Social Media Trust Buttons Could Reduce Misinformation Spread, UCL Study Finds

Experimental ‘Trust’ Buttons on Social Media Could Cut Misinformation in Half, UCL Study Finds

Adding “trust” and “distrust” buttons to social media platforms alongside traditional “like” options could significantly reduce the spread of false information online, according to groundbreaking research from University College London (UCL).

The study, published in the journal eLife, found that this simple innovation cut the reach of false posts by approximately 50 percent in experimental conditions, potentially offering social media companies a straightforward tool to combat the rising tide of misinformation.

“Over the past few years, the spread of misinformation, or ‘fake news’, has skyrocketed, contributing to the polarization of the political sphere and affecting people’s beliefs on anything from vaccine safety to climate change to tolerance of diversity,” said Professor Tali Sharot, co-lead author of the study from UCL Psychology & Language Sciences and the Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research.

Current strategies to fight misinformation, such as fact-checking and flagging inaccurate content, have shown limited effectiveness. The researchers identified a fundamental problem with social media’s reward structure: users receive positive reinforcement through likes and shares regardless of whether their posts contain accurate information.

“Part of why misinformation spreads so readily is that users are rewarded with ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ for popular posts, but without much incentive to share only what’s true,” Professor Sharot explained. “Here, we have designed a simple way to incentivize trustworthiness.”

The research team conducted six experiments involving 951 participants who used a simulated social media platform designed for the study. Users could share news articles—half of which contained inaccurate information—while others could react with various buttons. In some versions of the experiment, traditional “like” and “dislike” options were supplemented with “trust” and “distrust” reactions.

Results showed that participants preferred using the trust/distrust buttons over the like/dislike options. More importantly, the presence of these trustworthiness indicators changed user behavior. Participants began posting more accurate information to gain positive “trust” reactions from others.

Computational modeling revealed that participants using platforms with trust/distrust buttons paid significantly more attention to the reliability of news stories when deciding whether to repost them. The study also found that after using these modified platforms, participants developed more accurate beliefs about the topics covered in the news articles.

This research builds on the team’s previous findings, published in the journal Cognition, which demonstrated that people are more likely to share information they’ve been repeatedly exposed to, as familiarity creates a false sense of accuracy—highlighting why misinformation can spread so effectively through repetition.

“Buttons indicating the trustworthiness of information could easily be incorporated into existing social media platforms, and our findings suggest they could be worthwhile to reduce the spread of misinformation without reducing user engagement,” said PhD student Laura Globig, co-lead author from UCL Psychology & Language Sciences.

While the researchers acknowledge that real-world implementation would face additional complexities, they believe this approach could complement existing efforts to combat online falsehoods.

The study comes at a critical time when major social media platforms face mounting pressure to address misinformation. Facebook, Twitter (now X), and others have implemented various fact-checking systems with mixed results. Unlike more intrusive moderation strategies that can trigger free speech concerns, this behavioral economics approach works by realigning user incentives rather than censoring content.

Misinformation experts not involved in the study have noted that its strength lies in harnessing social dynamics rather than fighting against them, potentially offering a more sustainable solution to a problem that threatens public discourse on critical issues from public health to democratic processes.

“While it’s difficult to predict how this would play out in the real world with a wider range of influences,” Globig cautioned, “given the grave risks of online misinformation, this could be a valuable addition to ongoing efforts to combat misinformation.”