Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Evaluation Metrics for Misinformation Warning Interventions: Challenges and Prospects

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review argues that no prior review focused on metrics for misinformation warning interventions, and that existing measures split into four families—behavioral, trust/credibility, usability, cognitive—whose fragmentation hinders…

desk verdict A useful but under-polished systematic review of metrics for misinformation warnings; the taxonomy is a good start, but internal inconsistencies undercut the completeness claim until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09526 v1 pith:GFGHPTVP submitted 2025-05-14 cs.HC

Hussaini Zubairu , Abdelrahaman Abdou , Ashraf Matrawy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords misinformationwarningsevaluationmetricsbehavioraltrustandcredibilityusabilitycognitivepsychologicalinterventionssystematicreview
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a systematic review with a narrow target: the metrics researchers use to judge whether misinformation warning interventions work. It tries to establish that no earlier review has focused specifically on these metrics, that the metrics can be sorted into four families—behavioral, trust and credibility, usability, and cognitive and psychological—and that this fragmentation is a root cause of contradictory findings about warning effectiveness. The paper documents which metrics are common (perceived accuracy and sharing intention lead), which are missing (affective and emotional impact, accessibility), and what would need to change for evaluations to be comparable. The stakes are practical: platforms deploy warning labels widely, and without agreed metrics we cannot tell which label designs reduce belief in, and spread of, misinformation.

What carries the argument

The central organizing device is a four-category taxonomy of metrics, with each category named and defined in the paper: behavioral metrics (click-through rates, sharing rates, sharing likelihood, engagement duration, behavioral change), trust and credibility metrics (perceived accuracy, perceived objectivity, perceived credibility), usability metrics (perceived usefulness, perceived disruption, accessibility), and cognitive and psychological metrics (belief change, cognitive load, memory retention, attitude shift, cognitive resistance). The taxonomy does the argumentative work: mapping each published metric to these categories and to tables of pros and cons lets the review turn scattered findings into a list of challenges and future directions.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of a larger search corpus that includes non-English studies and platform industry reports would falsify the taxonomy's exhaustiveness if it turned up a metric family fitting none of the four categories—for example, cost-per-correction or temporal decay of warning effects. Likewise, a coding exercise showing that perceived accuracy and perceived believability are treated as interchangeable in the underlying studies would weaken the claim that the categories are distinct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the field lacks a dedicated, systematic account of evaluation metrics for misinformation warning interventions, and that the metrics in use form four recognizable families. On this view, studies reporting positive or limited effects of warnings often are not measuring the same thing: some track clicks, shares, or alternative-source visits; others measure perceived accuracy, credibility, or trust; still others assess perceived usefulness, accessibility, cognitive load, or belief change. The paper assembles these into a taxonomy, identifies perceived accuracy and sharing intention as the most frequent measures, and argues that the lack of standardization, context dependence, missing accessibility considerations, and single-dimensional focus are why warning effectiveness remains contested.

Load-bearing premise

The review's completeness rests on the literature search finding all relevant metric families and on the four-category taxonomy being exhaustive and non-overlapping; if a family is missing or categories overlap, the list of challenges and the claim of comprehensive coverage weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers comparing warning studies will need to state which metric family they are sampling; results from a sharing-rate study and a perceived-accuracy study are not interchangeable.
  • A standardized metric battery would let platform designers test the same warning design across different platforms and see whether effectiveness rankings change.
  • Evaluations that ignore usability and accessibility may overstate effectiveness for the general population while missing failures for visually impaired users.
  • Future intervention studies should pair an observable behavior metric with a cognitive or trust metric, since single-dimensional measures can miss belief change without behavior change.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the taxonomy is right, a natural next step is a benchmark set of standardized tasks and scales—one the review calls for but does not build; a consortium could validate it by running several warning designs through the same battery.
  • The review's context-dependence challenge implies that the same warning may need platform-specific metric suites; that is testable by deploying identical labels on different platforms and measuring whether relative effectiveness rankings shift.
  • The absence of affective metrics suggests biometric or physiological measures, such as skin conductance or facial expression, could capture emotional responses that self-report misses; this is an extension the paper mentions as a gap but does not test.
  • A cost-side dimension—for example, false-positive warnings eroding trust, or the effort users spend verifying flagged content—is absent from the taxonomy; adding it would make the framework more useful to platform operators weighing intervention costs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reviews metrics used to evaluate the effectiveness of misinformation warning interventions. It claims to be the first systematic review explicitly focused on such metrics (Section I) and proposes a four-category taxonomy: behavioral, trust and credibility, usability, and cognitive and psychological metrics (Section III, Figure 1). The authors adopt the PRISMA framework (Section II) and summarize metrics and their pros and cons in Tables II–VI. They identify challenges including variation in behavioral metrics, lack of standardization, context dependence, lack of diversity, limited dimensional focus, and ambiguity in measurement (Section V.A), and propose future directions such as multidimensional, inclusive, adaptive, and standardized metrics (Section V.B).

Significance. If the taxonomy and the inventory of metrics were reliable, this review would be a useful reference for researchers designing evaluations of misinformation warnings, and it would fill a genuine gap in a literature that is largely intervention-outcome oriented rather than metric-centric. The paper shows a broad engagement with the relevant literature (54 references), and the explicit pros/cons tables are a helpful start. However, the central classification claim is currently undermined by internal inconsistencies between the prose definitions in Section III and the metric table in Section VI, by category overlap, and by the presence of unmapped metrics in Table VI. Because the review's value rests on the completeness and consistency of the taxonomy, these issues are load-bearing. The PRISMA process is also underreported, which weakens the completeness claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A vs. Table VI] Click-through rate (CTR) is defined in opposite ways. Section III.A states that CTR 'is employed to assess how frequently users interact with a warning intervention by clicking on it' and treats a high CTR as possibly indicating effectiveness in capturing attention. Table VI defines CTR as 'the proportion of users who proceed beyond a warning to access potential misinformation' and states that a high CTR 'indicates frequent disregard for warnings, while a low CTR reflects user compliance.' These are contradictory interpretations of the same metric. Because CTR is the first behavioral metric presented and is used as an example in Section V.A, the behavioral category is unreliable until this definition is reconciled.
  2. [Table VI] Table VI lists several metrics that are not defined or categorized in Section III: Awareness of Retraction, Durability of the Warning, Sharing Discernment, Memory Bias Awareness, Perceived Risk of Misinformation, Misperception, and Skepticism. If these are part of the review's inventory, the four-category taxonomy must either place them in the appropriate category or explicitly state that they are outside the taxonomy. As written, the taxonomy does not cover all metrics the review itself identifies, contradicting the claim of a comprehensive classification in Section III.
  3. [Section III.C vs. Section III.D and Table IV] The category boundary between usability and cognitive/psychological metrics is inconsistent. Cognitive Load is listed as a usability metric in Table IV, but Section III.D describes cognitive load as a cognitive and psychological metric. In addition, Table IV includes Task Completion Rate, User Satisfaction, Aesthetic Appeal, and Time on Task, none of which are defined in Section III.C's list of usability metrics. The taxonomy therefore has both overlaps and omissions, which undermines its claim of being exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
  4. [Section II] The PRISMA process is underreported. The paper does not provide a PRISMA flow diagram, does not state the search dates (only 'studies up to 2024'), and does not report the number of records identified, screened, excluded, or included. Without these details, the completeness of the literature base for the review cannot be assessed, and the 'comprehensive' claim in the abstract and Section I is not verifiable.
  5. [Section IV] The claim that 'perceived accuracy emerges as the most frequently used metric, followed by sharing intention or likelihood of sharing' is stated without the counting methodology or results to support it. Table VI does list many citations for perceived accuracy, but there is no systematic frequency analysis described, and some metrics in the table have overlapping definitions (e.g., Sharing intention vs. Sharing likelihood, Perceived accuracy vs. Misperception). This claim needs either a quantitative summary from the screening process or a clear qualitative basis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section I] The uniqueness claim 'To our knowledge, no previous review has explicitly focused on reviewing metrics for misinformation warning interventions' is unsubstantiated and should be qualified, especially since Hartwig et al. [18] is described as a systematic literature review of user-centered misinformation interventions and Smith et al. [20] explicitly discusses standardized outcome measures. A short comparison with these prior reviews would make the incremental contribution clearer.
  2. [Throughout] Metric terminology is not consistent across sections and tables. For example, 'Believe change' in Section III.D appears as 'Belief change' in Table V, 'Memory retention' in Section III.D appears as 'Memory recall' in Table V, 'Sharing likelihood' in Section III.A appears as 'Sharing intention/Likelihood to Share' in Table VI, and 'Attitude shift' in Table V corresponds to a different definition than 'Attitude shift' in Section III.D. Please standardize names and definitions.
  3. [Table V] The table title contains a typo: 'COGNITIVE AND PSYCOLOGICAL' should be 'COGNITIVE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL'. Also, the rows 'Belief change', 'Memory recall', and 'Attitude change' are not defined in Section III.D; please align the table with the prose.
  4. [Table VI] The entry 'Engagement (likes, shares, and reactions)' contains a grammatical error: 'This metrics are use to measures' should be 'These metrics are used to measure'. Additionally, the table would be more useful if it included a column indicating which of the four proposed categories each metric belongs to, reflecting the paper's taxonomy.
  5. [Section II] The inclusion criteria in Table I require peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings, but the reference list includes sources such as arXiv preprints (e.g., [31], [33], [47], [53], [54]). Please clarify whether these sources met the inclusion criteria or whether the criteria were applied more loosely than stated.
  6. [Figure 1] Figure 1 presents the proposed classification but is not described in the text beyond a generic reference in Section III. A brief description of the figure and its categories would help readers follow the taxonomy, and the categories should be named consistently with the section headings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is a literature review synthesizing external studies; its classification issues are completeness and consistency concerns, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

This paper is a review of external literature on metrics for misinformation warning interventions. It makes no predictions, fits no parameters, and derives no quantitative results from its own inputs. The central contribution is an organizational four-category taxonomy of metrics, which is a classification of metrics reported in cited empirical studies; a classification claim can be incomplete or internally inconsistent, but it is not circular unless the categories themselves are defined in terms of the conclusion they are supposed to support. No such self-definitional structure appears: Section III lists metrics with cited sources, and Table VI maps metrics to publications. The paper's uniqueness claim ('To our knowledge, no previous review has explicitly focused on reviewing metrics for misinformation warning interventions') is unsubstantiated but is an assertion about the literature, not a derivation from the reviewed metrics. The self-referential limitation statement in Section VI ('This review is limited by its inclusion criteria, focusing exclusively on warning interventions') is an honest acknowledgment of scope, not a circular step. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the references are prior empirical studies by other research groups, and no cited theorem or result from the authors' own prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. Internal issues such as the opposite definitions of CTR in Section III.A versus Table VI, metrics in Table VI not defined in Section III, and the placement of Cognitive Load under usability in Table IV versus cognitive metrics in Section III.D are correctness, completeness, and consistency problems in the review's synthesis; they do not reduce the paper's claims to its inputs by construction. Therefore the appropriate circularity finding is none.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear in this review. The load-bearing premises are the completeness of the literature search and the exhaustiveness of the proposed classification.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The PRISMA-based search in Section II captures all relevant metrics for warning interventions.
    The paper does not report a flow diagram or screening counts, yet asserts comprehensiveness; if the search is incomplete, the taxonomy and challenge list are incomplete.
  • domain assumption The four-category taxonomy (behavioral, trust and credibility, usability, cognitive and psychological) is exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
    Figure 1 presents the categories without evidence that all existing metrics fit one and only one category; overlaps such as 'perceived usefulness' could straddle usability and trust.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluation Metrics for Misinformation Warning Interventions: Challenges and Prospects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFGHPTVP

@misc{pith2026250509526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluation Metrics for Misinformation Warning Interventions: Challenges and Prospects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFGHPTVP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09526}
}
read the original abstract

Misinformation has become a widespread issue in the 21st century, impacting numerous areas of society and underscoring the need for effective intervention strategies. Among these strategies, user-centered interventions, such as warning systems, have shown promise in reducing the spread of misinformation. Many studies have used various metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of these warning interventions. However, no systematic review has thoroughly examined these metrics in all studies. This paper provides a comprehensive review of existing metrics for assessing the effectiveness of misinformation warnings, categorizing them into four main groups: behavioral impact, trust and credulity, usability, and cognitive and psychological effects. Through this review, we identify critical challenges in measuring the effectiveness of misinformation warnings, including inconsistent use of cognitive and attitudinal metrics, the lack of standardized metrics for affective and emotional impact, variations in user trust, and the need for more inclusive warning designs. We present an overview of these metrics and propose areas for future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed Classification of Metrics A. Behavioral Metrics As employed in existing studies, behavioral metrics focus on users’ responses to warning interventions, offering researchers valuable insights into the impact of these warnings on user behavior. These metrics are essential for evaluating the effec￾tiveness of warning interventions in influencing user behavior. In the present classification, this category encom… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Challenges with Existing Metrics • Variation in behavioral metrics: Behavioral metrics, such as click-through rates (CTR), share rates, and engagement with alternative content among others [10] [8] [24] [12] [22], have been used in the existing literature to gauge how misinformation warnings affect users’ actions. These metrics are commonly adopted in studies assessing the immediate impact of warnings on user behavi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Countering fake news: A comparison of pos- sible solutions regarding user acceptance and effectiveness,

    J. Kirchner and C. Reuter, “Countering fake news: A comparison of pos- sible solutions regarding user acceptance and effectiveness,”Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction , vol. 4, no. CSCW2, pp. 1–27, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Misinformation in social media: definition, manipulation, and detection,

    L. Wu, F. Morstatter, K. M. Carley, and H. Liu, “Misinformation in social media: definition, manipulation, and detection,” ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 80–90, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    A review on fake news detection 3t’s: typol- ogy, time of detection, taxonomies,

    S. Rastogi and D. Bansal, “A review on fake news detection 3t’s: typol- ogy, time of detection, taxonomies,”International Journal of Information Security, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 177–212, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Social media and fake news in the 2016 election,

    H. Allcott and M. Gentzkow, “Social media and fake news in the 2016 election,” Journal of economic perspectives , vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 211–236, 2017

    2016

  5. [5]

    Combating fake news: A survey on identification and mitigation techniques,

    K. Sharma, F. Qian, H. Jiang, N. Ruchansky, M. Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Combating fake news: A survey on identification and mitigation techniques,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–42, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    defend: Explainable fake news detection,

    K. Shu, L. Cui, S. Wang, D. Lee, and H. Liu, “defend: Explainable fake news detection,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2019, pp. 395–405

    2019

  7. [7]

    Cy- bersecurity misinformation detection on social media: Case studies on phishing reports and zoom’s threat,

    M. Singhal, N. Kumarswamy, S. Kinhekar, and S. Nilizadeh, “Cy- bersecurity misinformation detection on social media: Case studies on phishing reports and zoom’s threat,” in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , vol. 17, 2023, pp. 796–807

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Exploring lightweight interventions at posting time to reduce the sharing of misinformation on social media,

    F. Jahanbakhsh, A. X. Zhang, A. J. Berinsky, G. Pennycook, D. G. Rand, and D. R. Karger, “Exploring lightweight interventions at posting time to reduce the sharing of misinformation on social media,” Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction , vol. 5, no. CSCW1, pp. 1–42, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    ” learn the facts about covid-19

    C. Ling, K. P. Gummadi, and S. Zannettou, “” learn the facts about covid-19”: Analyzing the use of warning labels on tiktok videos,” in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 17, 2023, pp. 554–565

    2023

  2. [10]

    Adapting security warnings to counter online disinformation,

    B. Kaiser, J. Wei, E. Lucherini, K. Lee, J. N. Matias, and J. Mayer, “Adapting security warnings to counter online disinformation,” in 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21) , 2021, pp. 1163– 1180

    2021

  3. [11]

    Meaningful context, a red flag, or both? preferences for enhanced misinformation warnings among us twitter users,

    F. Sharevski, A. Devine, P. Jachim, and E. Pieroni, “Meaningful context, a red flag, or both? preferences for enhanced misinformation warnings among us twitter users,” in Proceedings of the 2022 European Sympo- sium on Usable Security , 2022, pp. 189–201

    2022

  4. [12]

    Heed the warning signs: The effectiveness of message popup warnings for deterring the spread of misinformation,

    H. J. Greenberg, “Heed the warning signs: The effectiveness of message popup warnings for deterring the spread of misinformation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    A browser extension for in-place signaling and assessment of misinformation,

    F. Jahanbakhsh and D. R. Karger, “A browser extension for in-place signaling and assessment of misinformation,” in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2024, pp. 1–21

    2024

  6. [14]

    Nevertheless, partisanship persisted: Fake news warnings help briefly, but bias returns with time,

    R. H. Grady, P. H. Ditto, and E. F. Loftus, “Nevertheless, partisanship persisted: Fake news warnings help briefly, but bias returns with time,” Cognitive research: principles and implications , vol. 6, pp. 1–16, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Misinformation interventions decay rapidly without an immediate posttest,

    G. Capewell, R. Maertens, M. Remshard, S. Van Der Linden, J. Comp- ton, S. Lewandowsky, and J. Roozenbeek, “Misinformation interventions decay rapidly without an immediate posttest,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 441–454, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Can fighting misinformation have a negative spillover effect? how warnings for the threat of misinformation can decrease general news credibility,

    T. G. Van Der Meer, M. Hameleers, and J. Ohme, “Can fighting misinformation have a negative spillover effect? how warnings for the threat of misinformation can decrease general news credibility,” Journalism Studies, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 803–823, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    A focus shift in the evaluation of misinformation interventions,

    L. Q. Tay, S. Lewandowsky, M. J. Hurlstone, T. Kurz, and U. K. Ecker, “A focus shift in the evaluation of misinformation interventions,” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review , 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    The landscape of user-centered misinformation interventions-a systematic literature review,

    K. Hartwig, F. Doell, and C. Reuter, “The landscape of user-centered misinformation interventions-a systematic literature review,” ACM Com- puting Surveys, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 1–36, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Interventions to mitigate covid-19 misinformation: a systematic review and meta-analysis,

    K. Janmohamed, N. Walter, K. Nyhan, K. Khoshnood, J. D. Tucker, N. Sangngam, F. L. Altice, Q. Ding, A. Wong, Z. M. Schwitzky et al. , “Interventions to mitigate covid-19 misinformation: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Health Communication , vol. 26, no. 12, ...

    2021

  12. [20]

    A systematic review of covid-19 misinformation interventions: lessons learned: study examines covid-19 misinformation interventions and lessons learned,

    R. Smith, K. Chen, D. Winner, S. Friedhoff, and C. Wardle, “A systematic review of covid-19 misinformation interventions: lessons learned: study examines covid-19 misinformation interventions and lessons learned,” Health Affairs, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1738–1746, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Seeing is not believing: a nuanced view of misinformation warning efficacy on video-sharing social media platforms,

    C. Guo, N. Zheng, and C. Guo, “Seeing is not believing: a nuanced view of misinformation warning efficacy on video-sharing social media platforms,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , vol. 7, no. CSCW2, pp. 1–35, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Understanding effects of algorithmic vs. community label on perceived accuracy of hyper-partisan misinformation,

    C. Jia, A. Boltz, A. Zhang, A. Chen, and M. K. Lee, “Understanding effects of algorithmic vs. community label on perceived accuracy of hyper-partisan misinformation,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction , vol. 6, no. CSCW2, pp. 1–27, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Twitter’s disputed tags may be ineffective at reducing belief in fake news and only reduce intentions to share fake news among democrats and independents,

    J. Lees, A. McCarter, and D. M. Sarno, “Twitter’s disputed tags may be ineffective at reducing belief in fake news and only reduce intentions to share fake news among democrats and independents,” Journal of Online Trust and Safety , vol. 1, no. 3, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Reliability matters: Exploring the effect of ai explanations on misinformation detection with a warning,

    H. Seo, S. Lee, D. Lee, and A. Xiong, “Reliability matters: Exploring the effect of ai explanations on misinformation detection with a warning,” in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 18, 2024, pp. 1395–1407

    2024

  17. [25]

    Real solutions for fake news? measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact- check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media,

    K. Clayton, S. Blair, J. A. Busam, S. Forstner, J. Glance, G. Green, A. Kawata, A. Kovvuri, J. Martin, E. Morgan et al., “Real solutions for fake news? measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact- check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media,” Po...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Empowering users and mitigating harm: Leveraging nudging principles to enhance social media safety,

    G. Donabauer, E. Theophilou, F. Lomonaco, S. Bursic, D. Taibi, D. Hern ´andez-Leo, U. Kruschwitz, and D. Ognibene, “Empowering users and mitigating harm: Leveraging nudging principles to enhance social media safety,” in Proceedings of the F ourth Workshop on Threat, Aggression...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Credibility perceptions and detection accuracy of fake news headlines on social media: Effects of truth-bias and endorsement cues,

    M. Luo, J. T. Hancock, and D. M. Markowitz, “Credibility perceptions and detection accuracy of fake news headlines on social media: Effects of truth-bias and endorsement cues,” Communication Research, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 171–195, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Encounters with visual misinformation and labels across platforms: An interview and diary study to inform ecosystem approaches to misinformation interventions,

    E. Saltz, C. R. Leibowicz, and C. Wardle, “Encounters with visual misinformation and labels across platforms: An interview and diary study to inform ecosystem approaches to misinformation interventions,” in Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comp...

    2021

  21. [29]

    The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines in- creases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings,

    G. Pennycook, A. Bear, E. T. Collins, and D. G. Rand, “The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines in- creases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings,” Management science, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 4944–4957, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Designing and conducting usability research on social media misinformation with low vision or blind users,

    F. Sharevski and A. Zeidieh, “Designing and conducting usability research on social media misinformation with low vision or blind users,” in Proceedings of the 16th Cyber Security Experimentation and Test Workshop, 2023, pp. 75–81

    2023

  23. [31]

    Deep breath: A machine learning browser extension to tackle online misinformation,

    M. Kydd and L. A. Shepherd, “Deep breath: A machine learning browser extension to tackle online misinformation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03301, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Appealing to sense and sensibility: System 1 and system 2 interventions for fake news on social media,

    P. L. Moravec, A. Kim, and A. R. Dennis, “Appealing to sense and sensibility: System 1 and system 2 interventions for fake news on social media,” Information Systems Research , vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 987–1006, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Is explanation the cure? misinformation mitigation in the short term and long term,

    Y .-L. Hsu, S.-C. Dai, A. Xiong, and L.-W. Ku, “Is explanation the cure? misinformation mitigation in the short term and long term,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17711, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Are witnesses able to avoid highly accessible misinformation? examining the efficacy of different warnings for high and low accessibility postevent misinformation,

    J. B. Bulevich, L. T. Gordon, G. I. Hughes, and A. K. Thomas, “Are witnesses able to avoid highly accessible misinformation? examining the efficacy of different warnings for high and low accessibility postevent misinformation,” Memory & Cognition , vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 45–58, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Visualbubble: Exploring how reflection-oriented user experiences affect users’ awareness of their exposure to misinformation on social media,

    G. Chen, P. Ciuccarelli, and S. Colombo, “Visualbubble: Exploring how reflection-oriented user experiences affect users’ awareness of their exposure to misinformation on social media,” in CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts , 2022, pp. 1–7

    2022

  28. [36]

    How do fore- warnings and post-warnings affect misinformation reliance? the impact of warnings on the continued influence effect and belief regression,

    K. A. Buczel, A. Siwiak, M. Szpitalak, and R. Polczyk, “How do fore- warnings and post-warnings affect misinformation reliance? the impact of warnings on the continued influence effect and belief regression,” Memory & Cognition , pp. 1–17, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Developing an accuracy-prompt toolkit to reduce covid-19 misinformation online,

    Z. Epstein, A. J. Berinsky, R. Cole, A. Gully, G. Pennycook, and D. G. Rand, “Developing an accuracy-prompt toolkit to reduce covid-19 misinformation online,” 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Can warnings curb the spread of fake news? the interplay between warning, trust and confirmation bias,

    K. L. Gwebu, J. Wang, and E. Zifla, “Can warnings curb the spread of fake news? the interplay between warning, trust and confirmation bias,” Behaviour & Information Technology , vol. 41, no. 16, pp. 3552–3573, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online,

    G. Pennycook, Z. Epstein, M. Mosleh, A. A. Arechar, D. Eckles, and D. G. Rand, “Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online,” Nature, vol. 592, no. 7855, pp. 590–595, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Fight- ing covid-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention,

    G. Pennycook, J. McPhetres, Y . Zhang, J. G. Lu, and D. G. Rand, “Fight- ing covid-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention,” Psychological science, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 770–780, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation,

    G. Pennycook and D. G. Rand, “Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation,” Nature communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 2333, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Nudging social media toward accuracy,

    ——, “Nudging social media toward accuracy,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , vol. 700, no. 1, pp. 152–164, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Explaining why headlines are true or false reduces intentions to share false information,

    R. M. Pillai and L. K. Fazio, “Explaining why headlines are true or false reduces intentions to share false information,” Collabra: Psychology , vol. 9, no. 1, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Trust it or not: Effects of machine- learning warnings in helping individuals mitigate misinformation,

    H. Seo, A. Xiong, and D. Lee, “Trust it or not: Effects of machine- learning warnings in helping individuals mitigate misinformation,” in Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science , 2019, pp. 265–274

    2019

  37. [45]

    Do explanations increase the effectiveness of ai-crowd gen- erated fake news warnings?

    Z. Epstein, N. Foppiani, S. Hilgard, S. Sharma, E. Glassman, and D. Rand, “Do explanations increase the effectiveness of ai-crowd gen- erated fake news warnings?” in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , vol. 16, 2022, pp. 183–193

    2022

  38. [46]

    To share or not to share: Randomized controlled study of misinformation warning labels on social media,

    A. Gruzd, P. Mai, and F. B. Soares, “To share or not to share: Randomized controlled study of misinformation warning labels on social media,” in Multidisciplinary International Symposium on Disinformation in Open Online Media . Springer, 2024, pp. 46–69

    2024

  39. [47]

    Warning this contains mis- information: The effect of cognitive factors, beliefs, and personality on misinformation warning tag attitudes,

    R. Kaufman, A. Broukhim, and M. Haupt, “Warning this contains mis- information: The effect of cognitive factors, beliefs, and personality on misinformation warning tag attitudes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02710, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Do symbol and device matter? the effects of symbol choice of fake news flags and device on human interaction with fake news on social media platforms,

    K. Figl, S. Kießling, and U. Remus, “Do symbol and device matter? the effects of symbol choice of fake news flags and device on human interaction with fake news on social media platforms,” Computers in Human Behavior , vol. 144, p. 107704, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    All warnings are not equal: A user-centered approach to comparing general and specific contextual warnings against misinformation,

    C. Guo, Z. Guo, N. Zheng, C. Guo et al. , “All warnings are not equal: A user-centered approach to comparing general and specific contextual warnings against misinformation,” 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Is the alarm on deception ringing too loudly? the effects of different forms of misinformation warnings on risk perceptions of misinformation exposure,

    M. Hameleers, “Is the alarm on deception ringing too loudly? the effects of different forms of misinformation warnings on risk perceptions of misinformation exposure,” European Journal of Communication, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 360–374, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Promi- nent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but increase scepticism,

    E. Hoes, B. Aitken, J. Zhang, T. Gackowski, and M. Wojcieszak, “Promi- nent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but increase scepticism,” Nature Human Behaviour , pp. 1–9, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Effects of fact-checking warning labels and social endorsement cues on climate change fake news credibility and engagement on social media,

    T. K. Koch, L. Frischlich, and E. Lermer, “Effects of fact-checking warning labels and social endorsement cues on climate change fake news credibility and engagement on social media,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 495–507, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Misinformation warning labels: Twitter’s soft moderation effects on covid-19 vaccine belief echoes,

    F. Sharevski, R. Alsaadi, P. Jachim, and E. Pieroni, “Misinformation warning labels: Twitter’s soft moderation effects on covid-19 vaccine belief echoes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00779 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Headlines labeled as ai-generated are less likely to be believed and shared, even when true or human-generated,

    S. Altay and F. Gilardi, “Headlines labeled as ai-generated are less likely to be believed and shared, even when true or human-generated,” 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.