An Experimental Study to Understand User Experience and Perception Bias Occurred by Fact-checking Messages

What is it about?

Fact-checking has become the de facto solution for fighting fake news online. This research brings attention to the unexpected and diminished effect of fact-checking due to cognitive biases. We experimented (66,870 decisions) comparing the change in users’ stance toward unproven claims before and after being presented with a hypothetical fact-checked condition. We found that, first, the claims tagged with the ‘Lack of Evidence’ label are recognized similarly as false information unlike other borderline labels, indicating the presence of uncertainty-aversion bias in response to insufficient information. Second, users who initially show disapproval toward a claim are less likely to correct their views later than those who initially approve of the same claim when opposite fact-checking labels are shown — an indication of disapproval bias. Finally, user interviews revealed that users are more likely to share claims with Divided Evidence than those with a Lack of Evidence among borderline messages, reaffirming the presence of uncertainty-aversion bias. On average, we confirm that fact-checking helps users correct their views and reduces the circulation of falsehoods by leading them to abandon extreme views. Simultaneously, the presence of two biases reveals that fact-checking does not always elicit the desired user experience and that the outcome varies by the design of fact-checking messages and people’s initial view. These new observations have direct implications for multiple stakeholders, including platforms, policy-makers, and online users.

Featured Image

Photo by Agence Olloweb on Unsplash

Photo by Agence Olloweb on Unsplash