This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: At a time of rampant medical misinformation online, artificial intelligence can do a good job of correcting falsehoods, but the tone of the correction is key, according to new research led by Washington State University. For people who view AI strictly as a technical tool, corrections to social media posts offered in a neutral, just-the-facts tone are most persuasive.
For those who believe AI can be humanlike, an empathetic, understanding tone is best. In fact, according to the findings published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, tone was more important than the source of the correction itself. "In multiple studies, our team has found that corrections could work most times, but the tone of the correction is important," said Porismita Borah, professor at WSU's Edward R.
Murrow College of Communications and corresponding author of the new publication. "In this study, it did not necessarily matter whether the correction came from a human being or an AI agent. What mattered was the tone and how the tone aligned with people's beliefs about whether AI agents should be more humanlike or more machinelike." The findings suggest that social media platforms, government agencies, news organizations and others could target AI fact-checking agents toward a user's level of anthropomorphism—the tendency to assign human characteristics to animals, machines and other nonhuman entities.
They could design a simple onboarding step for users of platforms or accounts to assess their anthropomorphic tendencies and adjust the AI's conversational tone accordingly, the authors said. Borah's co-authors were Ziyao Zhang, a Ph.D. student at WSU; Xiaohui Cao, a Ph.D. student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Danielle Ka Lai Lee, an assistant professor at Hong Kong Shue Yan University. It takes more than facts to persuade someone that a claim is incorrect.
People may feel challenged or insulted and react defensively when corrected. They may question or doubt the source of the correction. As social media has proliferated, fueling the spread of dubious health claims, researchers have increasingly sought to better understand how to effectively combat misinformation.
Borah has been studying the subject for a decade. Her current publication advances the understanding of how empathy plays a role in corrections. Other researchers have come to conflicting conclusions about whether an empathetic tone in correction messages is effective in decreasing misperceptions.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
