REVIEW 1 cited by
Does the Source of a Warning Matter? Examining the Effectiveness of Veracity Warning Labels Across Warners
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Does the Source of a Warning Matter? Examining the Effectiveness of Veracity Warning Labels Across Warners
read the original abstract
In this study, we conducted an online, between-subjects experiment (N = 2,049) to better understand the impact of warning label sources on information trust and sharing intentions. Across four warners (the social media platform, other social media users, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and fact checkers), we found that all significantly decreased trust in false information relative to control, but warnings from AI were modestly more effective. All warners significantly decreased the sharing intentions of false information, except warnings from other social media users. AI was again the most effective. These results were moderated by prior trust in media and the information itself. Most noteworthy, we found that warning labels from AI were significantly more effective than all other warning labels for participants who reported a low trust in news organizations, while warnings from AI were no more effective than any other warning label for participants who reported a high trust in news organizations.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
On the Effectiveness of Fact Checking Information from Politically Congruent and Incongruent Large Language Models
LLM fact-checkers shift trust in political headlines across partisan lines, with perceived chatbot politics mattering only for politically distant true headlines.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.