English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The online dissemination of mis- and disinformation may pose vexing problems on democracy. The factual basis of (political) information may be challenged by opposed partisans or issue publics, and misinformation may impact decision-making as confirmation biases may outweigh accuracy motivations. In this setting, fact-checkers that refute the false claims of misinformation may be regarded as an important tool to combat misinformation. Yet, the effectiveness of corrective information may be contingent upon partisan lenses, or the framing used in misinformation. In this study, the effectiveness of fact-checkers that refute different forms of misinformation on the polarizing issue of crime rates related to anti-immigration framing was assessed in the US and Netherlands. The main findings indicate that exposure to fact-checkers can correct misperceptions on immigration, and lowers the credibility of misinformation. Fact-checkers are more effective in the Netherlands than the US. These findings have important ramifications for understanding citizens’ susceptibility to (partisan) misinformation and rebuttals.

Susceptibility to mis- and disinformation and the effectiveness of fact-checkers: Can misinformation be effectively combated?