3.3
Fact-checking, argument-checking, debunking and pre-bunking
Valentin Stoian | MVNIA
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10064258
2021-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000031158
DOMINOES Course © 2023 by URJC, MVNIA, UoM & NSC is licensed under CC BY 4.0
The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the National Agency and Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Fact-checking, argument-checking, debunking and pre-bunking
This module 3.3. addresses the following contents:
- The characteristics of fact-checking, de-bunking and pre-bunking,
- The differences between these strategies to combat disinformation
- The main advantages and disadvantages of each of these strategies
- Practical exercises for each of these strategies
Valentin STOIAN | ANIMV
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Unit objeCtives
To understand:
- The main characteristics of fact-checking, de-bunking and pre-bunking
- The main differences between fact-checking and de-bunking
- To understand the main differences between de-bunking and pre-bunking
- At least two arguments for the efficiency of de-bunking as a strategy to combat disinformation
- At least two arguments for the inefficiency of de-bunking as a strategy to combat disinformation
- At least two arguments for the efficiency of pre-bunking as a strategy to combat disinformation
- At least two arguments for the inefficiency of pre-bunking as a strategy to combat disinformation
- Practical skills useful for de-bunking a piece of news that seems false
- Strategies used by disinformation actors to spread their message
Valentin STOIAN | ANIMV
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Ice-breaker
Question for discussion!
What is the name of the practice outlined in the following example? Original news: “85% percent of university students university hate their professors”
Follow-up statement by media watchdog NGO:
The statement according to which 85% of students hate their professors is FALSE. The respective piece of news relates to a survey carried out two years ago, at two local universities, where students were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with their professors. 10% stated they were very dissatisfied, 30 % stated they were dissatisfied, 45% claimed they were mostly satisfied and 15 % claimed they were very satisfied.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
The process of combating disinformation
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Fact checking and de-bunking
Fact-checking Can be defined as “continuous, consolidated practice of checking the veracity of public discourse” (Herrero & Herrera Damas, 2021, p. 51) or a "scrupulous analysis driven by one simple question – ‘How we do know that?’” (Mantzarlis, 2018, p. 84).
Traditionally, fact checking, was associated with classical media, who would be involved in verifying claims made by different actors
The information landscape was, until recently, dominated by top-down communication by a few established actors such as states and large media producers
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
De-bunking – the retroactive approach
De-bunking A subset of fact-checking- aimed at pieces of news and statements considered to be disinformation
It is considered the “retroactive” approach to combating disinformation. Aims to correct mistaken statements once they have spread in the media and to show people why these are, most likely, intentional mistakes.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Fact checking and de-bunking Main differences
Debunking may be partisan (if conducted by governments to expose certain actors), while fact-checking is impartial
Debunking is targeted on a particular actor or a specific topic. The target is chosen in accordance to the effects it could produce if the mis- or disinformation is left unchallenged; while fact-checking is broad in scope and targets any mis- or disinformation.
Debunking is strategic, as it prioritizes its targets and does not focus on everything with equal effort. Some mis- or disinformation attempts, which are not perceived as posing threats to the debunkers interests and/or priorities, are not addressed.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Infodemics >The result of excess disinformation
The combination of fake information and easy dissemination created the phenomenon of infodemics - “superabundance or excess of information, including false or misleading information, regarding a topic” (World Health Organization, 2022)
This was especially visible during the COVID-19 pandemic when the world was flooded with a mix of false and true information on the nature and transmission of the virus.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Is de-bunking effective?
The speed of circulation argumentFalse information travels at six times the speed of the later correction (Vosoughi, Roy and Aral 2018)
de-bunking
The cognitive bias argument - Cognitive biases also make de-bunking less efficient.
- Confirmation bias
- Conspiracy mentality
- “Cognitive laziness"
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Is de-bunking effective?
The backfire effect A stronger adhesion to pre-existing beliefs or thoughts when people are confronted with corrective information that challenges these beliefs or thoughts (Pennycook et al. 2020; Walter et al. 2019, Nyhan 2021; Ecker et al., 2022; Ecker et al., 2020)
de-bunking
The political effect
Vallone et al (1985) argue that there is a tendency for partisans to view media coverage of controversial events as unfairly biased and hostile to the position they advocate. Walter et al. (2019) claim that holders of partisan positions are more vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation consistent with their own views, but also will likely be more resistant to debunking and fact-checking processes, if the content challenges "pre-existing beliefs, ideology, and knowledge”
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Is de-bunking effective?
- Pennycook et al (2020) investigated whether people used to see pieces of news marked as “verified for accuracy” are more likely to be believed that news which does not have such a marker as more accurate.
- They conclude that unmarked headlines are viewed as more accurate and are more likely to be shared. Therefore, debunking efforts should be undertaken to provide accuracy warnings regarding trending topics
- Nyhan (2020) found evidence that that polarization on controversial topics can be reduced by explaining the scientific consensus on the topic. Once people have been told that consensus on climate change reaches 97%, then they tended to be more accepting of the fact that climate change exists.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
What would you do in order to verify the accuracy of the claims?
Imagine the following scenario:
Imagine that you have been recently employed by a fact-checking organization and that you now have to evaluate the veracity of a piece of information regarding the possibility that the COVID-19 virus was released from a laboratory where biological experiments were conducted by a state actor. The news is promoted by a so-called university professor, who claims that he has recently published findings on this topic. At the same time, locations of the biological laboratory” are presented in a film on the topic, accompanied by ominous music.
For this exercise, course participants will be divided into 4 groups
Each group should answer the question in maximum 10 minutes and to provide at least three actions they would undertake
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Pre-bunking >The pro-active approach
Pre-bunking aims to make the person more immune to disinformation before he or she is exposed to it.
Based on the premise of reverse psychology – when an agent has to play the role of the opponent, in this case a spreader of disinformation, one better understands the techniques used and then becomes immune to them
Similar to a vaccine - once a person comes in contact with a "weakened" version of the practice of disinformation, then they will become immune when encountering that practice in the real world.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Pre-bunking > Some strategies attempted
Used to be conducted through teaching in class on logical fallacies – studies have shown a positive effect of pre-bunking on fake news detection – if one is taught about logical fallacies, then one will recognize them when exposed to them
The approach is premised on the idea that it is better to create correct mental models than to try to fit correct information in already mistaken models
In order to reach a wider audience, the use of serious gaming has been found to be very useful for pre-bunking –these rely on reverse psychology – Go Viral!, Bad News!
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Pre-bunking > The effects discovered
The inoculation treatment applied
Pre-bunking also exhibits certain limitations
- Van den Linden et al. (2017) and Cook et al. (2017) both conducted an inoculation experiment where people were presented with disinformation about climate change as well as an inoculation treatment through warnings about disinformation techniques.
- Those who had received "inoculation" before seeing the particular piece of disinformation tended to rate the accuracy of the false statements as much lower than those that had not been exposed to the inoculation treatment.
- Moderated by partisanship as the effect is diminished for people from one side of the political spectrum.
- Setting: pre-bunking interventions are considerably more efficient in a laboratory setting than in the real world. Finally, the inoculation tends to wane after a while, as people are again exposed to the usual disinformation (Roozenbeck and van den Linden 2022).
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Inspiring practices to combat disinformation
Counter-disinformation toolkit overview (available at RESIST 2 Counter Disinformation Toolkit - GCS (civilservice.gov.uk)) - a freely available toolkit for communicators to help them develop the necessary skills and competences to tackle disinformation and its effects on companies, campaigns, society as a whole.
The following six stages need to be taken into consideration when fighting a disinformation campaign:
- Impact analysis - presents the structural analysis techniques that can assist communicators in predicting the potential impact of disinformation and produce objective assessment
- Strategic communications - maps the communication skills that could be employed to develop communication strategies meant to increase credibility, create proactive, engaging content for the target audience.
- Tracking effectiveness - tools to measure the effectiveness of strategic communication campaigns
- Recognise - understand the types of disinformation that exist in the overcrowded media environment
- Early warning - overview of the tools available to spot disinformation in a timely manner and monitor the media environment
- Situational insight - refers to the ways in which communicators can turn information into actionable insight for decision-makers
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Bibliography
and useful resources
2021-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000031158
30
- Berkowitz L. (1984). Some effects of thoughts on anti- and prosocial influences of media events: A cognitive-neoassociation analysis. Psychol Bull. 95(3): 410–427
- 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.
- Cotter, K., DeCook, J. R. & Kanthawala, S., (2022). Fact-checking the Crisis: COID-19, Infodemics, and the Platformization of Thruth. Social Media + Society, pp. 1-13.
- Ecker, U.K.H., Lewandowsky, S. & Chadwick, M. (2020). “Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect.” Cognitive Research 5(41). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00241-6.
- Ecker, U.K.H; Lewandowsky, S.; Cook, J.; Schmid, P., Fazio, L.Z.; Brashier, N.M.; Kendeou, P.; Vraga, E. K. and Amazeen, M. A. (2022). “The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction.” Nature Reviews Psychology, 1. https://doi.10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
- Festinger, Leon. (1962). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
- Graves, L. & Amazeen, M. A., (2019). Fact-Checking as Idea and Practice in Journalism. In: Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Herrero, E. & Herrera Damas, S., (2021). Spanish-Speaking Fact-Checkers around the world: profiles, similarities, and differences among fact checking professionals. Revista de Comunicacion de la SEECI, pp. 49-77.
- Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Sander Van Den Linden (2021). "Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking." European Review of Social Psychology 32 (2): 348-384
- Mantzarlis, A., (2018). Fact-checking 101. In: Journalism, ‘Fake News’ & Disinformation. Handbook for Journalism Education and Training. s.l.:UNESCO, pp. 81-95
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
- Marietta, M., Barker, D. C. & Bowser, T., (2015). Fact-Checking Polarized Politics: Does The Fact-Check Industry Provide Consistent Guidance on Disputed Realities?. The Forum, p. 577–596.
- Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J. & Wood, T. J., (2020). Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability. Political Behavior, p. 939–960.
- Pemmet, James & Anneli Kimber Lindwall (2021) Fact-Checking and Debunking. A Best Practice Guide to Dealing with Disinformation, published by NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence.
- Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Collins, E. T., & Rand, D. G. (2020). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944-4957.
- Roozenbeek, J., & Van Der Linden, S. (2022). How to combat health misinformation: A psychological approach. American journal of health promotion, 36(3), 569-575.
- Stencel, M., Ryan, E. & Luther, J., (2022). Fact-checkers extend their global reach with 391 outlets, but growth has slowed. [Online] Available at: https://reporterslab.org/tag/fact-checking-census/
- Trevors, G.J. (2022). “The Roles of Identity Conflict, Emotion, and Threat in Learning from Refutation Texts on Vaccination and Immigration.” Discourse Processes, 59(1-2): 36-51. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0163853X.2021.1917950.
- Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(3), 577
- Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). "The spread of true and false news online". Science, 359(6380): 1146–1151.
- Walter, N.; Cohen,J.; Holbert R.L & Morag, Y. (2019). “Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom.” Political Communication, https://www.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894
- World Health Organization, 2022. Infodemic. [Online] Available at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic#tab=tab_1
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Audiovisual and multimedia production:
2021-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000031158
DOMINOES Course © 2023 by URJC, MVNIA, UoM & NSC is licensed under CC BY 4.0
The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the National Agency and Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Is de-bunking effective?
• Evidence for the effectiveness of fact debunking has been mixed, as studies have found both evidence in favor and against the usefulness of de-bunking as a tool to combat disinformation. In addition to what has been discussed, some of the following issues have been identified in the literature on the effectiveness of de-bunking. • Pre-existing attitudes and beliefs play a fundamental role in the acceptance of mis- and disinformation content by audiences (Ewoldsen & Rhodes, 2020).
o According to the priming theory (Berkowitz, 1984), people react to the messages they received depending on how they interpret the message, the ideas they bring with them and the thoughts that the message evokes.
• Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1962) - individuals, struggle to accept new information that challenges the previously accepted, and actively seek information that reinforces the previously accepted belief or behavior –to reduce the dissonance and reinstate the balance
• Brashier et al (2021) noticed that correcting misinformation may have an effect in the short term, but might fade in the longer term and tested which for of fact-checks produced the longest lasting results.
• The backfire effect has also been associated with emotional reactions. Trevors (2022) established a predictive relationship between the refutation of contents and the emotions provoked in individuals.
o Confrontation with information that provokes negative emotions might lead to that individual experiencing discomfort, and thus that individuals would try to avoid it, by forgetting the (fact-checked) information that is uncomfortable for them.
o By avoiding potential discomfort through customized fact-checking strategies, fact-checkers may be able to reduce the persistence of misinformation in holders of partisan positions.
Fact checking and de-bunking
• Fact-checking is not a simple “spell-checking process, since there does not exist a dictionary-style guidebook comprising all the possible facts or a software solution that can examine all documents and flag anytime something has been misstated as fact” (Mantzarlis, 2018, p. 84).o Fact-checking does not limit itself only to correctly informing individuals, but extends to monitoring, spotting and disproving any piece of information• Fact-checking represents an essential tool for online platforms, as they have transformed into the main source of information for the general public, keeping abreast of current events and news (Cotter, et al., 2022, p. 3).• Fact-checking was initially the prerogative of media outlets but it has since extended to nonprofit entities, think tanks, nongovernmental organizations and academic institutions which joined the community of fact-checkers (Stencel, et al., 2022).• In the 21st century, fact-checking begun to revolve around ensuring institutional accountability (Graves & Amazeen, 2019)• Technological developments gave Internet users the opportunity to develop news-like content, and also allowed independent fact-checking sites (such as Snopes.com, Maldita.es) to establish in order to help dispel conspiracy theories and rumors while also trying to fill the role of watchdogs for politicians, journalists and other public figures (Cotter, et al., 2022, p. 3).• In 2015 the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) was established at Poynter, “at the initiative of the checkers themselves who started to meet informally in 2014 in order to exchange good practices and also errors” (Herrero & Herrera Damas, 2021, p. 66).
Fact checking and de-bunking Main differences
• Debunking is guided and informed by the principle that mis- and disinformation should not go unchallenged. Fact-checking, on the other hand, is more neutral.
• Debunking also exhibits additional traits:
a) debate-shaping as its efforts are directed at preventing or correcting manipulation of public debate.
b) transparent regarding the debunker’s actions, objectives and funding.
c) awareness-raising because they also strive to educate with respect to manipulative techniques (Pemmet & Lindwall 2021 16-17).
• Fact-checking also employs debunking techniques in order to expose the process behind the falsehoods, as well as the process through which they have been revealed.
• Cook (2016), strongly criticises the debunking approach.
o He argues that debunking is inefficient because people build mental models in which the false information fits neatly.
o According to Cook, people prefer complete, even if incorrect, mental models over incomplete ones.
o The alternative is to help people build correct mental models through inoculation, especially by preemptively exposing the logical fallacy employed to spread a particular piece of disinformation
• A series of studies summarized by Lewandowsky and van den Linden (2021) have shown the efficiency of inoculation against fake news.
o van den Linden et al. (2017) and Cook et al. (2017)- inoculation experiment where people were presented with disinformation about climate change as well as an inoculation treatment through warnings about disinformation techniques.
o Those who had received "inoculation" before seeing the particular piece of disinformation tended to rate the accuracy of the false statements as much lower than those that had not been exposed to the inoculation treatment.
• Inoculation or pre-bunking has shown consistent results in stopping people from believing and sharing disinformation. By giving people a forewarning about the strategies that actors spreading disinformation use, pre-bunking convinces people to stop and think about what they are seeing.
3.3-LTT-Presentation
URJC
Created on August 24, 2023
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Interactive Onboarding Guide
View
Pastel Color Presentation
View
Choose Your Own Story
View
Pixel Challenge
View
Retro Bits Quiz
View
Math Calculations
View
Puzzle Game
Explore all templates
Transcript
3.3
Fact-checking, argument-checking, debunking and pre-bunking
Valentin Stoian | MVNIA
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10064258
2021-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000031158
DOMINOES Course © 2023 by URJC, MVNIA, UoM & NSC is licensed under CC BY 4.0
The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the National Agency and Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Fact-checking, argument-checking, debunking and pre-bunking
This module 3.3. addresses the following contents:
Valentin STOIAN | ANIMV
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Unit objeCtives
To understand:
Valentin STOIAN | ANIMV
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Ice-breaker
Question for discussion!
What is the name of the practice outlined in the following example? Original news: “85% percent of university students university hate their professors” Follow-up statement by media watchdog NGO: The statement according to which 85% of students hate their professors is FALSE. The respective piece of news relates to a survey carried out two years ago, at two local universities, where students were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with their professors. 10% stated they were very dissatisfied, 30 % stated they were dissatisfied, 45% claimed they were mostly satisfied and 15 % claimed they were very satisfied.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
The process of combating disinformation
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Fact checking and de-bunking
Fact-checking Can be defined as “continuous, consolidated practice of checking the veracity of public discourse” (Herrero & Herrera Damas, 2021, p. 51) or a "scrupulous analysis driven by one simple question – ‘How we do know that?’” (Mantzarlis, 2018, p. 84).
Traditionally, fact checking, was associated with classical media, who would be involved in verifying claims made by different actors
The information landscape was, until recently, dominated by top-down communication by a few established actors such as states and large media producers
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
De-bunking – the retroactive approach
De-bunking A subset of fact-checking- aimed at pieces of news and statements considered to be disinformation
It is considered the “retroactive” approach to combating disinformation. Aims to correct mistaken statements once they have spread in the media and to show people why these are, most likely, intentional mistakes.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Fact checking and de-bunking Main differences
Debunking may be partisan (if conducted by governments to expose certain actors), while fact-checking is impartial
Debunking is targeted on a particular actor or a specific topic. The target is chosen in accordance to the effects it could produce if the mis- or disinformation is left unchallenged; while fact-checking is broad in scope and targets any mis- or disinformation.
Debunking is strategic, as it prioritizes its targets and does not focus on everything with equal effort. Some mis- or disinformation attempts, which are not perceived as posing threats to the debunkers interests and/or priorities, are not addressed.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Infodemics >The result of excess disinformation
The combination of fake information and easy dissemination created the phenomenon of infodemics - “superabundance or excess of information, including false or misleading information, regarding a topic” (World Health Organization, 2022)
This was especially visible during the COVID-19 pandemic when the world was flooded with a mix of false and true information on the nature and transmission of the virus.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Is de-bunking effective?
The speed of circulation argumentFalse information travels at six times the speed of the later correction (Vosoughi, Roy and Aral 2018)
de-bunking
The cognitive bias argument - Cognitive biases also make de-bunking less efficient.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Is de-bunking effective?
The backfire effect A stronger adhesion to pre-existing beliefs or thoughts when people are confronted with corrective information that challenges these beliefs or thoughts (Pennycook et al. 2020; Walter et al. 2019, Nyhan 2021; Ecker et al., 2022; Ecker et al., 2020)
de-bunking
The political effect
Vallone et al (1985) argue that there is a tendency for partisans to view media coverage of controversial events as unfairly biased and hostile to the position they advocate. Walter et al. (2019) claim that holders of partisan positions are more vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation consistent with their own views, but also will likely be more resistant to debunking and fact-checking processes, if the content challenges "pre-existing beliefs, ideology, and knowledge”
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Is de-bunking effective?
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
What would you do in order to verify the accuracy of the claims?
Imagine the following scenario:
Imagine that you have been recently employed by a fact-checking organization and that you now have to evaluate the veracity of a piece of information regarding the possibility that the COVID-19 virus was released from a laboratory where biological experiments were conducted by a state actor. The news is promoted by a so-called university professor, who claims that he has recently published findings on this topic. At the same time, locations of the biological laboratory” are presented in a film on the topic, accompanied by ominous music.
For this exercise, course participants will be divided into 4 groups
Each group should answer the question in maximum 10 minutes and to provide at least three actions they would undertake
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Pre-bunking >The pro-active approach
Pre-bunking aims to make the person more immune to disinformation before he or she is exposed to it.
Based on the premise of reverse psychology – when an agent has to play the role of the opponent, in this case a spreader of disinformation, one better understands the techniques used and then becomes immune to them
Similar to a vaccine - once a person comes in contact with a "weakened" version of the practice of disinformation, then they will become immune when encountering that practice in the real world.
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Pre-bunking > Some strategies attempted
Used to be conducted through teaching in class on logical fallacies – studies have shown a positive effect of pre-bunking on fake news detection – if one is taught about logical fallacies, then one will recognize them when exposed to them
The approach is premised on the idea that it is better to create correct mental models than to try to fit correct information in already mistaken models
In order to reach a wider audience, the use of serious gaming has been found to be very useful for pre-bunking –these rely on reverse psychology – Go Viral!, Bad News!
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Pre-bunking > The effects discovered
The inoculation treatment applied
Pre-bunking also exhibits certain limitations
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Inspiring practices to combat disinformation
Counter-disinformation toolkit overview (available at RESIST 2 Counter Disinformation Toolkit - GCS (civilservice.gov.uk)) - a freely available toolkit for communicators to help them develop the necessary skills and competences to tackle disinformation and its effects on companies, campaigns, society as a whole.
The following six stages need to be taken into consideration when fighting a disinformation campaign:
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Bibliography
and useful resources
2021-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000031158
30
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Digital cOMpetences INformatiOn EcoSystem
Audiovisual and multimedia production:
2021-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000031158
DOMINOES Course © 2023 by URJC, MVNIA, UoM & NSC is licensed under CC BY 4.0
The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the National Agency and Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Is de-bunking effective?
• Evidence for the effectiveness of fact debunking has been mixed, as studies have found both evidence in favor and against the usefulness of de-bunking as a tool to combat disinformation. In addition to what has been discussed, some of the following issues have been identified in the literature on the effectiveness of de-bunking. • Pre-existing attitudes and beliefs play a fundamental role in the acceptance of mis- and disinformation content by audiences (Ewoldsen & Rhodes, 2020). o According to the priming theory (Berkowitz, 1984), people react to the messages they received depending on how they interpret the message, the ideas they bring with them and the thoughts that the message evokes. • Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1962) - individuals, struggle to accept new information that challenges the previously accepted, and actively seek information that reinforces the previously accepted belief or behavior –to reduce the dissonance and reinstate the balance
• Brashier et al (2021) noticed that correcting misinformation may have an effect in the short term, but might fade in the longer term and tested which for of fact-checks produced the longest lasting results. • The backfire effect has also been associated with emotional reactions. Trevors (2022) established a predictive relationship between the refutation of contents and the emotions provoked in individuals. o Confrontation with information that provokes negative emotions might lead to that individual experiencing discomfort, and thus that individuals would try to avoid it, by forgetting the (fact-checked) information that is uncomfortable for them. o By avoiding potential discomfort through customized fact-checking strategies, fact-checkers may be able to reduce the persistence of misinformation in holders of partisan positions.
Fact checking and de-bunking
• Fact-checking is not a simple “spell-checking process, since there does not exist a dictionary-style guidebook comprising all the possible facts or a software solution that can examine all documents and flag anytime something has been misstated as fact” (Mantzarlis, 2018, p. 84).o Fact-checking does not limit itself only to correctly informing individuals, but extends to monitoring, spotting and disproving any piece of information• Fact-checking represents an essential tool for online platforms, as they have transformed into the main source of information for the general public, keeping abreast of current events and news (Cotter, et al., 2022, p. 3).• Fact-checking was initially the prerogative of media outlets but it has since extended to nonprofit entities, think tanks, nongovernmental organizations and academic institutions which joined the community of fact-checkers (Stencel, et al., 2022).• In the 21st century, fact-checking begun to revolve around ensuring institutional accountability (Graves & Amazeen, 2019)• Technological developments gave Internet users the opportunity to develop news-like content, and also allowed independent fact-checking sites (such as Snopes.com, Maldita.es) to establish in order to help dispel conspiracy theories and rumors while also trying to fill the role of watchdogs for politicians, journalists and other public figures (Cotter, et al., 2022, p. 3).• In 2015 the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) was established at Poynter, “at the initiative of the checkers themselves who started to meet informally in 2014 in order to exchange good practices and also errors” (Herrero & Herrera Damas, 2021, p. 66).
Fact checking and de-bunking Main differences
• Debunking is guided and informed by the principle that mis- and disinformation should not go unchallenged. Fact-checking, on the other hand, is more neutral. • Debunking also exhibits additional traits: a) debate-shaping as its efforts are directed at preventing or correcting manipulation of public debate. b) transparent regarding the debunker’s actions, objectives and funding. c) awareness-raising because they also strive to educate with respect to manipulative techniques (Pemmet & Lindwall 2021 16-17). • Fact-checking also employs debunking techniques in order to expose the process behind the falsehoods, as well as the process through which they have been revealed.
• Cook (2016), strongly criticises the debunking approach. o He argues that debunking is inefficient because people build mental models in which the false information fits neatly. o According to Cook, people prefer complete, even if incorrect, mental models over incomplete ones. o The alternative is to help people build correct mental models through inoculation, especially by preemptively exposing the logical fallacy employed to spread a particular piece of disinformation • A series of studies summarized by Lewandowsky and van den Linden (2021) have shown the efficiency of inoculation against fake news. o van den Linden et al. (2017) and Cook et al. (2017)- inoculation experiment where people were presented with disinformation about climate change as well as an inoculation treatment through warnings about disinformation techniques. o Those who had received "inoculation" before seeing the particular piece of disinformation tended to rate the accuracy of the false statements as much lower than those that had not been exposed to the inoculation treatment. • Inoculation or pre-bunking has shown consistent results in stopping people from believing and sharing disinformation. By giving people a forewarning about the strategies that actors spreading disinformation use, pre-bunking convinces people to stop and think about what they are seeing.