Peer–supplied credibility labels as an online misinformation intervention

Misinformation is rampant on social media, and existing platform-supplied interventions offer limited effectiveness. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of credibility labels that dispute the accuracy of information when they are supplied by one's peers at different levels of relationship closeness and political agreement. We investigate four variants of these labels using a 2 (strong vs. weak tie strength) x 2 (high vs. low political agreement) between-subjects factorial design. We find that credibility disputes raised by one's co-partisans (peers with similar political beliefs) significantly reduced belief in misinformation, irrespective of one's relationship closeness with the peer. Our findings also reveal that in contrast to prior literature, a peer's knowledgeability may be more potent than trustworthiness in causing belief change, and that trust can sometimes manifest even in the credibility judgement of distant peers, when perceived to have expertise or a fact-checking tendency. We further highlight the dual nature of these credibility labels, discussing scenarios in which disputes by hyper-partisan members of the opposite party can enforce belief in misinformation. We conclude by discussing how peer-supplied credibility disputes can benefit social media, especially echo chambers with high political homophily, where disputes by a co-partisan may be met with less resistance and persuade significantly reduced belief in fake news.