The recent surge of false information accompanying the Russian invasion of Ukraine has re-emphasized the need for interventions to counteract disinformation. While fact-checking is a widely used intervention, we know little about citizen motivations to read fact-checks. We tested theoretical predictions related to accuracy-motivated goals (i.e., seeking to know the truth) versus directionally-motivated goals (i.e., seeking to confirm existing beliefs) by analyzing original survey data ( n = 19,037) collected in early April to late May 2022 in nineteen countries, namely Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and USA. Survey participants read ten statements about the Russian war in Ukraine and could opt to see fact-checks for each of these statements. Results of mixed models for three-level hierarchical data (level 1: statements, level 2: individuals, and level 3: countries) showed that accuracy motivations were better explanations than directional motivations for the decision to read fact-checks about the Russian war in Ukraine.

中文翻译：

---

为什么公民选择阅读俄罗斯乌克兰战争背景下的事实核查？方向性和准确性动机在十九个民主国家中的作用

最近，随着俄罗斯入侵乌克兰，虚假信息激增，再次强调了采取干预措施抵制虚假信息的必要性。虽然事实核查是一种广泛使用的干预措施，但我们对公民阅读事实核查的动机知之甚少。我们通过分析 4 月初至 5 月下旬收集的原始调查数据 (n = 19,037)，测试了与准确性动机目标（即寻求了解真相）和方向性动机目标（即寻求确认现有信念）相关的理论预测2022 年在 19 个国家/地区举行，包括奥地利、比利时、巴西、捷克共和国、丹麦、法国、德国、希腊、匈牙利、意大利、荷兰、波兰、罗马尼亚、塞尔维亚、西班牙、瑞典、瑞士、英国和美国。调查参与者阅读了十份有关俄罗斯在乌克兰战争的声明，并可以选择查看每项声明的事实核查。三级分层数据（第一级：陈述，第二级：个人，第三级：国家）混合模型的结果表明，对于决定阅读有关俄罗斯战争的事实核查的决定，准确性动机比定向动机更好的解释。乌克兰。