This study has – as always – its limitations, but it doesn’t seem to be so unlogical that interventions against misinformation can also maybe increase scepticism toward reliable sources. An important limitation is the online survey used, but a plus is that the researchers used data from a lof of people from different places in the world: US, Poland and Hong Kong.

From the press release:

Studies have shown that few people actually come across false information in their day-to-day lives. And yet, concerns about the harm “fake news” may do have increased in recent years. High-profile events such as the Capitol Riots, vaccine-hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have fueled these concerns. At the same time, fact-checking initiatives are on the rise. Major news platforms like BBC and CNN have incorporated fact-checking into their regular offerings, while media literacy campaigns have flourished, with programs designed to educate the public on how to make sense of what is true and false.

A study conducted by the Universities of Zurich, California and Warsaw now shows that these efforts have given rise to an unintended paradox: the very tools used to combat misinformation are fomenting distrust in all news, including from reliable sources.

Interventions foster a broader sense of doubt

The researchers conducted three online survey experiments involving 6,127 participants in the US, Poland and Hong Kong to test the effectiveness of three corrective strategies currently used to combat misinformation — fact-checking, media literacy initiatives and dedicated news reporting — and compared them with three alternative strategies. The idea of the redesigned strategies was to foster a critical, yet not overly skeptical, engagement with information. For instance, rather than focusing on whether news is either true or false, one of the redesigned strategies emphasized understanding political biases in news reporting.

The study revealed that the traditional tools as well as the alternative strategies used to debunk myths foster a broader sense of doubt among the public, even toward legitimate information. The redesigned strategies did not significantly outperform traditional tactics in improving the public’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction, although they were slightly better at doing so.

Weighing up potential gains and harms

“Public discourse on fake news not only increases skepticism toward false information but also erodes trust in reliable news sources, which play a key role in functioning democracies,” says first author Emma Hoes. According to the UZH political scientist, the potential gains from reducing misperceptions must be carefully weighed against the broader implications of heightened skepticism. “This is particularly the case in many Western democracies, where reliable, fact-based news is fortunately still much more common than misinformation,” she says.

Hoes and her fellow researchers therefore call for a deeper overhaul of current approaches to misinformation and the need to develop nuanced strategies. “The path forward is to educate the public on discerning facts with a critical eye, but without leading them to dismiss otherwise reliable information and sources outright.”

Abstract of the study:

Current interventions to combat misinformation, including fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation, may have unintended consequences for democracy. We propose that these interventions may increase scepticism towards all information, including accurate information. Across three online survey experiments in three diverse countries (the United States, Poland and Hong Kong; total n = 6,127), we tested the negative spillover effects of existing strategies and compared them with three alternative interventions against misinformation. We examined how exposure to fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation affects individuals’ perception of both factual and false information, as well as their trust in key democratic institutions. Our results show that while all interventions successfully reduce belief in false information, they also negatively impact the credibility of factual information. This highlights the need for further improved strategies that minimize the harms and maximize the benefits of interventions against misinformation.