Scholarlink

<p>Given that the spread of false information online often outpaces efforts to address it, it is important to understand i) what content is the most important to remove to prevent false beliefs and ii) whether lay intuitions about content removal are aligned with these findings. In four experiments, participants viewed social media posts containing false evidence for novel conspiracy theories. In Experiment 1 (<i>N</i> = 300), removing posts containing plausible evidence significantly decreased participants’conspiracy belief, while removing posts containing implausible evidence did not. In Experiments 2a-2c (<i>N</i>s = 350, 352, 351, respectively), we investigated new participants’ moderation preferences for the same posts. Worryingly, participants chose to remove posts containing implausible evidence <i>more</i> often than posts containing plausible evidence (Exp. 2a-2b). And, even when oriented to the goal of reducing belief in the broader conspiracy theory, participants still removed both types of posts at similar rates (Exp. 2c). Our results suggest that relying on lay intuitions to guide content removal decisions may result in prioritizing the removal of content that does not substantively contribute to the spread of broader false beliefs over content that does. These findings have important implications for moderation efforts and highlight the need to look beyond belief in isolated claims when developing effective misinformation interventions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Intuitions about content moderation are misaligned with effective practices for reducing conspiracy beliefs

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月29日

查看全文
  • Madeline Jalbert,
  • Morgan Wack

摘要

Given that the spread of false information online often outpaces efforts to address it, it is important to understand i) what content is the most important to remove to prevent false beliefs and ii) whether lay intuitions about content removal are aligned with these findings. In four experiments, participants viewed social media posts containing false evidence for novel conspiracy theories. In Experiment 1 (N = 300), removing posts containing plausible evidence significantly decreased participants’conspiracy belief, while removing posts containing implausible evidence did not. In Experiments 2a-2c (Ns = 350, 352, 351, respectively), we investigated new participants’ moderation preferences for the same posts. Worryingly, participants chose to remove posts containing implausible evidence more often than posts containing plausible evidence (Exp. 2a-2b). And, even when oriented to the goal of reducing belief in the broader conspiracy theory, participants still removed both types of posts at similar rates (Exp. 2c). Our results suggest that relying on lay intuitions to guide content removal decisions may result in prioritizing the removal of content that does not substantively contribute to the spread of broader false beliefs over content that does. These findings have important implications for moderation efforts and highlight the need to look beyond belief in isolated claims when developing effective misinformation interventions.