1
Week 9
Biases and Misinformation
Article 1: The misinformation recognition and response model: an emerging theoretical framework for
investigating antecedents to and consequences of misinformation recognition (Amazeen, 2024)
The vast quantity of misinformation circulating in the contemporary media ecosystem has drawn increasing
attention form scholars. With a particular focus on whether and how misperceptions can be corrected.
→ While some studies suggest correction messages, such as fact-checks, are ineffective, the balance of
evidence suggests the conditional effectiveness of corrections. However, some research indicates that
correcting misprescriptions does not necessarily lead to consequent behaviors consistent with accurate
information.
Misinformation = accounts for false information that was created or shared without intent to cause harm
Disinformation = false information that is shared with the goal of causing harm
What is central to this article is understanding the antecedes conditions that affect whether people come to
realize that mediated information is inaccurate and how they subsequently respond to help develop the most
effective interventions to misinformation.
The misinformation recognition and response model (MRRM)
A theoretical framework aimed at investigating the conditions and consequences of misinformation
recognition.
• The MRRM propose that individuals who are a potential target of misinformation may consider an
inaccurate message as well as any available intervention messages in the process of recognizing (or
not) misinformation.
• These interventions may include forewarning
(prebunking) message that attempt to protect people
before exposure to misinformation or correction
(debunking).
• Individuals may identify a problem whereby there is a
discrepancy between prior beliefs and the perceived
accuracy of misinformation message or intervention
messages. This discrepancy initiates the ensuring efforts
to process and respond to the messages.
• Once misinformation is recognized as such, it leads to
various cognitive responses and coping strategies.
• The MRRM states that both fixed personal
characteristics (such as age, education level, ideology)
and situational factors (such as the context of the
message) determine how an individual processes
information and responds to misinformation.
• After recognizing misinformation, various cognitive
coping strategies follow, such as avoiding the message,
formulating counterarguments, or seeking confirmation.
These strategies influence the cognitive (such as
beliefs), affective (such as feelings) and behavioral
(such as sharing information) outcomes.
, 2
Recognitions of misinformation has three categories
(1) Individual aspects
1. Dispositional factors: The key point is that different personal characteristics – such as age,
education level, gender, ideology, and cognitive characteristics (critical thinking) – influence how
well people can recognize misinformation and how they respond to corrections (something that is
fixed/stable).
a. Demographical characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ideology)
i. For example, young adults and highly educated people recognize misinformation
better than older adults and less educated people
b. Character traits: something that is fixed part of someone’s character such as
i. Need for Cognition: A tendency to enjoy and engage in thinking activities
enhances systematic processing and reduces susceptibility to misinformation.
1. People with greater predispositions for need for cognition tend to engage
in more systematic processing of information because they prefer to have
more confidence in their judgments
2. People who are more likely to cognitively reflect on mediated messages
are better at distinguishing misinformation from accurate new
ii. Need to Elaborate: The tendency to form evaluative judgments influences
reasoning styles and impacts perceptions of public opinion and messages
2. Situational factors: The MRRM emphasizes that the context in which a person finds themselves can
strongly influence their attention, comprehension, and the motivation to process information
(depends on different situations)
a. People use their previous experience, involvement, and knowledge about a topic to process
new messages. For example, people with more news knowledge are better able to
distinguish misinformation from real information.
The MRRM distinguishes different motivations that influence processing:
• Defense-motivated information: desire to confirm the validity of specific attitudinal positions by
using information most likely to support a desired conclusion. People tend to prefer attitude-
consistent information and avoid or resist content that is attitude inconsistent.
• Impression oriented motivation: Individual aims hold a socially desirable position or one that will
satisfy immediate social goals. This can be especially true if they expect to have to share their
attitude publicly.
• Accuracy Motivation: The desire to seek the truth. Strategies such as incentives or reminders can
reduce false beliefs.
(2) Message characteristics and (3) intervention message:
The MRRM posits that the effectiveness of message features depends on timing, source credibility,
presentation format, and emotional content. Key considerations include:
• Timing: Prebunking strategies are generally more effective than debunking, but their success varies
based on message type and context.
• Source Credibility: Perceived trustworthiness and altruism enhance acceptance.
• Format: Visual content, such as videos or images, can outperform text-based messages depending
on the misinformation's nature.
• Emotion and Tone: Emotional appeals, particularly those invoking anger or anxiety, are
persuasive, while humor’s effectiveness is situational.
By considering these factors, communicators can design interventions that effectively counter
misinformation, leveraging timing, credible sources, engaging formats, and emotionally resonant content to
maximize impact.
, 3
Claims and Arguments
• The nature of a claim significantly influences its acceptance or rejection. Claims that align with
prior beliefs are more readily accepted, while those that contradict them require careful framing to
resonate with audiences. Effective intervention messages navigate pre-existing attitudes, shaping
perceptions and outcomes through strategic presentation.
Source Credibility
• The trustworthiness and familiarity of the message source play a crucial role in its reception.
Credible and altruistic sources are more persuasive, whereas untrustworthy or unfamiliar sources
can undermine message effectiveness. Audience assessments of source motives determine the
perceived accuracy and reliability of intervention messages.
Temporal Exposure
• Prebunking: Delivering messages before exposure to misinformation can be highly effective,
particularly when tailored to audience attitudes and the type of misinformation being addressed.
• Debunking: Correcting misinformation after exposure can also be impactful but may encounter
resistance, depending on how it aligns with pre-existing beliefs.
• Forewarning: Preparing audiences in advance can act as a proactive defense, reducing susceptibility
to misinformation.
Format and Style
• Simplified visuals, engaging layouts, and accessible designs enhance comprehension and capture
attention.
• Overly complex presentations risk alienating audiences and reducing effectiveness.
• Visual misinformation, such as videos, can be highly engaging but requires context-specific
strategies to counteract.
• Graphical corrections improve understanding but are not universally more effective than text-based
alternatives.
Emotional and Cognitive Strategies
• Emotional appeals can amplify persuasiveness: anger and anxiety often heighten engagement, while
humor yields mixed results.
o Cognitive strategies include:
• Expert Consensus: Reinforcing authority through agreement.
• Alternative Explanations: Integrating corrections with coherent narratives.
• Tailored Messages: Adapting to audience-specific processing styles.
• Storytelling: Leveraging narratives to enhance engagement and retention.
• Message Simplicity: Ensuring clarity and ease of understanding.
Problem identification, issue motivation and misinformation recognition
Central to this model is the concept of "badness-of-fit," where individuals experience a discrepancy between
their existing knowledge and the new information presented. This discrepancy creates cognitive dissonance,
which can trigger curiosity and a reassessment of prior beliefs. The process parallels "problem recognition"
in the Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS), requiring individuals to evaluate their situational
and topic-specific knowledge to determine whether their beliefs align with the information
Problem identification: people recognize an information problem when they realize a discrepancy between
their own knowledge and the message, they receive. This can lead to mental discomfort consistent with
cognitive dissonance. If the message is in line with their beliefs, it will not be seen as an issue/problem.
, 4
• Problem motivation → This refers to the motivation to delve deeper into the problem and resolve
a discrepancy. This motivation is triggered when people notice a gap between their own certainty
and what the message claims. Research shows that this can help reduce susceptibility to
misinformation.
• Issue motivation → Entails an impetus to engage with a message that goes beyond one’s cognitive
processing predilection and relevance that also considers a specific desire to elaborate on how to
resolve a discrepancy that may be causing mental discomfort .
Processing motivations: People process information for different purposes, such as defense (confirming
their existing beliefs) or impression formation (wanting to meet social expectations). These processing goals
influence how people respond to misinformation and can either enhance or suppress misinformation
recognition.
• Linked to ELM? (discussed in lecture, but not in article)
• Misinformation recognition (yes/no): Once people realize that a message is incorrect, their
interpretation of the message changes (the "change of meaning" principle). They will process the
message differently, which can lead to changed attitudes, feelings, and behaviors toward the
message.
The MRRM predicts various cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses to misinformation recognition.
The way people deal with disinformation (such as avoidance, counter-argumentation, or acceptance)
influences their perceptions, emotions, and behavioral intentions toward the message.
• Cognitive coping strategies: Common strategies include avoiding or ignoring the message,
formulating counterarguments, and reinforcing one's own attitudes.
o Avoidance or Dismissal: Ignoring or rejecting the misinformation outright.
o Counterarguing: Actively disputing the misinformation’s claims or supporting intervention
messages.
§ Has proven the most effective resistance strategy, fostered critical engagement and
reducing susceptibility to persuasion
o Attitude Reinforcement: Strengthening preexisting attitudes to resist persuasion.
• Resistance strategies: Counter argumentation has been shown to be one of the most effective
strategies for resisting misinformation. People who realize that a message is false are more likely to
formulate more counterarguments, which contributes to their ability to resist misinformation.
Article 2: Degrees of deception: the effects of different types of COVID-19 misinformation and the
effectiveness of corrective information in crisis times (Hameleers et al., 2023)
Misinformation which is defined as an umbrella term of information that is deemed inaccurate or false
based on relevant expert knowledge and/or empirical evidence, may be harmful for democracies.
• Ranging from changing information to straight leis
→ Exposure to misinformation can cultivate, trigger uncivil response, affect political perceptions, or
decrease trust in the media and news environment.
Core of the paper: we assess whether partially versus completely false information has different effects on
credibility and issue agreement: are stories that stay close to objective facts more effective, as they raise less
suspicion, or are blatant leis more persuasive as they deviate further form the distrusted establishment?
Definitions:
• Misinformation: erroneous, false, or misleading information that is deemed untrue based on relevant
expert knowledge or empirical evidence.
Week 9
Biases and Misinformation
Article 1: The misinformation recognition and response model: an emerging theoretical framework for
investigating antecedents to and consequences of misinformation recognition (Amazeen, 2024)
The vast quantity of misinformation circulating in the contemporary media ecosystem has drawn increasing
attention form scholars. With a particular focus on whether and how misperceptions can be corrected.
→ While some studies suggest correction messages, such as fact-checks, are ineffective, the balance of
evidence suggests the conditional effectiveness of corrections. However, some research indicates that
correcting misprescriptions does not necessarily lead to consequent behaviors consistent with accurate
information.
Misinformation = accounts for false information that was created or shared without intent to cause harm
Disinformation = false information that is shared with the goal of causing harm
What is central to this article is understanding the antecedes conditions that affect whether people come to
realize that mediated information is inaccurate and how they subsequently respond to help develop the most
effective interventions to misinformation.
The misinformation recognition and response model (MRRM)
A theoretical framework aimed at investigating the conditions and consequences of misinformation
recognition.
• The MRRM propose that individuals who are a potential target of misinformation may consider an
inaccurate message as well as any available intervention messages in the process of recognizing (or
not) misinformation.
• These interventions may include forewarning
(prebunking) message that attempt to protect people
before exposure to misinformation or correction
(debunking).
• Individuals may identify a problem whereby there is a
discrepancy between prior beliefs and the perceived
accuracy of misinformation message or intervention
messages. This discrepancy initiates the ensuring efforts
to process and respond to the messages.
• Once misinformation is recognized as such, it leads to
various cognitive responses and coping strategies.
• The MRRM states that both fixed personal
characteristics (such as age, education level, ideology)
and situational factors (such as the context of the
message) determine how an individual processes
information and responds to misinformation.
• After recognizing misinformation, various cognitive
coping strategies follow, such as avoiding the message,
formulating counterarguments, or seeking confirmation.
These strategies influence the cognitive (such as
beliefs), affective (such as feelings) and behavioral
(such as sharing information) outcomes.
, 2
Recognitions of misinformation has three categories
(1) Individual aspects
1. Dispositional factors: The key point is that different personal characteristics – such as age,
education level, gender, ideology, and cognitive characteristics (critical thinking) – influence how
well people can recognize misinformation and how they respond to corrections (something that is
fixed/stable).
a. Demographical characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ideology)
i. For example, young adults and highly educated people recognize misinformation
better than older adults and less educated people
b. Character traits: something that is fixed part of someone’s character such as
i. Need for Cognition: A tendency to enjoy and engage in thinking activities
enhances systematic processing and reduces susceptibility to misinformation.
1. People with greater predispositions for need for cognition tend to engage
in more systematic processing of information because they prefer to have
more confidence in their judgments
2. People who are more likely to cognitively reflect on mediated messages
are better at distinguishing misinformation from accurate new
ii. Need to Elaborate: The tendency to form evaluative judgments influences
reasoning styles and impacts perceptions of public opinion and messages
2. Situational factors: The MRRM emphasizes that the context in which a person finds themselves can
strongly influence their attention, comprehension, and the motivation to process information
(depends on different situations)
a. People use their previous experience, involvement, and knowledge about a topic to process
new messages. For example, people with more news knowledge are better able to
distinguish misinformation from real information.
The MRRM distinguishes different motivations that influence processing:
• Defense-motivated information: desire to confirm the validity of specific attitudinal positions by
using information most likely to support a desired conclusion. People tend to prefer attitude-
consistent information and avoid or resist content that is attitude inconsistent.
• Impression oriented motivation: Individual aims hold a socially desirable position or one that will
satisfy immediate social goals. This can be especially true if they expect to have to share their
attitude publicly.
• Accuracy Motivation: The desire to seek the truth. Strategies such as incentives or reminders can
reduce false beliefs.
(2) Message characteristics and (3) intervention message:
The MRRM posits that the effectiveness of message features depends on timing, source credibility,
presentation format, and emotional content. Key considerations include:
• Timing: Prebunking strategies are generally more effective than debunking, but their success varies
based on message type and context.
• Source Credibility: Perceived trustworthiness and altruism enhance acceptance.
• Format: Visual content, such as videos or images, can outperform text-based messages depending
on the misinformation's nature.
• Emotion and Tone: Emotional appeals, particularly those invoking anger or anxiety, are
persuasive, while humor’s effectiveness is situational.
By considering these factors, communicators can design interventions that effectively counter
misinformation, leveraging timing, credible sources, engaging formats, and emotionally resonant content to
maximize impact.
, 3
Claims and Arguments
• The nature of a claim significantly influences its acceptance or rejection. Claims that align with
prior beliefs are more readily accepted, while those that contradict them require careful framing to
resonate with audiences. Effective intervention messages navigate pre-existing attitudes, shaping
perceptions and outcomes through strategic presentation.
Source Credibility
• The trustworthiness and familiarity of the message source play a crucial role in its reception.
Credible and altruistic sources are more persuasive, whereas untrustworthy or unfamiliar sources
can undermine message effectiveness. Audience assessments of source motives determine the
perceived accuracy and reliability of intervention messages.
Temporal Exposure
• Prebunking: Delivering messages before exposure to misinformation can be highly effective,
particularly when tailored to audience attitudes and the type of misinformation being addressed.
• Debunking: Correcting misinformation after exposure can also be impactful but may encounter
resistance, depending on how it aligns with pre-existing beliefs.
• Forewarning: Preparing audiences in advance can act as a proactive defense, reducing susceptibility
to misinformation.
Format and Style
• Simplified visuals, engaging layouts, and accessible designs enhance comprehension and capture
attention.
• Overly complex presentations risk alienating audiences and reducing effectiveness.
• Visual misinformation, such as videos, can be highly engaging but requires context-specific
strategies to counteract.
• Graphical corrections improve understanding but are not universally more effective than text-based
alternatives.
Emotional and Cognitive Strategies
• Emotional appeals can amplify persuasiveness: anger and anxiety often heighten engagement, while
humor yields mixed results.
o Cognitive strategies include:
• Expert Consensus: Reinforcing authority through agreement.
• Alternative Explanations: Integrating corrections with coherent narratives.
• Tailored Messages: Adapting to audience-specific processing styles.
• Storytelling: Leveraging narratives to enhance engagement and retention.
• Message Simplicity: Ensuring clarity and ease of understanding.
Problem identification, issue motivation and misinformation recognition
Central to this model is the concept of "badness-of-fit," where individuals experience a discrepancy between
their existing knowledge and the new information presented. This discrepancy creates cognitive dissonance,
which can trigger curiosity and a reassessment of prior beliefs. The process parallels "problem recognition"
in the Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS), requiring individuals to evaluate their situational
and topic-specific knowledge to determine whether their beliefs align with the information
Problem identification: people recognize an information problem when they realize a discrepancy between
their own knowledge and the message, they receive. This can lead to mental discomfort consistent with
cognitive dissonance. If the message is in line with their beliefs, it will not be seen as an issue/problem.
, 4
• Problem motivation → This refers to the motivation to delve deeper into the problem and resolve
a discrepancy. This motivation is triggered when people notice a gap between their own certainty
and what the message claims. Research shows that this can help reduce susceptibility to
misinformation.
• Issue motivation → Entails an impetus to engage with a message that goes beyond one’s cognitive
processing predilection and relevance that also considers a specific desire to elaborate on how to
resolve a discrepancy that may be causing mental discomfort .
Processing motivations: People process information for different purposes, such as defense (confirming
their existing beliefs) or impression formation (wanting to meet social expectations). These processing goals
influence how people respond to misinformation and can either enhance or suppress misinformation
recognition.
• Linked to ELM? (discussed in lecture, but not in article)
• Misinformation recognition (yes/no): Once people realize that a message is incorrect, their
interpretation of the message changes (the "change of meaning" principle). They will process the
message differently, which can lead to changed attitudes, feelings, and behaviors toward the
message.
The MRRM predicts various cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses to misinformation recognition.
The way people deal with disinformation (such as avoidance, counter-argumentation, or acceptance)
influences their perceptions, emotions, and behavioral intentions toward the message.
• Cognitive coping strategies: Common strategies include avoiding or ignoring the message,
formulating counterarguments, and reinforcing one's own attitudes.
o Avoidance or Dismissal: Ignoring or rejecting the misinformation outright.
o Counterarguing: Actively disputing the misinformation’s claims or supporting intervention
messages.
§ Has proven the most effective resistance strategy, fostered critical engagement and
reducing susceptibility to persuasion
o Attitude Reinforcement: Strengthening preexisting attitudes to resist persuasion.
• Resistance strategies: Counter argumentation has been shown to be one of the most effective
strategies for resisting misinformation. People who realize that a message is false are more likely to
formulate more counterarguments, which contributes to their ability to resist misinformation.
Article 2: Degrees of deception: the effects of different types of COVID-19 misinformation and the
effectiveness of corrective information in crisis times (Hameleers et al., 2023)
Misinformation which is defined as an umbrella term of information that is deemed inaccurate or false
based on relevant expert knowledge and/or empirical evidence, may be harmful for democracies.
• Ranging from changing information to straight leis
→ Exposure to misinformation can cultivate, trigger uncivil response, affect political perceptions, or
decrease trust in the media and news environment.
Core of the paper: we assess whether partially versus completely false information has different effects on
credibility and issue agreement: are stories that stay close to objective facts more effective, as they raise less
suspicion, or are blatant leis more persuasive as they deviate further form the distrusted establishment?
Definitions:
• Misinformation: erroneous, false, or misleading information that is deemed untrue based on relevant
expert knowledge or empirical evidence.
