An error management approach to the human alarm system for correct and incorrect news content involving direct life-threatening risks

Comprehending biased perceptions of incorrect life-threatening news content should be crucial, particularly because people pay extreme attention to information involving life-threatening risks. Results from 2 (life-threatening news content: non-life-threatening vs life-threatening; within-subjects) × 2 (correctness: incorrect vs correct news content; between-subjects) × 2 (exposure to fact-check: no vs yes; between-subjects) mixed ANOVAs (N = 506) found that, compared with non-life-threatening news content, participants were more likely to perceive that the life-threatening news content was accurate and its accuracy had been checked. They tended to think they had seen the life-threatening news content before. Even when the authenticity of (in)correct life-threatening news content was checked, individuals were inclined to commit the less costly false positive cognitive error and have false perceptions of the accuracy of (in)correct life-threatening news content. Comparatively, participants tended to have correct perceptions of the accuracy of non-life-threatening news content after fact-checking. Implications for risk management practices were discussed.