Admin : /* Quelques highlights */

2026-01-07T16:22:24Z

Quelques highlights

← Version précédente		Version du 7 janvier 2026 à 18:22
Ligne 40 :		Ligne 40 :
	== Quelques highlights ==		== Quelques highlights ==

	*''(...) reading fact-checks alongside news could facilitate knowledge revision. Encoding retractions requires building a coherent mental model (7), which is easiest when ~~misinfor-~~		*''(...) reading fact-checks alongside news could facilitate knowledge revision. Encoding retractions requires building a coherent mental model (7), which is easiest when misinformation and its correction are coactive''
	~~mation~~ and its correction are coactive''
	* ''Debunking after readers form initial judgments about headlines could boost learning, even if they did not make an error.''		* ''Debunking after readers form initial judgments about headlines could boost learning, even if they did not make an error.''
	*''If misinformation persists because people refuse to “update” beliefs initially (16), prebunking should outperform debunking; readers know from the outset that news is false, so no updating is needed. '''We found the opposite pattern''', which instead supports the concurrent storage hypothesis that people retain both misinformation and its correction (17)''		*''If misinformation persists because people refuse to “update” beliefs initially (16), prebunking should outperform debunking; readers know from the outset that news is false, so no updating is needed. '''We found the opposite pattern''', which instead supports the concurrent storage hypothesis that people retain both misinformation and its correction (17)''

Admin : Page créée avec « Brashier, N. M., Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Timing matters when correcting fake news. ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118''(5), e2020043118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020043118 == Abstract des auteur·trice·s == ''Countering misinformation can reduce belief in the moment, but corrective messages quickly fade from memory. We tested whether the longer-term impact of fact-checks depends on when people receive them.... »

2025-12-11T15:32:21Z

Page créée avec « Brashier, N. M., Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Timing matters when correcting fake news. ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118''(5), e2020043118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020043118 == Abstract des auteur·trice·s == ''Countering misinformation can reduce belief in the moment, but corrective messages quickly fade from memory. We tested whether the longer-term impact of fact-checks depends on when people receive them.... »

Nouvelle page

Brashier, N. M., Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Timing matters when correcting fake news. ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118''(5), e2020043118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020043118

== Abstract des auteur·trice·s ==
''Countering misinformation can reduce belief in the moment, but corrective messages quickly fade from memory. We tested whether the longer-term impact of fact-checks depends on when people receive them. In two experiments (total N = 2,683), participants read true and false headlines taken from social media. In the treatment conditions, “true” and “false” tags appeared before, during, or after participants read each headline. Participants in a control condition received no information about veracity. One week later, participants in all conditions rated the same headlines’ accuracy. Providing fact-checks after headlines (debunking) improved subsequent truth discernment more than providing the
same information during (labeling) or before (prebunking) exposure. This finding informs the cognitive science of belief revision and has practical implications for social media platform designers.''

== Introduction et design général ==
Iels ont voulu regarder comment lutter efficacement contre les fake news.

Pour ça iels ont présenté 18 fausses et 18 vraies headlines (accompagné ou non d'un feedback). Les participant·e·s devaient se positionner sur la véracité du propos présenté. Une semaine plus tard les 36 propositions était re-présentées, et les participant·e·s devaient à nouveau se positionner.

== Variables ==
* VI1: '''Type de feedback'''
** Contrôle (pas de feedback)
** Pre-bunking (feedback avant la présentation de l'information)
** Labeling (feedback en même temps que l'information)
** Debunking (feedback après l'information)
* VI2: '''Type de headline''' (vraie/fausse)
* VD: '''Perceived Accuracy'''
** Not at all accurate
** Not very accurate
** Somewhat accurate
** Very accurate
* VC1: '''Cognitive reflexion test'''
* VC2: '''Aligment with partisanship'''
* VC3: '''Political knowledge'''

== Résultats ==
Croyance dans les fausses informations après 1 semaine:
* Le ''labelling'' et le ''debunking'' sont significativement meilleures que la condition contrôle (i.e. les gens croient moins dans les fausses informations)
* Le ''pre-bunking'' n'est pas meilleure que la condition contrôle
Croyance dans les vraies informations après une semaine:
* Les 3 réfutations améliorent la croyance dans les vraies informations (comparativement à la condition contrôle)
* Le ''debunking'' est significativement plus efficace que les autres formes de réfutation
Variables de contrôle
* Les styles cognitifs n'ont pas d'effet modérateur sur la réfutation
* Les connaissances politiques non plus
* Les réfutations sont légèrement moins efficaces pour les énoncés alignés sur les opinions des participant·e·s

== Quelques highlights ==

*''(...) reading fact-checks alongside news could facilitate knowledge revision. Encoding retractions requires building a coherent mental model (7), which is easiest when misinfor-
mation and its correction are coactive''
* ''Debunking after readers form initial judgments about headlines could boost learning, even if they did not make an error.''
*''If misinformation persists because people refuse to “update” beliefs initially (16), prebunking should outperform debunking; readers know from the outset that news is false, so no updating is needed. '''We found the opposite pattern''', which instead supports the concurrent storage hypothesis that people retain both misinformation and its correction (17)''

[[Catégorie:Résumés d'articles]]
[[Catégorie:ANOVA]]

Timing matters when correcting fake news - Historique des versions

Admin : /* Quelques highlights */

Admin : /* Quelques highlights */