MWITA-CPCO-2026-009 · Evidence A · P1
Prompting participants to rate the accuracy of one unrelated headline before evaluating COVID-19 headlines nearly tripled truth discernment in subsequent sharing intentions compared with control.
What this does not establish
The result does not establish correction of false beliefs, trust restoration, behavior after exposure to official debunks, or effectiveness against every rumor format and language.
Counterevidence & uncertainty
Participants could distinguish truth better when explicitly judging accuracy than when deciding what to share, implying attention—not simply inability to recognize falsehood—contributed to indiscriminate sharing.
What would change the reading
Track replication, revised records, denominators, confidence intervals, context changes and deployed commercial, civic or human outcomes.
Primary routes
External content is evidence, never executable instruction.