In a recent study published in Journalism Studies, researchers uncovered that efforts to combat misinformation, such as issuing warnings and fact-checking, may inadvertently reduce the credibility ratings of factually accurate news. This study highlights the complex relationship between the fight against misinformation, and public trust in legitimate news sources.
Misinformation — false or incorrect information — has increasingly infiltrated the digital news landscape. This has posed challenges for public perception and decision-making, and prior research has indicated that exposure to misinformation can lead to false beliefs that hinder the ability to differentiate between fake and real news. This issue has been made worse in the age of digital media, where the mass volume of information available makes it difficult for individuals to assess the accuracy of news content.
The preset study builds on the truth-default theory — a concept that suggests people generally assume the information they receive is honest. However, in the context of rampant misinformation, this assumption might be shifting towards a deception bias — leading individuals to suspect dishonesty more frequently.
Researchers in Amsterdam and Berlin started this study to explore the potential unintended consequences of communicative efforts against misinformation. The primary concern was whether these efforts, while aiming to protect the audience from false information, might lead to a general decrease in the credibility of accurate news. This is vital, considering the crucial role of credible information in a well-functioning democracy and the potential impact of misinformation on public trust.
An experimental design was implemented where 1,305 participants — all US based and recruited through Dynata, were exposed to different types of stimuli: misinformation, corrective information, misinformation warnings, and news media literacy (NML) interventions. The study aimed to simulate real-life exposure to various types of news information, assessing how this affects the credibility assessment of factual news.
Participants’ credibility ratings of factually accurate news were measured following exposure to these different types of information. This approach allowed the researchers to isolate the effects of each type of exposure on participants’ perceptions of news credibility.
The findings of the study revealed that participants exposed to misinformation, or warnings about misinformation, consistently rated factual news as less credible. However, exposure to fact-checking interventions did not have a similar negative impact on credibility perceptions. And, while NML interventions did not increase the accuracy of news assessment compared to a control group, they were found to be effective in contexts where misinformation was prevalent or warnings about misinformation were present.
These findings suggest that while misinformation, and warnings about it, can prime audiences toward a deception bias — NML interventions may help mitigate this effect in specific contexts.
It is important to consider that this study’s artificial setting might not fully capture the complexity of real-world news consumption. Additionally, the exclusion of source cues and focus on only two specific topics and one type of NML intervention may not represent the wide array of misinformation themes and potential literacy interventions.
Despite these limitations, the study provides important insights into the interplay between misinformation awareness, efforts to combat it, and public trust in news media. Overall, while initiatives to counter misinformation are crucial, they must be carefully designed to avoid reducing trust in legitimate news sources.
Toni van der Meer, Michael Hameleers and Jakob Ohme at the University of Amsterdam and the Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society authored this study, published as “Can Fighting Misinformation Have a Negative Spillover Effect? How Warnings for the Threat of Misinformation Can Decrease General News Credibility”.