IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0348391.html

Thinking together: How group argumentation boosts fake news recognition

Author

Listed:
  • Diana Carbone
  • Francesco Marcatto
  • Donatella Ferrante

Abstract

In a study with 111 college students, we present preliminary evidence that group discussion may improve the ability to recognize fake news. In the study, participants judged the veracity of news stories before and after participating in a group discussion or writing an individual reflection. The results showed that accuracy improved only in the case of fake news discussed in groups, while individual reflection was not sufficient to improve performance. An improvement in accuracy for individually evaluated fake news was observed only when these news items were presented after the group-discussed fake news in the experimental order, consistent with a transfer effect of group discussion on accuracy. Group argumentation produced positive effects on accuracy even in group interactions with inaccurate participants. The findings are in line with the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana Carbone & Francesco Marcatto & Donatella Ferrante, 2026. "Thinking together: How group argumentation boosts fake news recognition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(5), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0348391
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0348391
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0348391&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0348391?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0348391. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.