Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media

Authors: Nicholas Dias (1), Gordon Pennycook (2), David G. Rand (3) Affiliations: (1) Communication and Political Science, Annenberg School for Communication and the School of Arts & Sciences Gerald; (2) Behavioral Science at University of Regina’s Hill/Levene Schools of Business; MIT Sloan (3) How to cite: Dias, Nicholas; Pennycook, Gordon; Rand; David G. (2020). Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media, The Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, Volume 1, Issue 1 Received: Oct. 31, 2019 Accepted: Dec. 5, 2019 Published: Jan. 14, 2020

[1]  K. Jamieson,et al.  Processing the papal encyclical through perceptual filters: Pope Francis, identity-protective cognition, and climate change concern , 2017, Cognition.

[2]  David G. Rand,et al.  Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. , 2020, Journal of personality.

[3]  David G. Rand,et al.  Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. , 2012, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  David G. Rand,et al.  Belief in Fake News Is Associated with Delusionality, Dogmatism, Religious Fundamentalism, and Reduced Analytic Thinking , 2018, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.

[6]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Combating Fake News on Social Media with Source Ratings: The Effects of User and Expert Reputation Ratings , 2019, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[7]  David G. Rand,et al.  Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning , 2019, Cognition.

[8]  David G. Rand,et al.  The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market , 2010, ArXiv.

[9]  Chanthika Pornpitakpan.  The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence , 2004 .

[10]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon , 2017, Royal Society Open Science.

[11]  A. Coppock.  Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach , 2018, Political Science Research and Methods.

[12]  Matthew A. Baum,et al.  Shot by the Messenger: Partisan Cues and Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War , 2009 .

[13]  Thomas J. Leeper,et al.  The Generalizability of Survey Experiments* , 2015, Journal of Experimental Political Science.

[14]  Oliver A. McClellan,et al.  Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents , 2019, Research & Politics.

[15]  Adam Seth Levine,et al.  Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity , 2014, Journal of Experimental Political Science.

[16]  David G. Rand,et al.  The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Headlines Increases Perceived Accuracy of Headlines Without Warnings , 2019, Manag. Sci..

[17]  Mor Naaman,et al.  The Role of Source, Headline and Expressive Responding in Political News Evaluation , 2018 .

[18]  E. Austin,et al.  Source v. Content Effects on Judgments of News Believability , 1994 .

[19]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  The science of fake news , 2018, Science.

[20]  David G. Rand,et al.  Will the Crowd Game the Algorithm?: Using Layperson Judgments to Combat Misinformation on Social Media by Downranking Distrusted Sources , 2020, CHI.

[21]  S. Sundar.  The MAIN Model : A Heuristic Approach to Understanding Technology Effects on Credibility , 2007 .

[22]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation , 2015, British Journal of Political Science.