Misinformation Measures Matter: How Question Wording and Response Options Influence Estimates of Corrections on Social Media

Research demonstrates that correction consistently reduces misperceptions, increasing the importance of understanding how often people see such corrections. To answer this, researchers often rely on self-reported measures through surveys. However, there is little consistency in these measures across studies, hindering comparability and theory development. To investigate whether different measures of self-reported correction experiences affect their estimated frequency, this study uses a preregistered online survey experiment to examine two key factors: the question wording ("corrected" vs. "told they shared misinformation") and the response options (binary vs. four vs. five-point frequency scales). Findings reveal that frequency scales produce consistently higher estimates of three correction experiences (witnessing, performing, and being corrected) compared to binary measures, although classifying those who rarely experience correction alongside those who never do reduces these differences. Moreover, using the term "correction" leads to higher self-reported instances of performing corrections than the "told misinformation" phrasing, but does not impact estimates of witnessing or being corrected. These results offer researchers clear takeaways for comparing measures across multiple datasets and reinforce the importance of moving toward consistent measures in the future to ensure we can better understand how often people experience corrections.