准确性提示降低错误信息的分享意愿

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.06.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 错误信息的传播破坏个体对真实世界的认识。准确性提示在不限制自由选择的情况下巧妙地引导个体关注信息的准确性，减少错误信息的分享。本研究以近期热点事件的不实信息和社会假新闻为材料，通过两个实验探究个体分享错误信息的心理机制，验证准确性提示的有效性。结果发现，准确性提示会降低个体错误信息的分享意愿，这意味着准确性提示是一种有效干预错误信息分享的方法。当个体具有良好的信息辨别能力时，准确性提示将具有更广泛的应用前景。

关键词: 准确性提示, 错误信息, 分享意愿

Abstract: The dissemination of false information undermines individuals’ understanding of the real world. Accuracy nudges skillfully guide individuals to focus on the accuracy of information without restricting their freedom of choice and reduce the sharing of false information. This study used misinformation of hot topic and social fake news as materials, conducting two experiments to explore the cognitive process of individuals sharing misinformation and to verify the effect of accuracy nudges. This study found that accuracy nudges reduce individuals’ willingness to share misinformation, indicating that accuracy nudges are an effective intervention method for curbing the sharing of misinformation. When individuals possess great truth-discernment, the accuracy nudge has bright prospects in the application.

Key words: accuracy nudge, false information, sharing willingness

中图分类号:

B842

陈婉婷, 张逸飞, 何清华. 准确性提示降低错误信息的分享意愿[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 751-759.

Wanting CHEN, Yifei ZHANG, Qinghua HE. The Role of Accuracy Nudge in False Information Sharing[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(6): 751-759.

图/表 6

图1 实验1不同信息属性下控制组和实验组分享意愿及分享频率注：图1A为在不同信息属性下控制组分享意愿的具体分布情况；图1B为在不同信息属性下实验组分享意愿的具体分布情况；图1C为在不同信息属性下控制组与实验组平均分享意愿的差异；图1D为不同信息属性下控制组与实验组平均分享频率差异；在实验组中，根据被试准确度评价，可以区分出由准确性忽视引起的不实信息分享概率(控制组与实验组之间的差异)与由错误辨别导致的不实信息分享概率(在不实信息中被标记为真实的部分)；误差线表示标准误；*p<0.05，**p<0.01，***p<0.001，以下同。

表1 实验1不同组别在不同信息属性下的分享意愿(M±SD)

组别	真实信息	不实信息	总体
控制组(n=356)	3.89±1.33	3.95±1.32	3.92±1.31
实验组(n=292)	3.05±1.18	3.08±1.20	3.06±1.17

图2 实验1四种反应类别占比及准确性提示的干预效果注：图2A为四种反应类别占比；图2B为准确性提示干预效果与图文信息辨别准确率的关系；图2C为准确性提示干预效果与图文信息准确性评价的关系；直线为数据的最佳拟合线，以下同。

图3 实验2不同信息属性下控制组和实验组分享意愿及分享频率注：图3A为在不同信息属性下控制组分享意愿的具体分布情况；图3B为在不同信息属性下实验组分享意愿的具体分布情况；图3C为在不同信息属性下控制组与实验组平均分享意愿的差异；图3D为在不同信息属性下控制组与实验组平均分享频率的差异。

表2 实验2不同组别在不同信息属性下的分享意愿(M±SD)

组别	真新闻	假新闻	总体
控制组(n=259)	4.34±0.98	4.27±1.02	4.31±0.96
实验组(n=255)	3.77±1.09	3.68±1.16	3.72±1.10

图4 实验2四种反应类别占比及准确性提示的干预效果注：图4A为四种反应类别占比；图4B为准确性提示干预效果与新闻的辨别准确率的关系；图4C为准确性提示干预效果与新闻的准确性评价的关系。

参考文献

	陈婉婷, 何清华. 错误价值感知对社交媒体假新闻分享意愿的影响——受众选择和分享信息的心理动机研究. 新闻记者, 2023, (2): 60- 70.
	何贵兵, 李纾, 梁竹苑. 以小拨大: 行为决策助推社会发展. 心理学报, 2018, 50 (8): 803- 813.
	金花, 贾丽娜, 单金磊. 相关度对老年人错误信息持续影响效应的影响: 死亡态度和健康焦虑的作用. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19 (3): 389- 395.
	李艳红, 刘佳诺. 人们为什么相信假新闻: 对“假新闻信念”的认知心理学解释. 新闻界, 2022, (8): 14- 26.
	卢超. (2017). 社会新闻的采编策略. 西部广播电视, (6), 55, 60.
	年度虚假新闻研究课题组, 白红义, 曹诗语, 陈斌. 2020年虚假新闻研究报告. 新闻记者, 2021, (1): 23- 37.
	汪祚军, 欧创巍, 李纾. 整合模型还是占优启发式模型? 从齐当别模型视角进行的检验. 心理学报, 2010, 42 (8): 821- 833.
	杨志. 热点新闻的特性认知和价值判断. 青年记者, 2023, (11): 36- 37.
	Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., … Amazeen, M. A.. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2022, 1 (1): 13- 29. DOI
	Edmunds, A., & Morris, A.. The problem of information overload in business organisations: A review of the literature. International Journal of Information Management, 2000, 20 (1): 17- 28. DOI
	Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sircar, N.. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020, 117 (27): 15536- 15545.
	Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., … Zittrain, J. L.. The science of fake news. Science, 2018, 359 (6380): 1094- 1096. DOI
	Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J.. Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2017, 6 (4): 353- 369. DOI
	Meel, P., & Vishwakarma, D. K.. Fake news, rumor, information pollution in social media and web: A contemporary survey of state-of-the-arts, challenges and opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications, 2020, 153, 112986. DOI
	Moravec, P. L., Minas, R. K., & Dennis, A. R.. Fake news on social media: People believe what they want to believe when it makes no sense at all. MIS Quarterly, 2019, 43 (4): 1343- 1360.
	Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G.. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 2021, 592 (7855): 590- 595. DOI
	Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y. H., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G.. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 2020, 31 (7): 770- 780. DOI
	Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G.. The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2021, 25 (5): 388- 402. DOI
	Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G.. Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. Nature Communications, 2022a, 13, 2333. DOI
	Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G.. Nudging social media toward accuracy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2022b, 700 (1): 152- 164. DOI
	Porter, E., & Wood, T. J.. The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021, 118 (37): e2104235118.
	Qiu, X. Y., Oliveira, D. F. M., Shirazi, A. S., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F.. Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information. Nature Human Behaviour, 2017, 1, 0132. DOI
	Roozenbeek, J., Freeman, A. L. J., & van der Linden, S.. How accurate are accuracy-nudge interventions? A preregistered direct replication of Pennycook et al. (2020). Psychological Science, 2021, 32 (7): 1169- 1178. DOI
	Simon, H. A., & Newell, A.. Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, 1971, 26 (2): 145- 159. DOI
	Singh, K., Lima, G., Cha, M., Cha, C., Kulshrestha, J., Ahn, Y. Y., & Varol, O.. Misinformation, believability, and vaccine acceptance over 40 countries: Takeaways from the initial phase of the COVID-19 infodemic. PLoS One, 2022, 17 (2): e0263381. DOI
	Ulitzsch, E., Pohl, S., Khorramdel, L., Kroehne, U., & von Davier, M.. A response-time-based latent response mixture model for identifying and modeling careless and insufficient effort responding in survey data. Psychometrika, 2022, 87, 593- 619. DOI
	Vinhas, O., & Bastos, M.. Fact-checking misinformation: Eight notes on consensus reality. Journalism Studies, 2022, 23 (4): 448- 468. DOI
	Wang, M., Rao, M. K., & Sun, Z. P.. Typology, etiology, and fact-checking: A pathological study of top fake news in China. Journalism Practice, 2022, 16 (4): 719- 737. DOI
	Weng, L., Flammini, A., Vespignani, A., & Menczer, F.. Competition among memes in a world with limited attention. Scientific Reports, 2012, 2, 335. DOI
	Zhang, X. C., & Ghorbani, A. A.. An overview of online fake news: Characterization, detection, and discussion. Information Processing & Management, 2020, 57 (2): 102025.

[1]	金花, 贾丽娜, 单金磊. 相关度对老年人错误信息持续影响效应的影响：死亡态度和健康焦虑的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 389-395.
[2]	朱灏, 尹可丽, 杨李慧子. 面部表情与捐赠者–受益者关系对网络慈善众筹捐赠行为的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 570-576.
[3]	闫阅, 徐建平, 彭宇. 重复测量和具体警示对错误信息效应的影响*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(4): 485-489.