IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0283238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning about informal fallacies and the detection of fake news: An experimental intervention

Author

Listed:
  • Timon M J Hruschka
  • Markus Appel

Abstract

The philosophical concept of informal fallacies–arguments that fail to provide sufficient support for a claim–is introduced and connected to the topic of fake news detection. We assumed that the ability to identify informal fallacies can be trained and that this ability enables individuals to better distinguish between fake news and real news. We tested these assumptions in a two-group between-participants experiment (N = 116). The two groups participated in a 30-minute-long text-based learning intervention: either about informal fallacies or about fake news. Learning about informal fallacies enhanced participants’ ability to identify fallacious arguments one week later. Furthermore, the ability to identify fallacious arguments was associated with a better discernment between real news and fake news. Participants in the informal fallacy intervention group and the fake news intervention group performed equally well on the news discernment task. The contribution of (identifying) informal fallacies for research and practice is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Timon M J Hruschka & Markus Appel, 2023. "Learning about informal fallacies and the detection of fake news: An experimental intervention," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0283238
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283238
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283238&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0283238?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucie Vrbová & Kateřina Jiřinová & Karel Helman & Hana Lorencová, 2021. "Do informal reasoning fallacies really shape decisions? Experimental evidence," Rationality and Society, , vol. 33(4), pages 448-479, November.
    2. Jon Roozenbeek & Sander Linden, 2019. "Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Andrea Moscadelli & Giuseppe Albora & Massimiliano Alberto Biamonte & Duccio Giorgetti & Michele Innocenzio & Sonia Paoli & Chiara Lorini & Paolo Bonanni & Guglielmo Bonaccorsi, 2020. "Fake News and Covid-19 in Italy: Results of a Quantitative Observational Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-13, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jon Roozenbeek & Stefan M. Herzog & Michael Geers & Ralf Kurvers & Mubashir Sultan & Sander van der Linden, 2022. "Susceptibility to misinformation is consistent across question framings and response modes and better explained by myside bias and partisanship than analytical thinking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(3), pages 547-573, May.
    2. Roger D. Magarey & Christina M. Trexler, 2020. "Information: a missing component in understanding and mitigating social epidemics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Theiss Bendixen, 2020. "How cultural evolution can inform the science of science communication—and vice versa," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:547-573 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Cecilie S. Traberg & Jon Roozenbeek & Sander van der Linden, 2022. "Psychological Inoculation against Misinformation: Current Evidence and Future Directions," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 136-151, March.
    6. Philipp Lorenz-Spreen & Stephan Lewandowsky & Cass R. Sunstein & Ralph Hertwig, 2020. "How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1102-1109, November.
    7. Danielle Caled & Mário J. Silva, 2022. "Digital media and misinformation: An outlook on multidisciplinary strategies against manipulation," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 123-159, May.
    8. Jinjin Ma & Yidi Chen & Huanya Zhu & Yiqun Gan, 2023. "Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation through an Online Game Based on the Inoculation Theory: Analyzing the Mediating Effects of Perceived Threat and Persuasion Knowledge," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Carl-Anton Werner Axelsson & Mona Guath & Thomas Nygren, 2021. "Learning How to Separate Fake from Real News: Scalable Digital Tutorials Promoting Students’ Civic Online Reasoning," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, February.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:849-882 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Giuseppina Lo Moro & Giacomo Scaioli & Fabrizio Bert & Andrea Lorenzo Zacchero & Ettore Minutiello & Roberta Siliquini, 2022. "Exploring the Relationship between COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal and Belief in Fake News and Conspiracy Theories: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study in Italy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-12, July.
    12. Cun Fu & Jinru Zhang & Xin Kang, 2024. "True or false? Linguistic and demographic factors influence veracity judgment of COVID-19 rumors," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-7, December.
    13. Cameron Martel & Mohsen Mosleh & David G. Rand, 2021. "You’re Definitely Wrong, Maybe: Correction Style Has Minimal Effect on Corrections of Misinformation Online," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 120-133.
    14. Andrea Rosales & Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol & Madelin Gómez-León & Pedro Jacobetty, 2024. "Old age is also a time for change: trends in news intermediary preferences among internet users in Canada and Spain," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Nan, Xiaoli & Wang, Yuan & Thier, Kathryn, 2022. "Why do people believe health misinformation and who is at risk? A systematic review of individual differences in susceptibility to health misinformation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    16. Cameron Martel & Mohsen Mosleh & David G. Rand, 2021. "You’re Definitely Wrong, Maybe: Correction Style Has Minimal Effect on Corrections of Misinformation Online," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 120-133.
    17. Ann Pearman & MacKenzie L. Hughes & Clara W. Coblenz & Emily L. Smith & Shevaun D. Neupert, 2023. "A Precautionary Tale: Individual Decision Making in the Time of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-14, March.
    18. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:849-882 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Jana Siebert & Johannes Ulrich Siebert, 2024. "Enhancing misinformation correction: New variants and a combination of awareness training and counter-speech to mitigate belief perseverance bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(2), pages 1-15, February.
    20. John A. List & Lina M. Ramírez & Julia Seither & Jaime Unda & Beatriz Vallejo, 2024. "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Misinformation: Evidence from a Demand Side Field Experiment on Critical Thinking," NBER Working Papers 32367, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Rakoen Maertens & Jon Roozenbeek & Jon S. Simons & Stephan Lewandowsky & Vanessa Maturo & Beth Goldberg & Rachel Xu & Sander Linden, 2025. "Psychological booster shots targeting memory increase long-term resistance against misinformation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, December.
    22. Nygren, Thomas & Spearing, Emily & Fay, Nicolas & Vega, Davide & Hardwick, Isabella I. & Roozenbeek, Jon & Ecker, Ullrich K. H., 2025. "The Seven Roles of Artificial Intelligence: Potential and Pitfalls in Combating Misinformation," OSF Preprints j4gtv_v1, Center for Open Science.
    23. Sebastian Blesse & Friedrich Heinemann & Tommy Krieger, 2021. "Ökonomische Desinformation — Ursachen und Handlungsempfehlungen [Economic Disinformation — Causes and Recommendations for Action]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 101(12), pages 943-948, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0283238. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.