ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Americans' Perspectives on Online Media Warning Labels.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community-based fact-checking reduces the spread of misleading posts on X (formerly Twitter).Nature communications · 2026Article
- Pictorial warning labels reduce sharing intentions, blunt self-relevance processes elicited by social media posts promoting cannabis edibles.The Journal of communication · 2025Article
- Labeling AI-generated media online.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Community notes increase trust in fact-checking on social media.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Social Media Exposure and Left-behind Children's Tobacco and Alcohol Use: The Roles of Deviant Peer Affiliation and Parent-Child Contact.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Americans are pervasively exposed to social media, news, and online content. Some of this content is designed to be deliberately deceptive and manipulative. However, it is interspersed amongst other content from friends and family, advertising, and legitimate news. Filtering content violates key societal values of freedom of expression and inquiry. Taking no action, though, leaves users at the mercy of individuals and groups who seek to use both single articles and complex patterns of content to manipulate how Americans consume, act, work, and even think. Warning labels, which do not block content but instead aid the user in making informed consumption decisions, have been proposed as a potential solution to this dilemma. Ideally, they would respect the autonomy of users to determine what media they consume while combating intentional deception and manipulation through its identification to the user. This paper considers the perception of Americans regarding the use of warning labels to alert users to potentially deceptive content. It presents the results of a population representative national study and analysis of perceptions in terms of key demographics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.