,133) in which participants evaluated true and false news posts and were randomized to either see no warning labels or to see warning labels on a high proportion of the false posts. Warning labels were on average effective at reducing belief in (27.6% reduction), and sharing of (24.7% reduction), false headlines. While warning effects were smaller for participants with less trust in fact-checkers, warning labels nonetheless significantly reduced belief in (12.9% reduction), and sharing of (16.7% reduction), false news even for those most distrusting of fact-checkers. These results suggest that fact-checker warning labels are a broadly effective tool for combatting misinformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Cameron Martel & David G. Rand, 2024. "Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(10), pages 1957-1967, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1038_s41562-024-01973-x
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01973-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01973-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-024-01973-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1038_s41562-024-01973-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.