To Debunk or Not to Debunk? Correcting (Mis)Information
Abstract
Although misinformation is not a new problem, questions about its prevalence, its public impact, and how to combat it have taken on new urgency. An obvious solution to the problem of misinformation is to offer corrections (or debunkings) designed to clarify what is true and what is false. But corrections are not a panacea. Given the scope of the misinformation problem, we must consider: (1) which misinformation to prioritise for correction; (2) how to best correct misinformation; and (3) what else can be done pre-emptively to protect the public from future misdirection, as well as the need to tailor solutions to recognise cultural contexts. In deciding whether to correct, the source of the misinformation, its likely audience, and its harm should all be considered. Correction impact can be maximised by using REACT: repetition, empathy, alternative explanations, credible sources, and timeliness. Beyond correction, we must consider proactive solutions to build audience awareness and resis...tance. Promoting ‘sticky’ high-quality information, warning people against common myths and misleading techniques, encouraging health and information literacy, and designing platforms more resilient to misinformation efforts are all essential components in the management of infodemics now, and going forward into the future.
Keywords:
misinformation / debunking / correction / designed environment / resilienceSource:
Managing Infodemics in the 21st Century, 2023, 85-98Publisher:
- Springer, Cham
Institution/Community
Psihologija / PsychologyTY - CHAP AU - Vraga, Emily K. AU - Ecker, Ullrich K. H. AU - Žeželj, Iris AU - Lazić, Aleksandra AU - Azlan, Arina A. PY - 2023 UR - http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/4551 AB - Although misinformation is not a new problem, questions about its prevalence, its public impact, and how to combat it have taken on new urgency. An obvious solution to the problem of misinformation is to offer corrections (or debunkings) designed to clarify what is true and what is false. But corrections are not a panacea. Given the scope of the misinformation problem, we must consider: (1) which misinformation to prioritise for correction; (2) how to best correct misinformation; and (3) what else can be done pre-emptively to protect the public from future misdirection, as well as the need to tailor solutions to recognise cultural contexts. In deciding whether to correct, the source of the misinformation, its likely audience, and its harm should all be considered. Correction impact can be maximised by using REACT: repetition, empathy, alternative explanations, credible sources, and timeliness. Beyond correction, we must consider proactive solutions to build audience awareness and resistance. Promoting ‘sticky’ high-quality information, warning people against common myths and misleading techniques, encouraging health and information literacy, and designing platforms more resilient to misinformation efforts are all essential components in the management of infodemics now, and going forward into the future. PB - Springer, Cham T2 - Managing Infodemics in the 21st Century T1 - To Debunk or Not to Debunk? Correcting (Mis)Information EP - 98 SP - 85 DO - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27789-4_7 ER -
@inbook{ author = "Vraga, Emily K. and Ecker, Ullrich K. H. and Žeželj, Iris and Lazić, Aleksandra and Azlan, Arina A.", year = "2023", abstract = "Although misinformation is not a new problem, questions about its prevalence, its public impact, and how to combat it have taken on new urgency. An obvious solution to the problem of misinformation is to offer corrections (or debunkings) designed to clarify what is true and what is false. But corrections are not a panacea. Given the scope of the misinformation problem, we must consider: (1) which misinformation to prioritise for correction; (2) how to best correct misinformation; and (3) what else can be done pre-emptively to protect the public from future misdirection, as well as the need to tailor solutions to recognise cultural contexts. In deciding whether to correct, the source of the misinformation, its likely audience, and its harm should all be considered. Correction impact can be maximised by using REACT: repetition, empathy, alternative explanations, credible sources, and timeliness. Beyond correction, we must consider proactive solutions to build audience awareness and resistance. Promoting ‘sticky’ high-quality information, warning people against common myths and misleading techniques, encouraging health and information literacy, and designing platforms more resilient to misinformation efforts are all essential components in the management of infodemics now, and going forward into the future.", publisher = "Springer, Cham", journal = "Managing Infodemics in the 21st Century", booktitle = "To Debunk or Not to Debunk? Correcting (Mis)Information", pages = "98-85", doi = "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27789-4_7" }
Vraga, E. K., Ecker, U. K. H., Žeželj, I., Lazić, A.,& Azlan, A. A.. (2023). To Debunk or Not to Debunk? Correcting (Mis)Information. in Managing Infodemics in the 21st Century Springer, Cham., 85-98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27789-4_7
Vraga EK, Ecker UKH, Žeželj I, Lazić A, Azlan AA. To Debunk or Not to Debunk? Correcting (Mis)Information. in Managing Infodemics in the 21st Century. 2023;:85-98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27789-4_7 .
Vraga, Emily K., Ecker, Ullrich K. H., Žeželj, Iris, Lazić, Aleksandra, Azlan, Arina A., "To Debunk or Not to Debunk? Correcting (Mis)Information" in Managing Infodemics in the 21st Century (2023):85-98, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27789-4_7 . .