Does presenting credibility labels of journalistic sources affect news consumption? New study finds limited effects —


Labeling the credibility of data sources doesn’t shift the consumption of stories away from low-quality sources or scale back perception in broadly circulated inaccurate claims amongst common web customers, however offering an indicator of sources’ high quality could enhance the information weight-reduction plan high quality of the heaviest shoppers of misinformation, reveals a brand new examine by New York College’s Heart for Social Media and Politics.

Notably, the researchers additionally discovered {that a} majority of individuals depend on credible sources of data, with two-thirds utterly avoiding unreliable information websites.

The examine, which seems within the journal Science Advances, centered on credibility scores decided by NewsGuard, a browser extension that charges information and different info websites in an effort to information customers in assessing the trustworthiness of the content material they arrive throughout on-line.

“Whereas it is encouraging that the majority of us depend on credible sources of data, there are numerous who flip to websites of questionable trustworthiness, which raises issues about misperceptions individuals could maintain,” says Kevin Aslett, a postdoctoral researcher on the Heart for Social Media and Politics (CSMaP) and the lead creator of the paper. “Nonetheless, whereas our examine reveals that, total, credibility scores haven’t any discernible impact on misperceptions or on-line information consumption habits of the typical person, our findings counsel that the heaviest shoppers of misinformation — those that depend on low-credibility websites — could transfer towards higher-quality sources when offered with information reliability scores.”

Within the examine, performed in Could and June 2020, the researchers inspired a random pattern of greater than 3,000 on-line contributors to put in the NewsGuard browser extension, which embeds source-level indicators of stories reliability into customers’ search engine outcomes pages, social feeds, and visited URLs. Totally different “protect” symbols are positioned in-feed to supply visible summaries of sources’ high quality:

  • Inexperienced protect = dependable supply
  • Pink protect = unreliable supply
  • Grey protect = supply with user-generated content material
  • Gold protect = satire

To measure the impact of those supply labels, survey information had been collected over two time intervals (Could 28-June 9 and June-19-June 30).

Along with this panel survey, the researchers additionally collected anonymized digital hint information to characterize the high quality of stories consumption of a subset of roughly 1,000 contributors. These high quality measures made use of the identical NewsGuard scores proven to check contributors as they encountered information hyperlinks of their browsers.

Earlier research have proven that publicity to misinformation and on-line faux information can improve perception in misperceptions, heighten cynicism towards politics, decrease belief within the information media, and improve affective polarization (i.e., disdain for supporters of the opposite political occasion). Furthermore, prior analysis additionally means that knowledgeable supply scores, when proven alongside a mock information article, can affect the perceived truthfulness of the article’s declare.

With these earlier findings in thoughts, the researchers examined whether or not in-feed supply reliability labels can counteract these results by shifting information consumption from unreliable to extra dependable sources, rising belief in mainstream media and dependable sources, and/or mitigating political polarization and cynicism.

With a purpose to measure whether or not supply reliability info impacts perception in misinformation in addition to in correct claims, the respondents had been requested to guage the veracity of 5 broadly circulated statements in regards to the Black Lives Matter motion and 5 equally well-circulated statements about COVID-19 — some true and a few false.

Combining panel survey information and individual-level web-visit information, the outcomes confirmed the next:

  • A majority of individuals have dependable media diets: Most individuals (65 p.c) didn’t go to any unreliable information websites earlier than the examine started, a discovering in line with the authors’ earlier analysis. In truth, only one.5 p.c of respondents relied extensively on unreliable sources for information.
  • Supply credibility labels had no affect, on common: In-browser credibility labels didn’t measurably shift on-line consumption from unreliable to extra dependable sources, didn’t considerably alter misperceptions of broadly circulated inaccurate claims about COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter motion, and didn’t alter belief within the media usually.
  • Nonetheless, supply labels made a distinction for individuals who devour essentially the most low-quality information: There was a noticeable enchancment within the total credibility of stories sources visited by those that started the examine with the bottom information weight-reduction plan high quality, in accordance with NewsGuard scores.

“In our partisan age, when attitudes about information sources are strongly correlated with partisanship, comparatively delicate cues like supply credibility labels is probably not highly effective sufficient to shift information habits and counteract misperceptions among the many basic public,” observes Andrew M. Guess, a college analysis affiliate at CSMaP and an assistant professor at Princeton College. “Nonetheless, a key metric of success for this intervention is the way it modifications the habits of those that devour essentially the most low-quality information. The truth that it would not work for the general inhabitants does not imply the device is ineffective. It means it have to be a part of a far bigger toolkit to fight the unfold of on-line misinformation.”

The paper’s different authors had been Joshua A. Tucker and Jonathan Nagler, professors in NYU’s Division of Politics, and Richard Bonneau, a professor in NYU’s Division of Biology and Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. Tucker, Nagler, and Bonneau are co-directors of CSMaP.

NewsGuard was not concerned within the design or funding of this analysis.