IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/mkd6f.html

Perceiving AI Intervention Does Not Compromise the Persuasive Effect of Fact-Checking

Author

Listed:
  • Chae, Je Hoon

    (University of California, Los Angeles)

  • Tewksbury, David

Abstract

Efforts to scale up fact-checking through technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI), are increasingly being suggested and tested. This study examines whether previously observed effects of reading fact-checks remain constant when readers are aware of AI’s involvement in the fact-checking process. We conducted three online experiments (N = 3,978), exposing participants to fact-checks identified as either human-generated or AI-assisted, simulating cases where AI fully generates the fact-check or automatically retrieves human fact-checks. Our findings indicate that the persuasive effect of fact-checking, specifically in increasing truth discernment, persists even among participants without a positive prior attitude toward AI. Additionally, in some cases, awareness of AI’s role reduced perceived political bias in fact-checks among Republicans. Finally, neither AI-generated nor human fact-checks significantly affected participants’ feelings toward or their perceptions of the competence of the targeted politicians.

Suggested Citation

  • Chae, Je Hoon & Tewksbury, David, 2024. "Perceiving AI Intervention Does Not Compromise the Persuasive Effect of Fact-Checking," OSF Preprints mkd6f, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:mkd6f
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/mkd6f
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/66e5c3ca14a773c54bfeee67/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/mkd6f?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. Coppock, Alexander & Gross, Kimberly & Porter, Ethan & Thorson, Emily & Wood, Thomas J., 2023. "Conceptual Replication of Four Key Findings about Factual Corrections and Misinformation during the 2020 US Election: Evidence from Panel-Survey Experiments," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 1328-1341, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dan Valeriu VOINEA, 2024. "Reinforcement Learning-Driven Language Agents For Multi-Domain Fact-Checking And Coherent News Synthesis," Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Department of Communication, Journalism and Education Sciences, University of Craiova, vol. 11(2), pages 376-393, December.

    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. Ethan Porter & R Bailey Scott & Thomas J Wood & Raushan Zhandayeva, 2024. "Correcting misinformation about the Russia-Ukraine War reduces false beliefs but does not change views about the War," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-13, September.
    2. repec:osf:osfxxx:mkd6f_v1 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:osfxxx:mkd6f. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.