This is a news story, published by PsyPost, that relates primarily to Cal Poly Pomona news.
For more Cal Poly Pomona news, you can click here:
more Cal Poly Pomona newsFor more celebrity news, you can click here:
more celebrity newsFor more news from PsyPost, you can click here:
more news from PsyPostOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best entertainment news, business news, world news, and much more. If you like celebrity news, you might also like this article about
journalistic coverage. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest credibility news, debunking articles news, celebrity news, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
journalistic reportPsyPost
•
71% Informative
Cal Poly Pomona researchers found that people trust journalists more when they confirm claims rather than correct them.
People were more likely to trust journalists when they corrected false claims than confirmed true claims.
The researchers identified three main reasons for this increased distrust toward corrections: Surprise, need for evidence, and exploitative.
This indicates a higher level of skepticism when journalists declare something to be false.
Corrections were perceived as more exploitative, suggesting that the journalist was using the situation to push an agenda or gain attention when they corrected a claim rather than confirmed it.
Even when corrections successfully changed participants’ beliefs about the claim, they still harbored more distrust.
VR Score
80
Informative language
84
Neutral language
54
Article tone
informal
Language
English
Language complexity
60
Offensive language
possibly offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
long-living
External references
no external sources
Source diversity
no sources
Affiliate links
no affiliate links