Abstract:Online fake news can have noxious consequences. Social media platforms are experimenting with different interventions to curb fake news' spread, often employing them simultaneously. However, research investigating the interaction of these interventions is limited. Here, we use the heuristic‐systematic model of information processing (HSM) as a theoretical framework to jointly test two interventions against fake news that are implemented at scale by social media platforms: (1) adding warning labels from fact checkers to initiate systematic processing and (2) removing social endorsement cues (e.g., engagement counts) to reduce the influence of this heuristic cue. Moreover, we accounted for dispositions previously found to affect a person's response to fake news through motivated reasoning or cognitive style. An online experiment in Germany (N = 571) confirmed that warning labels reduced the perceived credibility of a fake news post exaggerating the consequences of climate change. Warning labels also lowered the (self‐reported) likelihood to amplify fake news. Removing social endorsement cues did not have an effect. In line with research on motivated reasoning, left‐leaning individuals perceived the climate fake news to be more credible and reported a higher likelihood to amplify it. Supporting research on cognitive style, participants with lower educational levels and a less analytic thinking style also reported a higher likelihood of amplification. Elaboration likelihood was associated only with age, involvement, and political leaning, but not affected by warning labels. Our findings contribute to the mounting evidence for the effectiveness of warning labels while questioning their relevance for systematic processing.

Can Warnings Curb the Spread of Fake News? the Interplay Between Warning, Trust and Confirmation Bias

Does the Source of a Warning Matter? Examining the Effectiveness of Veracity Warning Labels Across Warners

Does Explanation Matter? An Exploratory Study on the Effects of Covid 19 Misinformation Warning Flags on Social Media

Nevertheless, partisanship persisted: fake news warnings help briefly, but bias returns with time

WARNING This Contains Misinformation: The Effect of Cognitive Factors, Beliefs, and Personality on Misinformation Warning Tag Attitudes

Effects of fact‐checking warning labels and social endorsement cues on climate change fake news credibility and engagement on social media

Do explanations increase the effectiveness of AI-crowd generated fake news warnings?

Can you be Mindful? The Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Driven Interventions in Enhancing the Digital Resilience to Fake News on COVID-19

Prevalence and Propagation of Fake News

Warning Signs in Communicating the Machine Learning Detection Results of Misinformation with Individuals

The Psychology of Fake News

Psychological, Communicative, and Relationship Characteristics That Relate to Social Media Users' Willingness to Denounce Fake News

Adapting Security Warnings to Counter Online Disinformation

Three prophylactic interventions to counter fake news on social media

Trust, Media Credibility, Social Ties, and the Intention to Share towards Information Verification in an Age of Fake News

The intrinsic and extrinsic factors predicting fake news sharing among social media users: the moderating role of fake news awareness

FakeNewsLab: Experimental Study on Biases and Pitfalls Preventing us from Distinguishing True from False News

Exploring the Influence of Cumulative Ecological Risk on Belief in Fake News: A Longitudinal Study

Exploring the impact of social media exposure patterns on people’s belief in fake news during COVID-19: A cross-gender study

"I don't trust them": Exploring Perceptions of Fact-checking Entities for Flagging Online Misinformation

The (Un)Intended Consequences of Emphasizing the Threats of Mis- and Disinformation