Contextual warnings are largely ignored, while interstitial warnings are more effective.
Contextual warnings → Users routinely ignore contextual warnings because they blend into the content without disrupting the user experience. This limits their ability to influence user behavior, as users often do not notice or pay attention to them.
General Contextual: Broad warnings like "Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines."
Specific Contextual: Direct labels like "False Information" or "Missing Context."
Interstitial warnings → which interrupt the user and require interaction, were much more effective at changing behavior. Users are forced to notice these warnings and take action, leading them to seek information from alternative sources.
The study showed that interstitial warnings significantly impacted user behavior, making them more likely to avoid disinformation and look for alternative, credible sources of information.
Interestingly, the effectiveness of warnings was not dependent on whether users fully understood the disinformation warning. Even when users did not fully comprehend the risks, they still changed their behavior, likely due to the disruption caused by the warning.
The design of the warning (whether it was informative or evoked fear) did not greatly affect user behavior. While some users interpreted the warning as a security threat (like malware), this did not significantly change how they behaved in response to the warning.
The user experience friction caused by interstitial warnings (the interruption of their browsing flow) was a major factor in driving behavioral change. Users may have avoided disinformation because of the inconvenience of dealing with the warning, rather than making an informed decision.
While interstitial warnings guide user behavior effectively, the change might result from user frustration rather than informed decision-making. This poses a challenge in ensuring that users make decisions based on awareness rather than just avoiding inconvenience.
User friction → interruption in user flow
Conclusion:
Effective design of disinformation warnings can guide user behavior, but effectiveness may stem from friction rather than informed decisions.
The study concludes that interstitial warnings are far more effective than contextual warnings in influencing user behavior to avoid disinformation. Since they disrupt the user’s flow and demand action, they are better at grabbing attention and prompting users to reconsider the content.
Future research should focus on refining warning designs and studying their effects across different platforms.
The authors recommend using well-designed interstitial warnings to help users identify and avoid disinformation. These warnings should be informed by empirical research, similar to the iterative approach taken in the information security community for developing effective security warnings.
Questions:
interstitial fatigue
2FA Questions
What are the main reasons users don’t adopt security features like 2FA, even though they’re beneficial?
Key reasons why users hesitate to adopt 2FA and discussed how messaging, personalization, and UX design can influence adoption.
Messaging about user responsibility increased 2FA adoption. Could this cause security fatigue or anxiety? How can we avoid that?
Examine the balance between encouraging security behaviors and avoiding user fatigue or privacy concerns.
Using a user’s name in security prompts increased adoption. Could this raise privacy concerns, or is it a fair trade-off?
Interstitial (blocking) prompts boosted 2FA adoption but can be annoying. When should companies use these more aggressive tactics?
Older users were less likely to enable 2FA with responsibility-focused messaging. How can we tailor security prompts for different age groups?
Do you think 2FA will remain the standard for account security, or will new technologies like biometrics take over?
2FA will remain the standard or if new technologies like biometrics will take over.