Testing the Effectiveness of Correction Placement and Type on Instagram

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Despite concerns about misinformation across social media platforms, little attention has been paid to how to correct misinformation on visual platforms like Instagram. This study uses an experimental design on a national sample to test two features of user-based correction strategies on Instagram for a divisive issue on which misinformation abounds: the issue of climate change. First, we unite the inoculation and correction literature to test the efficacy of prebunking corrections that come before exposure to the misinformation versus debunking strategies that occur after exposure. Second, we compare fact-focused corrections that provide accurate information to rebut the misinformation against logic-focused corrections that highlight the rhetorical flaw underpinning the misinformation. Our findings suggest that these strategies intersect to reduce misperceptions. Logic-focused corrections effectively reduce misperceptions regardless of their placement before or after the misinformation, and appear to function in part by reducing perceptions of the credibility of the misinformation post. Fact-focused corrections only reduce misperceptions when they occur after the misinformation, but are seen as more credible than logic-focused corrections. We discuss the implications of our findings for understanding the theoretical mechanism by which correction can occur and the practical guidelines to best correct misinformation in visual social media spaces.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change

Sander C. van der Linden, Anthony Leiserowitz, Seth Rosenthal … (2017)

Effectively addressing climate change requires significant changes in individual and collective human behavior and decision‐making. Yet, in light of the increasing politicization of (climate) science, and the attempts of vested‐interest groups to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change through organized “disinformation campaigns,” identifying ways to effectively engage with the public about the issue across the political spectrum has proven difficult. A growing body of research suggests that one promising way to counteract the politicization of science is to convey the high level of normative agreement (“consensus”) among experts about the reality of human‐caused climate change. Yet, much prior research examining public opinion dynamics in the context of climate change has done so under conditions with limited external validity. Moreover, no research to date has examined how to protect the public from the spread of influential misinformation about climate change. The current research bridges this divide by exploring how people evaluate and process consensus cues in a polarized information environment. Furthermore, evidence is provided that it is possible to pre‐emptively protect (“inoculate”) public attitudes about climate change against real‐world misinformation.