(iPoster) User Correction and User Verification on Social Media in a Post-Moderation World

• In Event: Poster Sessions: Political Communication II & The Political Power of Film and Reality TV
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Political Communication II

Abstract

The crisis of democracy is, in significant part, a crisis of communication. Contemporary information systems increasingly struggle to sustain shared facts, epistemic trust, and accountable public discourse. These challenges have intensified as social media platforms—and, in some cases, governments—have withdrawn from institutional content moderation and professional fact-checking, shifting greater responsibility to users themselves to identify, verify, and correct misleading information. As platforms increasingly rely on peer-based interventions rather than centralized enforcement, everyday users are now positioned as frontline actors in the maintenance—or erosion—of democratic information systems. Yet, despite the growing importance of user-driven correction, we lack a clear theoretical account of the factors that motivate individuals to verify information and correct misinformation in online public spheres.

This study develops and tests a User Correction and User Verification Motivation Model that reconceptualizes misinformation response as a form of citizen-level communicative engagement rather than an institutional intervention. We distinguish user verification—the act of verifying the accuracy of information before accepting or sharing it—from user correction, which involves publicly challenging, annotating, or correcting misleading content encountered on social media. Drawing on theories of epistemic beliefs, epistemic motivation, epistemic efficacy, and motivated reasoning, the study examines how these everyday practices can either mitigate or exacerbate democratic vulnerability in a post-moderation information environment. Two research questions guide the analysis: (1) how user verification and user correction should be conceptualized as distinct but related forms of democratic communication in the absence of strong institutional moderation, and (2) what individual-level factors motivate users to engage in these behaviors online.

The model identifies four interrelated mechanisms. First, epistemic beliefs shape how individuals understand truth, evidence, and political knowledge. Reliance on intuition for factual judgments, beliefs that facts are politically constructed, and the perceived importance of empirical evidence are expected to condition belief accuracy and the likelihood of intervening when encountering misinformation. Individuals who privilege intuition or view facts as inherently political should be less likely to verify or correct misleading claims, whereas those who emphasize evidentiary standards should be more likely to do so.

Second, epistemic motivation reflects individuals’ willingness to engage in effortful, analytic thinking rather than seek quick cognitive closure. Individuals higher in epistemic motivation should be more inclined to verify information, tolerate uncertainty, and engage in corrective behaviors, while those motivated to minimize ambiguity should be less likely to scrutinize questionable content. Third, epistemic efficacy, or confidence in one’s ability to detect misinformation, is expected to directly predict verification and correction intentions, distinguishing passive skepticism from active intervention.

Fourth, motivated reasoning and political ideology are expected to structure selective verification and correction. Individuals may be more likely to scrutinize, verify, or correct misinformation associated with political out-groups than content aligned with their own partisan or ideological commitments. This raises a central tension in user-centered misinformation governance: whether peer-based correction promotes accountability and shared factual standards or instead reinforces polarization through asymmetric and partisan interventions.

We test this framework using an online survey (N = 800) with a sample that approximates national benchmarks for age, education, gender, and race. Respondents complete validated measures of epistemic beliefs, epistemic motivation, epistemic efficacy, media use, and political orientations. Participants are then randomly assigned to evaluate either political or health misinformation encountered on social media, allowing us to assess verification and correction intentions across issue domains that differ in politicization and perceived expertise.

The study contributes to political communication research in three ways. First, it advances a theory-driven account of user-centered misinformation governance at a moment of institutional retreat from content moderation. Second, it identifies the cognitive and political conditions under which everyday communicative practices can protect—or fail to protect—democratic discourse. Third, it offers practical insights for platform design and policy debates about rebuilding resilient information systems that treat users not merely as audiences, but as active participants in democratic communication.

Author

• Yanling Zhao, Northwestern University