In Related News, That Was Wrong: The
Correction of Misinformation Through
Related Stories Functionality in Social Media
Leticia Bode & Emily K. Vraga (23 June 2015)
Paper’s reference in the IEEE style?
L. Bode and E. K. Vraga, “In Related News, That Was Wrong: The Correction of Misinformation Through Related Stories Functionality in Social Media,” Journal of Communication, vol. 65, 2015.
How did you find the paper?
Referenced by a previously reviewed paper (http://skyentific.me/ab-misinformation-and-its-correction-continued-influence-and-successful-debiasing/)
If applicable, write a list of the search terms you used.
Was the paper peer reviewed? Explain how you found out.
The paper was published in the Journal of Communication and was likely peer reviewed.
Does the author(s) work in a university or a government-funded research institute? If so, which university or research institute? If not, where do they work?
The authors work at the Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA and the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53703, USA respectively.
What does this tell you about their expertise? Are they an expert in the topic area?
The authors are experienced researchers in the field of political science and communications.
What was the paper about?
This paper provides the results of a study into the use of social media (facebook in the case of this study) to provide related articles to correct misinformation. The study found that when related stories correct a post that included misinformation, misperceptions are significantly reduced.
While it is often argued that social media and their feed algorithms create a “filter bubble” promoting more like minded content, the provision of related articles (those containing the same topic as that in the post) which correct the post may help correct misperceptions.
Misperceptions may have been established over time through partisanship and motivated reasoning (an individual’s preference to protect pre-existing attitudes) where people suffer from factual misperceptions when they benefit their party of choice and the follo partisan related media.
Motivated reasoning is of particular concern on social media given the lack of gatekeepers which leads to an environment in which credible evidence-based information exists alongside personal opinion and poor quality data. With th rapid pace and viral spread of information online, people have few cues other than pre-existing attitudes for judging quality information. This makes motivated reasoning more likely.
If applicable, is this paper similar to other papers you have read for this assignment? If so, which papers and why?
If applicable, is this paper different to other papers you have read for this assignment? If so, which papers and why?
What do these similarities and differences suggest? What are your observations? Do you have any new ideas? Do you have any conclusions?
This question is to be answered after your critical analysis is completed: Which sections (if any) of your critical analysis was this paper cited in?