User Comments on Social Media Can Both Help and Hinder Fact-Checking, Study Finds

Comments from everyday social media users can significantly influence how others perceive information online, acting as valuable fact-checking tools when accurate but potentially misleading when wrong, according to new research.

The findings emerge from a comprehensive study detailed in the book “The Power of the Crowd,” co-authored by Professor Florian Stöckel from the University of Exeter. The research highlights the increasingly complex landscape of digital media literacy, suggesting it involves not only distinguishing true from false information but also evaluating the reliability of user comments.

“We found that user comments function like quick warning signals. People process them in a rather superficial way instead of engaging in deeper reasoning. That makes them useful when they are right, but also explains why inaccurate comments mislead so easily,” explained Professor Stöckel.

The large-scale study involved more than 10,000 participants across Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy, examining how people classify true and false news on social media. Researchers presented participants with a diverse array of social media posts covering 47 different topics spanning health, technology, and politics—all drawn from authentic online content. False news examples were sourced from material previously flagged by fact-checking organizations in each country.

Results revealed the substantial challenge people face in identifying misinformation. Most false news stories were considered accurate by at least 30% of participants, with some false stories being judged true by approximately half of respondents.

The study demonstrates that comments from regular users serve as influential signals, guiding others toward or away from trusting specific information. When accurate, these comments help users detect misinformation. However, misleading comments can undermine confidence in factual information, creating a double-edged effect in online information spaces.

Despite the challenges, the research offers encouraging news about public attitudes toward fact-checking. Survey data from Germany indicated that 73% of respondents prefer content to be corrected even when such corrections might draw additional attention to the original misinformation. This suggests that those who consider intervening in online debates by offering corrections will likely find an appreciative audience.

For those looking to craft effective corrections, the researchers found that comments don’t need to be lengthy to be impactful—even brief statements can successfully counter misinformation. The most crucial factor is factual accuracy. The authors recommend fact-checkers verify information, perhaps by consulting established fact-checking organizations, before posting corrections.

“The potential of corrective comments lies in the fact that they offer all users a way to improve the information environment on social media even if platforms do not act,” said Professor Stöckel, highlighting the power of collective action in combating misinformation.

The study also confirmed the well-established “confirmation bias” effect, finding that people are more likely to believe false news when it aligns with their existing beliefs. However, the research demonstrated that corrective comments showed small but consistent positive effects across different countries, even when accounting for these preexisting biases.

The research was conducted between 2022 and 2023, encompassing posts on numerous topics including COVID-19, vaccines, smoking, 5G technology, climate change, and politics. The initial study included approximately 1,900 participants from Britain, 2,400 from Italy, and 2,200 from Germany, with an additional 4,000 Germans participating in a follow-up survey.

“The Power of the Crowds” is published in the Experimental Political Science Elements Series by Cambridge University Press, with co-authors including Sabrina Stöckli (Bern University of Applied Sciences), Ben Lyons (University of Utah), Hannah Kroker (University of Edinburgh), and Jason Reifler (University of Southampton).