IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/zmx5p_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying and debunking environmentally-related false news stories—An experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • Gruener, Sven

Abstract

Informed decisions are the cornerstone of a functioning democracy. The goal of this paper is to experimentally explore who is good at distinguishing between true and false, and, second, to learn something about the mechanisms to debunk false news stories. While the vast majority of earlier studies tackles political topics, the subjects had to rate environmental-related as correct or false. After this exercise, subjects received systematically varied information about the correctness of the news stories depending on the experimental condition they had been assigned to. After a delay of three weeks, the subjects were asked to evaluate the news stories again. Our main findings are (i) The perceived familiarity with news stories increases the propensity to accept them as true. Actively open-minded thinking helps to distinguish between true and false. But the willingness to think deliberately does not seem to be important. (ii) By repeating false news stories, subjects are more likely to adequately identify them later (i.e., no evidence for a familiarity backfire effect). However, it decreased the ability to adequately identify correct news stories. A somewhat reverse, but weaker effect occurs when true stories are repeated: the correct identification of correct news stories is more successful, but the opposite holds for the identification of false news stories. Detailed explanations of why the false news stories contain false content increases the correct identification of false news stories, but the ability to correctly identify correct news stories is detrimental.

Suggested Citation

  • Gruener, Sven, 2020. "Identifying and debunking environmentally-related false news stories—An experimental study," SocArXiv zmx5p_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:zmx5p_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/zmx5p_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5e5b308bef5d8901ca06cc9d/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/zmx5p_v1?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Lucas Bretschger & Karen Pittel, 2020. "Twenty Key Challenges in Environmental and Resource Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 725-750, December.
    3. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 211-236, Spring.
    4. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    5. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    6. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gruener, Sven, 2020. "Identifying and debunking environmental-related false news stories—An experimental study," SocArXiv zmx5p, Center for Open Science.
    2. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Buser, Thomas, 2024. "Adversarial Economic Preferences Predict Right-Wing Voting," IZA Discussion Papers 16711, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    5. Tiziana Assenza & Alberto Cardaci & Stefanie Huber, 2024. "Fake News: Susceptibility, Awareness, and Solutions," ECONtribute Policy Brief Series 065, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    6. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    7. Michalis Drouvelis & Johannes Lohse, 2020. "Cognitive abilities and risk taking: the role of preferences," Discussion Papers 20-02, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    8. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    9. Ben Gillen & Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2015. "Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study," NBER Working Papers 21517, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    11. Assenza, Tiziana, 2021. "The Ability to 'Distill the Truth'," TSE Working Papers 21-1280, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Mar 2022.
    12. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    13. Sven Gruener, 2024. "Determinants of Gullibility to Misinformation: A Study of Climate Change, COVID-19 and Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 36(1), pages 58-78, January.
    14. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    15. Gary Charness & Nir Chemaya & Dario Trujano-Ochoa, 2023. "Learning your own risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 1-19, August.
    16. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2_v1, Center for Open Science.
    17. Momsen, Katharina & Ohndorf, Markus, 2020. "Information Avoidance, Selective Exposure, and Fake(?) News - A Market Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224637, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Tifferet, Sigal, 2021. "Verifying online information: Development and validation of a self-report scale," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    19. Hernán Bejarano & Francisco Galarza, 2016. "Can cognitive skills and risk aversion explain inconsistent choices? An experiment," Working Papers 16-03, Centro de Investigación, Universidad del Pacífico.
    20. Katharina Momsen & Markus Ohndorf, 2019. "Information Avoidance, Selective Exposure, and Fake(?) News-A Green Market Experiment," Working Papers 2019-18, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

    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:osf:socarx:zmx5p_v1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.