Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents

[1]  David G. Rand,et al.  Crowds Can Effectively Identify Misinformation at Scale. , 2023, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[2]  David G. Rand,et al.  Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation , 2022, Nature Communications.

[3]  L. Rao,et al.  Emotion, analytic thinking and susceptibility to misinformation during the COVID-19 outbreak , 2022, Computers in Human Behavior.

[4]  David G. Rand,et al.  Nudging Social Media toward Accuracy , 2022, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

[5]  S. van der Linden,et al.  Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information , 2022, Nature Human Behaviour.

[6]  Joshua A. Tucker,et al.  Moderating with the Mob: Evaluating the Efficacy of Real-Time Crowdsourced Fact-Checking , 2021, Journal of Online Trust and Safety.

[7]  Ó. Vilarroya,et al.  The role of political devotion in sharing partisan misinformation and resistance to fact-checking. , 2021, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  Ethan Porter,et al.  The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  David G. Rand,et al.  Nudging social media sharing towards accuracy , 2021 .

[10]  P. Resnick,et al.  Searching for or reviewing evidence improves crowdworkers’ misinformation judgments and reduces partisan bias , 2021, Collective Intelligence.

[11]  Damiano Spina,et al.  No one is immune to misinformation: An investigation of misinformation sharing by subscribers to a fact-checking newsletter , 2021, PloS one.

[12]  Adam M. Grant,et al.  Social Motivation at Work: The Organizational Psychology of Effort for, Against, and with Others. , 2021, Annual review of psychology.

[13]  David G. Rand,et al.  Beliefs About COVID-19 in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A Novel Test of Political Polarization and Motivated Reasoning , 2021, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[14]  Jevin D. West,et al.  Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation , 2021, Nature Human Behaviour.

[15]  Dean Eckles,et al.  Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking: Being Corrected by Another User for Posting False Political News Increases Subsequent Sharing of Low Quality, Partisan, and Toxic Content in a Twitter Field Experiment , 2021, CHI.

[16]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Believing and sharing misinformation, fact-checks, and accurate information on social media: The role of anxiety during COVID-19 , 2021, New Media Soc..

[17]  Katherine M. Engelke,et al.  Concepts, causes and consequences of trust in news media – a literature review and framework , 2021 .

[18]  C. Basch,et al.  A global pandemic in the time of viral memes: COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation on TikTok , 2021, Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics.

[19]  David G. Rand,et al.  Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online , 2021, Nature.

[20]  Timothy B. Gravelle,et al.  Some people just want to watch the world burn: the prevalence, psychology and politics of the ‘Need for Chaos’ , 2021, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

[21]  David G. Rand,et al.  Developing an accuracy-prompt toolkit to reduce COVID-19 misinformation online , 2021, Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.

[22]  H. Larson,et al.  Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA , 2021, Nature Human Behaviour.

[23]  David G. Rand,et al.  The Psychology of Fake News , 2021, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  D. Calvillo,et al.  An initial accuracy focus reduces the effect of prior exposure on perceived accuracy of news headlines , 2020, Cognitive research: principles and implications.

[25]  David G. Rand,et al.  Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds , 2020, Science advances.

[26]  David G. Rand,et al.  A Practical Guide to Doing Behavioral Research on Fake News and Misinformation , 2020, Collabra: Psychology.

[27]  Jon Roozenbeek,et al.  Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world , 2020, Royal Society Open Science.

[28]  Benjamin A. Lyons,et al.  A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Nic Fleming,et al.  Coronavirus misinformation, and how scientists can help to fight it , 2020, Nature.

[30]  Jenifer Whitten-Woodring,et al.  Poison If You Don’t Know How to Use It: Facebook, Democracy, and Human Rights in Myanmar , 2020 .

[31]  D. Calvillo,et al.  Pictures and repeated exposure increase perceived accuracy of news headlines , 2020 .

[32]  Jean-Pierre Dubé,et al.  The Persuasive Effect of Fox News: Non-Compliance with Social Distancing During the COVID-19 Pandemic , 2020, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[33]  Leonardo Bursztyn,et al.  Misinformation During a Pandemic , 2020, SSRN Electronic Journal.

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

[35]  David G. Rand,et al.  Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention , 2020, Psychological science.

[36]  Daniel A. Effron,et al.  Misinformation and Morality: Encountering Fake-News Headlines Makes Them Seem Less Unethical to Publish and Share , 2019, Psychological science.

[37]  David G. Rand,et al.  Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[38]  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.

[39]  David G. Rand,et al.  Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on Twitter , 2019, PloS one.

[40]  David G. Rand,et al.  Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements , 2019, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[41]  Kevin Arceneaux,et al.  The “Need for Chaos” and Motivations to Share Hostile Political Rumors , 2018, American Political Science Review.

[42]  David G. Rand,et al.  Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[44]  Jay J. Van Bavel,et al.  The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief , 2018, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[45]  Robbie M. Sutton,et al.  Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection , 2017, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[46]  Ethan Zuckerman,et al.  Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election , 2017 .

[47]  Sona Mardikyan,et al.  Examining the Global Digital Divide: A Cross- Country Analysis , 2015 .

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

[49]  Aaron C. Kay,et al.  Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. , 2014, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[50]  R. W. Jones.  The International Telecommunication Union , 1997 .

[51]  C. B. Colby.  The weirdest people in the world , 1973 .

[52]  SCI facts and figures 2016. , 2016, The journal of spinal cord medicine.

[53]  J. Jost,et al.  Ideological Differences in Epistemic Motivation: Implications for Attitude Structure, Depth of Information Processing, Susceptibility to Persuasion, and Stereotyping , 2014 .

[54]  Digital Library Adoption and the Technology Acceptance Model: A Cross-Country Analysis , 2010, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries..

[55]  S. Frederick.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .