And because this research was conducted in the US, future studies will need to test whether other groups respond to the videos. Jigsaw also wants to test videos that address specific topics, like false narratives about refugees in Europe. As before, the viewers performed better than a control group but, this time, with a longer gap after watching the video - the median was about 18 hours.įuture research is designed to push that timeline further, seeing how long the effects of the “inoculation” last. Within 24 hours, they followed up with questions similar to the ones described above, judging people’s ability to recognize manipulation tactics. They purchased ad space to show prebunking in front of random videos.
The team also conducted a larger study (of around 22,000 people) on the Google-owned platform YouTube. really resonates on both sides of the political aisle” People who had seen the videos were overall significantly better at judging whether these posts used the manipulation tactic, and they were significantly less likely to say they’d share them. Then, they were shown fake social media posts, some of which used the tactic in the video. In five controlled studies involving 5,000 participants recruited online, people watched either one of the prebunking videos or a neutral video of a similar length. Here, the study found encouraging results. (Some of this research is disputed.) But as with other tactics, researchers are still in the early stages of measuring its effectiveness, particularly on social media. Prebunking has been promoted as an anti-misinformation strategy for years, especially after research suggested that fact-checking and corrections might not change people’s minds and can even backfire. “We wanted to remove any of the possible politicization that has sort of been confounding the question,” says Jigsaw head of research and development Beth Goldberg.
Avoiding factual claims also meant viewers weren’t judging whether they trusted the source of those facts. (Anakin Skywalker’s claim that “if you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy” is a classic false dichotomy.) The goal was to highlight red flags that might short-circuit people’s critical evaluation of a social media post or video, then to see if that translated into wider recognition of those tactics. They typically used absurd or funny examples drawn from pop culture, including Family Guy or Star Wars. The roughly 90-second videos didn’t discuss specific false narratives or whether a given piece of information was factual.
#Red vox youtube series
Published in Science Advances, it recounts the impact of a video series about common tactics often used to spread false information, including scapegoating, false dichotomies, and appeals to emotion. The Jigsaw and Cambridge study - which also involved researchers from the University of Bristol and the University of Western Australia, Perth - is one of several attempts to “inoculate” or “prebunk” people against disinformation instead of debunking it after the fact. The study is part of ongoing work in the field of mis- and disinformation, and it’s encouraging news for researchers hoping to improve the online information ecosystem - albeit with many caveats. “Prebunking” false information with short videos could nudge people to be more critical of it, suggests a new study from researchers at the University of Cambridge and Google’s Jigsaw division.
0 kommentar(er)
