So What if They’re Lying to Us? Comparing Rhetorical Strategies for Discrediting Sources of Disinformation and Misinformation Using an Affect-Based Credibility Rating

Despite growing research on false information, a theoretical framework to organize findings is lacking. We use affect control theory to fill this need and introduce the affect-based credibility rating for interpreting the effectiveness of rhetorical strategies in discrediting the source of falsehoods. The rating quantifies the difference in connotations between the labels used to characterize the source and an ideal, credible source. Successful discrediting amplifies the difference. We use the rating to compare rhetorical strategies for discrediting opponents as sources during rival information campaigns about the Equal Rights Amendment. We show claiming the opponent is spreading disinformation rather than misinformation (stating the opponent is spreading falsehoods deliberately, rather than unwittingly) appears more effective at discrediting, particularly when disinformation claims allege more sinister motives for lying. The new rating helps organize findings by enabling direct comparisons between strategies, thereby contributing toward efforts to detect and discredit falsehoods in media.

Age and Neurocognition Are Associated With Credibility Evaluations of Health Websites

The internet has become a common means by which many older adults seek out health information. The prevalence of misinformation on the internet makes the search for accurate online health information a more complex and evaluative process. This study examined the role of age and neurocognition in credibility evaluations of credible and non-credible health websites. Forty-one older adults and fifty younger adults completed a structured credibility rating task in which they evaluated a series of webpages displaying health information about migraine treatments. Participants also completed measures of neurocognition, internet use, and health literacy. Results suggested that older adults rated non-credible health websites as more credible than younger adults, but the age groups did not differ in their ratings of credible sites. Within the full sample, neurocognition was positively associated with credibility ratings for non-credible health websites, whereas health literacy was related to the ratings of credible sites. Findings indicate that older adults may be more likely to trust non-credible health websites than younger adults, which may relate to differences in higher-order neurocognitive functions. Future work might examine whether cognitive-based supports for credibility training in older adults can be used to improve the accuracy with which they evaluate online health information.

Assessing the Social Media User’s Credibility Rating of Shared Content, and its Utilization in Decision Making

This study seeks to ascertain the degree to which people rely on unprofessionally processed information from social media to make decisions or take critical actions. Professional media, in this case, refers to the traditional broadcast and print media who have been in the business of professionally processing and authenticating information for their audiences. While social media represent the various platforms for social exchange of information. Relevant to this study is the social media’s ability to reach multitudes of people with unsubstantiated information. The methodology employed is simple random sampling, using questionnaire as an instrument. 350 respondents provided input using three age ranges, 20-35, 36-50, and 50 and above. The results show social media usage as the only news source for the youngest age group at 38%. The 50 plus years mainly rely on professional media. While all three age groups admitted to sharing of unsubstantiated information at 68%, only 30% admit to using critical information from social media. Most importantly, the findings indicate; where prevalence and availability tends to overwhelm users, taking the time to seek more credible information takes a back seat, even in cases where the information sought is critical to decision making and use. Doi: 10.28991/esj-2021-01269 Full Text: PDF

A process for reviewing mental health apps: Using the One Mind PsyberGuide Credibility Rating System

Objective Given the increasing number of publicly available mental health apps, we need independent advice to guide adoption. This paper discusses the challenges and opportunities of current mental health app rating systems and describes the refinement process of one prominent system, the One Mind PsyberGuide Credibility Rating Scale (PGCRS). Methods PGCRS Version 1 was developed in 2013 and deployed for 7 years, during which time a number of limitations were identified. Version 2 was created through multiple stages, including a review of evaluation guidelines and consumer research, input from scientific experts, testing, and evaluation of face validity. We then re-reviewed 161 mental health apps using the updated rating scale, investigated the reliability and discrepancy of initial scores, and updated ratings on the One Mind PsyberGuide public app guide. Results Reliabilities across the scale's 9 items ranged from −0.10 to 1.00, demonstrating that some characteristics of apps are more difficult to rate consistently. The average overall score of the 161 reviewed mental health apps was 2.51/5.00 (range 0.33–5.00). Ratings were not strongly correlated with app store star ratings, suggesting that credibility scores provide different information to what is contained in star ratings. Conclusion PGCRS summarizes and weights available information in 4 domains: intervention specificity, consumer ratings, research, and development. Final scores are created through an iterative process of initial rating and consensus review. The process of updating this rating scale and integrating it into a procedure for evaluating apps demonstrates one method for determining app quality.

Vulnerability to Financial Scams Among Older Adults: Cognitive and Psychosocial Factors

This paper presents baseline results from a longitudinal study funded by National Institute on Aging examining financial exploitation (FE) among 720 White, African-American, and Hispanic adults age 60 and older. Our proposed conceptual model links socio-demographics, cognitive function, financial skills, and psychosocial factors to both scam exposure and vulnerability, which increases risk for experienced FE. This paper focuses on correlates of scam vulnerability, using a novel measure in which participants read six randomly ordered “scam” scenarios (investment opportunity; Medicare phishing and prescription drug fraud; health product; sweepstakes; telemarketing) and provide credibility ratings for each (1 = Not at all credible; 10 = Extremely credible). Ratings are coded “0” (credibility rating 1); “1” (ratings 2-4); “2” (ratings 5-10) and summed, with total “vulnerability” scores ranging from 0-12. Preliminary results from ~500 participants (Mean age = 73.6) show support for the proposed model. Older adults with poorer cognitive function in multiple domains (memory; reasoning ability; processing speed; other aspects of executive function; and crystallized intelligence); lower financial literacy; lower numeracy; those reporting difficulty with day-to-day financial management; and those performing worse on web-based banking skills tests were more vulnerable to scams. Scam vulnerability was a also higher among those with lower social integration; higher social isolation and loneliness; higher impulsivity; and higher ratings of depression. Use of “scam scenario” credibility ratings shows promise as a simple assessment approach for FE vulnerability. Understanding multiple pathways to FE is important to advance theory and for development of interventions to minimize risk among older adults.

Financial Exploitation Vulnerability and Social Isolation in Older Adults: Results From a Longitudinal Survey

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of socially isolated older adult participants in a survey funded by National Institute of Aging (NIA), and the association of social isolation with financial exploitation (FE) vulnerability. METHODS: Baseline data were collected from 528 participants (age 60+ years) and recruited from two regions. Assessments included a detailed cognitive battery and an array of self-report measures including socio-demographic and psychosocial variables. Social isolation was measured with the Friendship Scale (Hawthorne, 2006). Participants also read six randomly ordered “scam” scenarios (investment opportunity; Medicare phishing and prescription drug fraud; health product; sweepstakes; telemarketing) and provided credibility ratings for each (1 = Not at all credible; 10 = Extremely credible). Ratings are coded “0” (credibility rating 1); “1” (ratings 2-4); “2” (ratings 5-10) and summed, with total FE “vulnerability” scores ranging from 0-12. RESULTS: Preliminary results showed the prevalence of social isolation was 12.5% overall. Social isolation was higher for males (17.4% vs. 9.8%, p<.05); single / never married (28.7% vs. 12.5%, p<.01); and those in the lowest household income (under $10,000) category (28.3% vs. 12.5%, p<.05). However, we did not find evidence that social isolation varied significantly by race or educational attainment. FE vulnerability risk was higher for socially isolated older adults (2.44 vs. 1.44, p<.001) compared to non-isolated participants. CONCLUSION: Social isolation is associated with FE vulnerability. Therefore, identifying the prevalence and characteristics of socially isolated older adults is needed to improve the targeting of interventions for those at greater risk of FE vulnerability.

Does Behavioural Activation Lack Credibility Among Those Who Need It Most? A Comparison of Responses to Rationales for Behavioural Activation and Schema Therapy

Background: Behavioural activation (BA) is an effective front-line treatment for depression but some consumers find it unattractive or aversive, and its rationale unconvincing. Aims: To investigate whether individual differences in symptoms of depression, borderline personality pathology or adverse childhood events would: (1) influence ratings of BA treatment credibility; (2) predict credibility rating differences in comparison to schema therapy (ST) exemplifying a contrasting theoretical rationale with a significant developmental history focus; (3) a third aim was to test whether BA credibility was increased by providing research evidence of its efficacy. Method: In an online within-subjects experiment, 219 Australian community adults completed the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire following written descriptions of BA and ST (presentation order randomized across participants), and again for BA after receiving information about research supporting BA's efficacy. Results: Higher childhood adversity (but not severity of depression or borderline personality disorder symptoms) predicted lower BA credibility. Overall, ST was rated more credible than BA, but presenting BA evidence increased BA credibility ratings to match ST. This response was moderated by individual differences: participants with higher childhood adversity or previous therapy experience found ST more credible than BA even after receiving BA evidence. Conclusions: Individuals are not equally receptive to BA. Presenting research evidence is an effective strategy for increasing credibility, but additional intervention or tailoring the rationale is recommended for clients with significant childhood adversity.

Doubters are more convincing than advocates. The impact of user comments and ratings on credibility perceptions of false news stories on social media

False information on social media poses a crucial threat to our society, and calls for interventions to combat this problem are becoming louder. Users themselves may have the potential to diminish the impact of misleading information. In an online experiment with a 3 x 3 between-subjects design (credibility evaluation in user comments: positive vs. negative vs. none) x (numerical credibility rating: positive vs. negative vs. none), we tested the influence of bandwagon cues on the impact of a false news post on Facebook (N = 240). Contrary to prevalent assumptions regarding heuristic information processing, numerical credibility ratings had no influence on participants’ credibility appraisals and intended sharing behavior. However, negative user comments diminished the believability of false news. Moreover, participants’ willingness to share the news post publicly and privately was indirectly reduced by the effect of negative user comments on perceived news credibility.

Let Them Talk as “Encyclopedia of Russian Life”: Latent «Accursed Questions» on Russian Television (2017)

International Research Group KVAR performs the first of studies about media influence on the transformation of sociocultural matrix, within which a deep society regulation takes place. For citizens of the Russian Federation, TV is a main source of information about events. Whereas for sociologists and philologists federal channels are unique basic institutions that provide: reproduction of socially significant patterns of citizen’s thoughts and behavior; integration of society on the basis of common values. TV Shows on central channels are constantly reaching the top of media credibility rating: 3/4 of Russians (75%) trust them. They help to create circulation of meanings TV proposes the values, audience reproduces and modifies them. Thus, we have chosen a Russian TV show “Pust’ Govoryat”(Let Them Talk) that presents all the things “that interest everyone” by» exploring intimate issues of a particular person, a family”. Authors of this work seek to find out what “interests everyone” in the Russian society. This article includes first results of the research. Latent Theme Identification analysis of transcripts from every episode of the show for 2017 has led to a conclusion that the Russians see a family as a system-forming value concept, words like “child”, “children” were used mostly in “Let Them Talk” in 2017. Furthermore, our analysis has established a value paradox: “child”, while being an important part of narrative, plays out the role of “McGuffin” (A. Hitchcock)