Fighting Infodemics: Labels as Antidotes to Mis- and Disinformation?!
By Martin Mende, Valentina O. Ubal, Marina Cozac, Beth Vallen, and Christopher Berry
The quality and quantity of the generation and dissemination of mis- and disinformation in the form of inaccurate media are unprecedented (Ardèvol-Abreu et al. 2020; Mende et al. 2021), resulting in the emergence of infodemics. Infodemics, defined as the “rapid and far-reaching spread of both accurate and inaccurate information” about a topic (Merriam-Webster n.d.), often relate to important matters (e.g., elections), and introduce risks that will likely escalate further. Moreover, only a small number of people that share mis-/disinformation can have massive reach and cause negative consequences. Although labeling false information seems logical in fighting false information, and experts call for this approach, findings in the literature on information-related labels are ambivalent (e.g., labels are not always effective; Mena 2020).
Content, genesis, and evolution of infodemics
We conceptualize infodemics via a three-dimensional perspective on an infodemic’s (1) content, (2) genesis, and (3) evolution to help understand how/why infodemics emerge and to recognize/combat mis-/disinformation. Specifically, we hope this perspective aids in the development of warning labels as antidotes to mis- and disinformation.
Content: Infodemics include the interplay of misinformation (incorrect information shared with no intention to harm) and disinformation (intentionally incorrect information) (Cacciatore 2021; Lewandowsky et al. 2013).
Genesis: The motives for creating and disseminating false information can include malicious intent, manipulation, pushing an agenda, profit, passion, and fun (Zannettou et al. 2019). Experts point to social media as a key influence in driving the volume (i.e., number of sites/users), variety (i.e., rumors, hoaxes), and velocity (i.e., content spreads quickly to people with personalized messages that resonate) of infodemics. Tools for developing content that appear “real” are also becoming more accessible, increasing the spread of false information. Sharing may be amplified by users who do not recognize the intention of the creator of the false content (i.e., people become “useful idiots”) or those who believe the content (i.e., conspiracy theorists; Zannettou et al. 2019).
Evolution: Drawing on prior literature, we identify three evolutionary stages (creation, recontextualization, and reception) of infodemics. Once the content is produced and initially distributed, knowledge can become reconceptualized in public discourse, involving many agents (e.g., media, celebrities, government).
Should organizations and/or policymakers intervene?
Interventions must be considered carefully as they might be seen as a form of suppression. However, we argue that interventions against infodemics are frequently justified, especially when they are harmful and popular (e.g., interventions to avoid radicalization or societal harm).
Warning labels as an antidote
Merging insights from the multidisciplinary literature on labeling— on both media and consumer products—we build a conceptual model that offers a lens through which researchers, managers, and policymakers might design, implement, and evaluate labels to curb mis-/disinformation. The model considers how label characteristics impact consumer responses to mis-/disinformation, as well as how contextual and consumer factors may interact with aspects of labels to drive affective and cognitive responses, subsequently influencing attitudes, intentions, and behaviors related to labels and media content. Focusing specifically on warning label characteristics, in this blog article, we sketch the impact of design, content, and source elements.
Design: Interactive warning labels, such as a "press enter to continue" prompt, alongside instinctive signals like a stop sign and explicit fact-check alerts, significantly reduce the credibility of fake news by disrupting habitual scrolling and prompting critical engagement with content (Kaiser et al. 2021; Moravec et al. 2020).
Content: The content of the warning itself is crucial for a warning to be effective. Tags that are specific to the mis-/disinformation are more effective than general warnings, and an explanation about why the content is inaccurate enhances skepticism regarding the content and reduces user engagement with it (Clayton et al. 2020; Kirchner and Reuter 2020; Hwang et al. 2021).
Source: The source of the warning label also influences its effectiveness. Labels from fact-checkers and expert sources (e.g., universities/health institutions), are more effective in helping individuals identify false news than labels generated by algorithms (Seo et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2021).
Taken together, addressing infodemics is challenging, but better understanding their content, genesis, and evolution and developing strategic interventions is crucial. Well-developed infodemics-related warning labels are one such possible intervention.
Article Details
Fighting Infodemics: Labels as Antidotes to Mis- and Disinformation?!
Martin Mende, Valentina O. Ubal, Marina Cozac, Beth Vallen, Christopher Berry
First Published June 13, 2023 Research Article
DOI: 10.1177/07439156231184816
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
About the Authors
