Is the Truth Too Hard to Hear?

Fact checking might even be counterproductive under certain circumstances.

The below excerpt from an MIT Media Lab paper on false news on Twitter, reviewed the research findings on the limits of false news debunking work.  It is dismaying.

Despite the apparent elegance of fact checking, the science supporting its efficacy is, at best, mixed. This may reflect broader tendencies in collective cognition, as well as structural changes in our society. Individuals tend not to question the credibility of information unless it violates their preconceptions or they are incentivized to do so. Otherwise, they may accept information uncritically. People also tend to align their beliefs with the values of their community.

Research also further demonstrates that people prefer information that confirms their preexisting attitudes (selective exposure), view information consistent with their preexisting beliefs as more persuasive than dissonant information (confirmation bias), and are inclined to accept information that pleases them (desirability bias). Prior partisan and ideological beliefs might prevent acceptance of fact checking of a given fake news story.

Fact checking might even be counterproductive under certain circumstances. Research on fluency—the ease of information recall—and familiarity bias in politics shows that people tend to remember information, or how they feel about it, while forgetting the context within which they encountered it. Moreover, they are more likely to accept familiar information as true (10). There is thus a risk that repeating false information, even in a fact-checking context, may increase an individual’s likelihood of accepting it as true. The evidence on the effectiveness of claim repetition in fact checking is mixed (11).

Although experimental and survey research have confirmed that the perception of truth increases when misinformation is repeated, this may not occur if the misinformation is paired with a valid retraction. Some research suggests that repetition of the misinformation before its correction may even be beneficial. Further research is needed to reconcile these contradictions and determine the conditions under which fact-checking interventions are most effective.

Another, longer-run, approach seeks to improve individual evaluation of the quality of information sources through education. There has been a proliferation of efforts to inject training of critical-information skills into primary and secondary schools (12). However, it is uncertain whether such efforts improve assessments of information credibility or if any such effects will persist over time. An emphasis on fake news might also have the unintended consequence of reducing the perceived credibility of real-news outlets.

Quoted from: The science of fake news. Science.  09-March-2018.  By David Lazer, Matthew Baum, et al.

 

Author: Publicis

A citizen of the United States more concerned with how our society works than with the fate of the parties or particular candidates.

Leave a Reply
https://epluribusunum-us.com/2018/03/10/is-the-truth-too-hard-to-hear/
epluribusunum-us.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-39
41126
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:YLQEHI26HVTA3G5T3IBZUVXUWJNU3FGH
<urn:uuid:fe23e1b3-270d-47f8-be14-4fd268be1dc1>
2019-09-19T16:47:36Z
192.0.78.162
text/html
sha1:FLTOG3SPSETGDL4JSWB6JTGLESPEOG7G
<urn:uuid:4c1b4fb2-886e-400e-b070-b5d31efdb775>
https://epluribusunum-us.com/2018/03/10/is-the-truth-too-hard-to-hear/
response
<urn:uuid:cc0190d1-1e45-40cf-a132-a62677975ae0>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-201.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/