|
|
|
|
‘True’ fact checks bring ‘cognitive pleasure’ |
|
|
|
By Andrii Yalanskyi/Shutterstock |
|
Fact checks that label a piece of content as “true” have a higher chance of going viral than those labeled “false.” This was just one of the conclusions of an independent study on fact-checking in Argentina during that country’s last presidential election. In 2019, researchers from the University of Maryland partnered with a team from Universidad Nacional de Quilmes to analyze fact checks published by Chequeado — Argentina’s most recognized fact-checking organization — on social media. Researchers Ernesto Calvo, Natalia Aruguete and Tiago Ventura wanted to know how voters perceived, accepted, consumed and shared fact checks. Conducted with 2,040 participants, the study included five experiments, all based on social media data. The results were impressive and have the potential to impact not just the fact-checking community but also projects aiming to fight mis/disinformation, like Facebook's Third Party Fact-Checking program. “The results of this study show that people would rather share an article considered ‘true’ than a ‘false’ one. This research also proves that each time we (Chequeado) point out to someone that something is not what they thought it was, their opinion about our brand or our organization is diminished,” wrote Laura Zommer, Chequeado's CEO, in an opinion piece published in the newspaper La Nación (available in English here). In a Zoom meeting held Tuesday, Calvo and Aruguete discussed their methodology and summarized their findings. “When the fact check validates as being true something that people already believed was true, the chances of sharing that fact check are higher than when there is a double false, when something you thought was wrong is considered wrong,” Calvo said. Among fact-checkers, it could be surprising that data shows the so-called “I was right effect” is more frequent with true content, but researchers offered a simple explanation. “Something that is positive twice — ‘I thought it as true and it actually is’ — generates cognitive pleasure. Double falses, on the other hand, cause cognitive harm and the conversation tends to stop.” In “Chequeado in Argentina: Fact-Checking and the Spread of Disinformation on Social Media,” researchers highlighted that "between July and December (2019), Chequeado published twice as many ‘false’ adjudications. This implies that the fact-checking organization is consistently causing ‘cognitive harm’ to its readers,” the researchers alerted. The study also found, both numerically and visually, that Chequeado isn’t politically biased. A social media analysis (that can surely be replicated in other parts of the world) showed that Chequeado’s fact checks are evenly shared on Twitter by those in favor and against the party controlling the government. Finally, the research proved that fact-checking can play a central role in the fight against electoral mis/disinformation. Researchers concluded that people might not change their opinions after reading Chequeado’s fact checks, but they saw evidence of a change in behavior. Many of the study participants became less prone to share unreliable information after receiving a fact check. Cris Tardáguila
|
|
|
Interesting fact-checks |
|
|
|
Reproduction from Mafindo |
|
|
Quick Hits |
|
|
|
Image by Reporters Without Borders |
|
From the news: |
|
|
From/for the Community: |
|
|
If you are a fact-checker and you’d like your work highlighted in the next edition, send us an email at factually@poynter.org by next Tuesday. Any corrections? Tips? We’d
love to hear from you: factually@poynter.org. |
|
|
