Misinformation and harmful language are interconnected, rather than distinct, challenges.

There is considerable concern about users posting misinformation and harmful language on social media. Substantial-yet largely distinct-bodies of research have studied these two kinds of problematic content. Here, we shed light on both research streams by examining the relationship between the sharing of misinformation and the use of harmful language. We do so by creating and analyzing a dataset of 8,687,758 posts from N = 6,832 Twitter (now called X) users, and a dataset of N = 14,617 true and false headlines from professional fact-checking websites. Our analyses reveal substantial positive associations between misinformation and harmful language. On average, Twitter posts containing links to lower-quality news outlets also contain more harmful language (ß = 0.10); and false headlines contain more harmful language than true headlines (ß = 0.19). Additionally, Twitter users who share links to lower-quality news sources also use more harmful language-even in non-news posts that are unrelated to (mis)information (ß = 0.13). These consistent findings across different datasets and levels of analysis suggest that misinformation and harmful language are related in important ways, rather than being distinct phenomena. At the same, however, the strength of associations is not sufficiently high to make the presence of harmful language a useful diagnostic for information quality: most low-quality information does not contain harmful language, and a considerable fraction of high-quality information does contain harmful language. Overall, our results underscore important opportunities to integrate these largely disconnected strands of research and understand their psychological connections.

High level of correspondence across different news domain quality rating sets.

One widely used approach for quantifying misinformation consumption and sharing is to evaluate the quality of the news domains that a user interacts with. However, different media organizations and fact-checkers have produced different sets of news domain quality ratings, raising questions about the reliability of these ratings. In this study, we compared six sets of expert ratings and found that they generally correlated highly with one another. We then created a comprehensive set of domain ratings for use by the research community (github.com/hauselin/domain-quality-ratings), leveraging an ensemble "wisdom of experts" approach. To do so, we performed imputation together with principal component analysis to generate a set of aggregate ratings. The resulting rating set comprises 11,520 domains-the most extensive coverage to date-and correlates well with other rating sets that have more limited coverage. Together, these results suggest that experts generally agree on the relative quality of news domains, and the aggregate ratings that we generate offer a powerful research tool for evaluating the quality of news consumed or shared and the efficacy of misinformation interventions.

Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents.

The spread of misinformation online is a global problem that requires global solutions. To that end, we conducted an experiment in 16 countries across 6 continents (N = 34,286; 676,605 observations) to investigate predictors of susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19, and interventions to combat the spread of this misinformation. In every country, participants with a more analytic cognitive style and stronger accuracy-related motivations were better at discerning truth from falsehood; valuing democracy was also associated with greater truth discernment, whereas endorsement of individual responsibility over government support was negatively associated with truth discernment in most countries. Subtly prompting people to think about accuracy had a generally positive effect on the veracity of news that people were willing to share across countries, as did minimal digital literacy tips. Finally, aggregating the ratings of our non-expert participants was able to differentiate true from false headlines with high accuracy in all countries via the 'wisdom of crowds'. The consistent patterns we observe suggest that the psychological factors underlying the misinformation challenge are similar across different regional settings, and that similar solutions may be broadly effective.