Misunderstanding Misinformation

Claire Wardle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58875/zaud1691

2023-04-01

Issues in science and technology

Abstract:An obsession with gauging accuracy of individual posts is misguided. To strengthen information ecosystems, focus on narratives and why people share what they do.

engineering, industrial, multidisciplinary,multidisciplinary sciences,social issues

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online

Gordon Pennycook,Ziv Epstein,Mohsen Mosleh,Antonio A. Arechar,Dean Eckles,David G. Rand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2

IF: 64.8

2021-03-17

Nature

Abstract:In recent years, there has been a great deal of concern about the proliferation of false and misleading news on social media<a href="#ref-CR1">1</a>,<a href="#ref-CR2">2</a>,<a href="#ref-CR3">3</a>,<a href="/articles/s41586-021-03344-2#ref-CR4">4</a>. Academics and practitioners alike have asked why people share such misinformation, and sought solutions to reduce the sharing of misinformation<a href="#ref-CR5">5</a>,<a href="#ref-CR6">6</a>,<a href="/articles/s41586-021-03344-2#ref-CR7">7</a>. Here, we attempt to address both of these questions. First, we find that the veracity of headlines has little effect on sharing intentions, despite having a large effect on judgments of accuracy. This dissociation suggests that sharing does not necessarily indicate belief. Nonetheless, most participants say it is important to share only accurate news. To shed light on this apparent contradiction, we carried out four survey experiments and a field experiment on Twitter; the results show that subtly shifting attention to accuracy increases the quality of news that people subsequently share. Together with additional computational analyses, these findings indicate that people often share misinformation because their attention is focused on factors other than accuracy—and therefore they fail to implement a strongly held preference for accurate sharing. Our results challenge the popular claim that people value partisanship over accuracy<a href="/articles/s41586-021-03344-2#ref-CR8">8</a>,<a href="/articles/s41586-021-03344-2#ref-CR9">9</a>, and provide evidence for scalable attention-based interventions that social media platforms could easily implement to counter misinformation online.

multidisciplinary sciences
Misinformation on Misinformation: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges

Sacha Altay,Manon Berriche,Alberto Acerbi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221150412

2023-01-29

Social Media and Society

Abstract:Social Media + Society, Volume 9, Issue 1, January-March 2023. Alarmist narratives about online misinformation continue to gain traction despite evidence that its prevalence and impact are overstated. Drawing on research examining the use of big data in social science and reception studies, we identify six misconceptions about misinformation and highlight the conceptual and methodological challenges they raise. The first set of misconceptions concerns the prevalence and circulation of misinformation. First, scientists focus on social media because it is methodologically convenient, but misinformation is not just a social media problem. Second, the internet is not rife with misinformation or news, but with memes and entertaining content. Third, falsehoods do not spread faster than the truth; how we define (mis)information influences our results and their practical implications. The second set of misconceptions concerns the impact and the reception of misinformation. Fourth, people do not believe everything they see on the internet: the sheer volume of engagement should not be conflated with belief. Fifth, people are more likely to be uninformed than misinformed; surveys overestimate misperceptions and say little about the causal influence of misinformation. Sixth, the influence of misinformation on people's behavior is overblown as misinformation often "preaches to the choir." To appropriately understand and fight misinformation, future research needs to address these challenges.
The Importance of Epistemology for the Study of Misinformation

Joseph Uscinski,Shane Littrell,Casey Klofstad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101789

IF: 6.813

2024-01-21

Current Opinion in Psychology

Abstract:Scholars have rapidly produced a robust body of literature addressing the public's beliefs in, and interactions with "misinformation." Despite the literature's stated concerns about the underlying truth value of the information and beliefs in question, the field has thus far operated without a reliable epistemology for determining the truth of the information and beliefs in question, often leaving researchers (or third parties) to make such determinations based on loose definitions and a naïve epistemology. We argue that, while this area of research has made great strides in recent years, more attention to definitions, epistemology, and terminology would both improve the validity of the literature and prevent the field of misinformation studies from becoming political conflict by another name.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Encounters with Visual Misinformation and Labels Across Platforms: An Interview and Diary Study to Inform Ecosystem Approaches to Misinformation Interventions

Emily Saltz,Claire Leibowicz,Claire Wardle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.12758

2020-12-15

Abstract:Since 2016, the amount of academic research with the keyword "misinformation" has more than doubled [2]. This research often focuses on article headlines shown in artificial testing environments, yet misinformation largely spreads through images and video posts shared in highly-personalized platform contexts. A foundation of qualitative research is necessary to begin filling this gap to ensure platforms' visual misinformation interventions are aligned with users' needs and understanding of information in their personal contexts, across platforms. In two studies, we combined in-depth interviews (n=15) with diary and co-design methods (n=23) to investigate how a broad mix of Americans exposed to misinformation during COVID-19 understand their visual information environments, including encounters with interventions such as Facebook fact-checking labels. Analysis reveals a deep division in user attitudes about platform labeling interventions for visual information which are perceived by many as overly paternalistic, biased, and punitive. Alongside these findings, we discuss our methods as a model for continued independent qualitative research on cross-platform user experiences of misinformation that inform interventions.

Human-Computer Interaction
Misinformation is not about Bad Facts: An Analysis of the Production and Consumption of Fringe Content

JooYoung Lee,Emily Booth,Hany Farid,Marian-Andrei Rizoiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.08391

2024-03-13

Computation and Language

Abstract:What if misinformation is not an information problem at all? Our findings suggest that online fringe ideologies spread through the use of content that is consensus-based and "factually correct". We found that Australian news publishers with both moderate and far-right political leanings contain comparable levels of information completeness and quality; and furthermore, that far-right Twitter users often share from moderate sources. However, a stark difference emerges when we consider two additional factors: 1) the narrow topic selection of articles by far-right users, suggesting that they cherrypick only news articles that engage with specific topics of their concern, and 2) the difference between moderate and far-right publishers when we examine the writing style of their articles. Furthermore, we can even identify users prone to sharing misinformation based on their communication style. These findings have important implications for countering online misinformation, as they highlight the powerful role that users' personal bias towards specific topics, and publishers' writing styles, have in amplifying fringe ideologies online.
Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation

Ceren Budak,Brendan Nyhan,David M. Rothschild,Emily Thorson,Duncan J. Watts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07417-w

IF: 64.8

2024-06-06

Nature

Abstract:The controversy over online misinformation and social media has opened a gap between public discourse and scientific research. Public intellectuals and journalists frequently make sweeping claims about the effects of exposure to false content online that are inconsistent with much of the current empirical evidence. Here we identify three common misperceptions: that average exposure to problematic content is high, that algorithms are largely responsible for this exposure and that social media is a primary cause of broader social problems such as polarization. In our review of behavioural science research on online misinformation, we document a pattern of low exposure to false and inflammatory content that is concentrated among a narrow fringe with strong motivations to seek out such information. In response, we recommend holding platforms accountable for facilitating exposure to false and extreme content in the tails of the distribution, where consumption is highest and the risk of real-world harm is greatest. We also call for increased platform transparency, including collaborations with outside researchers, to better evaluate the effects of online misinformation and the most effective responses to it. Taking these steps is especially important outside the USA and Western Europe, where research and data are scant and harms may be more severe.

multidisciplinary sciences
(Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?

Zoë Adams,Magda Osman,Christos Bechlivanidis,Björn Meder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221141344

2023-02-18

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract:Perspectives on Psychological Science, Ahead of Print. In the last decade there has been a proliferation of research on misinformation. One important aspect of this work that receives less attention than it should is exactly why misinformation is a problem. To adequately address this question, we must first look to its speculated causes and effects. We examined different disciplines (computer science, economics, history, information science, journalism, law, media, politics, philosophy, psychology, sociology) that investigate misinformation. The consensus view points to advancements in information technology (e.g., the Internet, social media) as a main cause of the proliferation and increasing impact of misinformation, with a variety of illustrations of the effects. We critically analyzed both issues. As to the effects, misbehaviors are not yet reliably demonstrated empirically to be the outcome of misinformation; correlation as causation may have a hand in that perception. As to the cause, advancements in information technologies enable, as well as reveal, multitudes of interactions that represent significant deviations from ground truths through people's new way of knowing (intersubjectivity). This, we argue, is illusionary when understood in light of historical epistemology. Both doubts we raise are used to consider the cost to established norms of liberal democracy that come from efforts to target the problem of misinformation.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Disagreement as a way to study misinformation and its effects

Damian Hodel,Jevin West

2024-08-15

Abstract:Misinformation - false or misleading information - is considered a significant societal concern due to its associated "misinformation effects," such as political polarization, erosion of trust in institutions, problematic behavior, and public health challenges. However, the prevailing concept is misaligned with what is studied. While misinformation focuses on instances of information about factual matters, the broad spectrum of effects often manifests at a societal level and is shaped by a wide range of interdependent factors such as identity, values, opinions, epistemologies, and disagreements. Unsurprisingly, misinformation effects can occur without the prevalence of misinformation, and misinformation does not necessarily increase the effects studied. Here, we propose using disagreement - conflicting attitudes and beliefs between individuals and communities - as a way to study misinformation effects because it addresses the identified conceptual limitations of misinformation. Furthermore, unlike misinformation, disagreement does not require researchers to determine whether a given information is false or misleading. Thus, it can be studied and, more importantly, measured without the need to make a normative judgment about a given information, even when the specific topic is entirely removed, as we show in a longitudinal disagreement measurement. We demonstrate that disagreement, as a holistic concept, provides better explanations for the occurrence of misinformation effects, enhances precision in developing appropriate interventions, and offers a promising approach for evaluating them through quantification. Finally, we show how disagreement addresses current misinformation research questions and conclude with recommendations for research practice.

Social and Information Networks
Folk Models of Misinformation on Social Media

Filipo Sharevski,Amy Devine,Emma Pieroni,Peter Jachim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.12589

2022-07-26

Abstract:In this paper we investigate what folk models of misinformation exist through semi-structured interviews with a sample of 235 social media users. Work on social media misinformation does not investigate how ordinary users - the target of misinformation - deal with it; rather, the focus is mostly on the anxiety, tensions, or divisions misinformation creates. Studying the aspects of creation, diffusion and amplification also overlooks how misinformation is internalized by users on social media and thus is quick to prescribe "inoculation" strategies for the presumed lack of immunity to misinformation. How users grapple with social media content to develop "natural immunity" as a precursor to misinformation resilience remains an open question. We have identified at least five folk models that conceptualize misinformation as either: political (counter)argumentation, out-of-context narratives, inherently fallacious information, external propaganda, or simply entertainment. We use the rich conceptualizations embodied in these folk models to uncover how social media users minimize adverse reactions to misinformation encounters in their everyday lives.

Social and Information Networks,Computers and Society
Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online

Killian L. McLoughlin,William J. Brady,Aden Goolsbee,Ben Kaiser,Kate Klonick,M. J. Crockett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl2829

IF: 56.9

2024-11-30

Science

Abstract:We tested a hypothesis that misinformation exploits outrage to spread online, examining generalizability across multiple platforms, time periods, and classifications of misinformation. Outrage is highly engaging and need not be accurate to achieve its communicative goals, making it an attractive signal to embed in misinformation. In eight studies that used US data from Facebook (1,063,298 links) and Twitter (44,529 tweets, 24,007 users) and two behavioral experiments (1475 participants), we show that (i) misinformation sources evoke more outrage than do trustworthy sources; (ii) outrage facilitates the sharing of misinformation at least as strongly as sharing of trustworthy news; and (iii) users are more willing to share outrage-evoking misinformation without reading it first. Consequently, outrage-evoking misinformation may be difficult to mitigate with interventions that assume users want to share accurate information.

multidisciplinary sciences
Considering information-sharing motives to reduce misinformation

Laura K Globig,Tali Sharot

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101852

Abstract:Misinformation has risen in recent years, negatively affecting domains ranging from politics to health. To curb the spread of misinformation it is useful to consider why, how, and when people decide to share information. Here we suggest that information-sharing decisions are value-based choices, in which sharers strive to maximize rewards and minimize losses to themselves and/or others. These outcomes can be tangible, in the form of monetary rewards or losses, or intangible, in the form of social feedback. On social media platforms these rewards and losses are not clearly tied to the accuracy of information shared. Thus, sharers have little incentive to avoid disseminating misinformation. Based on this framework, we propose ways to nudge sharers to prioritize accuracy during information-sharing.
A broader view of misinformation reveals potential for intervention

Sander van der Linden,Yara Kyrychenko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp9117

IF: 56.9

2024-05-31

Science

Abstract:Misleading claims from credible sources can be more damaging than blatant falsehoods

multidisciplinary sciences
Stumble on information or misinformation? Examining the interplay of incidental news exposure, narcissism, and new media literacy in misinformation engagement

Xizhu Xiao,Yan Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-10-2021-0791

IF: 5.9

2022-08-24

Internet Research

Abstract:Purpose In the current media landscape where misinformation circulation becomes a primary threat to public health and society's intellectual well-being, incidental news exposure's role in influencing misperceptions and misinformation engagement remains under-explored. Moreover, less is known regarding how and to what extent personal factors such as personality and media literacy may drive the sharing of misinformation. Design/methodology/approach Under the theoretical guidance of the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) model, the authors surveyed 546 college students aged 18 and above to explore the relationship between incidental news exposure and misinformation sharing. Findings Findings buttressed the hypothesized relationship built on the S-O-R model and revealed a path from incidental online news exposure to misinformation sharing, mediated by misperceptions. The mediated path was further moderated by narcissism and media literacy. Specifically, narcissists have higher misperceptions when they encounter online news more often; higher misperceptions in turn give rise to greater misinformation sharing behaviors. The ability to critically consume new media information only decreases misinformation sharing behavior for narcissists with lower misperceptions. Originality/value Guided by the S-O-R framework, this study takes the first step in examining the link between incidental news exposure and misinformation sharing and accounts for the moderating influences of personality and media literacy factors. Findings provide a theoretical foundation and practical implications for future interventions to combat misinformation.

computer science, information systems,telecommunications,business
Nudging Social Media toward Accuracy

Gordon Pennycook,David G. Rand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221092342

2022-05-06

Abstract:The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Volume 700, Issue 1, Page 152-164, March 2022. A meaningful portion of online misinformation sharing is likely attributable to Internet users failing to consider accuracy when deciding what to share. As a result, simply redirecting attention to the concept of accuracy can increase sharing discernment. Here we discuss the importance of accuracy and describe a limited-attention utility model that is based on a theory about inattention to accuracy on social media. We review research that shows how a simple nudge or prompt that shifts attention to accuracy increases the quality of news that people share (typically by decreasing the sharing of false content), and then discuss outstanding questions relating to accuracy nudges, including the need for more work relating to persistence and habituation as well as the dearth of cross-cultural research on these topics. We also make several recommendations for policy-makers and social media companies for how to implement accuracy nudges.

political science,social sciences, interdisciplinary
Processing of misinformation as motivational and cognitive biases

Yanmengqian Zhou,Lijiang Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1430953

2024-08-30

Abstract:Misinformation can be broadly defined as false or inaccurate information created and spread with or without clear intent to cause harm. It travels fast and deep and persists despite debunking. It is well-documented that corrective messages and fact-checking efforts often fail to mitigate the effects or persistence of misinformation. In this article, we examine the persistence of misinformation as rooted in motivational and cognitive biases in information processing. While drawing on the frameworks of motivations that drive information seeking, sharing, and processing and various cognitive biases, we explicate mechanisms and processes that underlie the impact and persistence of misinformation. We conclude our article by discussing the potential utility of psychological inoculation as a prebunking strategy.
The Paradox of Participation Versus Misinformation: Social Media, Political Engagement, and the Spread of Misinformation

Sebastián Valenzuela,Daniel Halpern,James E. Katz,Juan Pablo Miranda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1623701

IF: 5.4

2019-06-12

Digital Journalism

Abstract:The mechanisms by which users of platforms such as Facebook and Twitter spread misinformation are not well understood. In this study, we argue that the effects of informational uses of social media on political participation are inextricable from its effects on misinformation sharing. That is, political engagement is both a major consequence of using social media for news as well as a key antecedent of sharing misinformation. We test our expectations via a two-wave panel survey of online media users in Chile, a country experiencing information disorders comparable to those of the global North. Analyses of the proposed and alternative causal models with two types of structural equation specifications (fixed effects and autoregressive) support our theoretical model. We close with a discussion on how changes in the way people engage with news and politics – brought about by social media – have produced a new dilemma: how to sustain a citizenry that is enthusiastically politically active, yet not spreading misinformation?

communication
Exploring Lightweight Interventions at Posting Time to Reduce the Sharing of Misinformation on Social Media

Farnaz Jahanbakhsh,Amy X. Zhang,Adam J. Berinsky,Gordon Pennycook,David G. Rand,David R. Karger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3449092

2021-05-23

Abstract:When users on social media share content without considering its veracity, they may unwittingly be spreading misinformation. In this work, we investigate the design of lightweight interventions that nudge users to assess the accuracy of information as they share it. Such assessment may deter users from posting misinformation in the first place, and their assessments may also provide useful guidance to friends aiming to assess those posts themselves. In support of lightweight assessment, we first develop a taxonomy of the reasons why people believe a news claim is or is not true; this taxonomy yields a checklist that can be used at posting time. We conduct evaluations to demonstrate that the checklist is an accurate and comprehensive encapsulation of people's free-response rationales. In a second experiment, we study the effects of three behavioral nudges -- 1) checkboxes indicating whether headings are accurate, 2) tagging reasons (from our taxonomy) that a post is accurate via a checklist and 3) providing free-text rationales for why a headline is or is not accurate -- on people's intention of sharing the headline on social media. From an experiment with 1668 participants, we find that both providing accuracy assessment and rationale reduce the sharing of false content. They also reduce the sharing of true content, but to a lesser degree that yields an overall decrease in the fraction of shared content that is false. Our findings have implications for designing social media and news sharing platforms that draw from richer signals of content credibility contributed by users. In addition, our validated taxonomy can be used by platforms and researchers as a way to gather rationales in an easier fashion than free-response.

Human-Computer Interaction
A survey of expert views on misinformation: Definitions, determinants, solutions, and future of the field

Sacha Altay,Manon Berriche,Hendrik Heuer,Johan Farkas,Steven Rathje

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-119

2023-07-27

Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review

Abstract:We surveyed 150 academic experts on misinformation and identified areas of expert consensus. Experts defined misinformation as false and misleading information, though views diverged on the importance of intentionality and what exactly constitutes misinformation. The most popular reason why people believe and share misinformation was partisanship, while lack of education was one of the least popular reasons. Experts were optimistic about the effectiveness of interventions against misinformation and supported system-level actions against misinformation, such as platform design changes and algorithmic changes. The most agreed-upon future direction for the field of misinformation was to collect more data outside of the United States.
FakeNewsLab: Experimental Study on Biases and Pitfalls Preventing us from Distinguishing True from False News

Giancarlo Ruffo,Alfonso Semeraro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/fi14100283

2022-10-08

Abstract:Misinformation posting and spreading in Social Media is ignited by personal decisions on the truthfulness of news that may cause wide and deep cascades at a large scale in a fraction of minutes. When individuals are exposed to information, they usually take a few seconds to decide if the content (or the source) is reliable, and eventually to share it. Although the opportunity to verify the rumour is often just one click away, many users fail to make a correct evaluation. We studied this phenomenon with a web-based questionnaire that was compiled by 7,298 different volunteers, where the participants were asked to mark 20 news as true or false. Interestingly, false news is correctly identified more frequently than true news, but showing the full article instead of just the title, surprisingly, does not increase general accuracy. Also, displaying the original source of the news may contribute to mislead the user in some cases, while a genuine wisdom of the crowd can positively assist individuals' ability to classify correctly. Finally, participants whose browsing activity suggests a parallel fact-checking activity, show better performance and declare themselves as young adults. This work highlights a series of pitfalls that can influence human annotators when building false news datasets, which in turn fuel the research on the automated fake news detection; furthermore, these findings challenge the common rationale of AI that suggest users to read the full article before re-sharing.

Computers and Society,Social and Information Networks
Finding Strategies Against Misinformation in Social Media: A Qualitative Study

Jacqueline Urakami,Yeongdae Kim,Hiroki Oura,Katie Seaborn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.00188

IF: 6.4588

2022-04-30

Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract:Misinformation spread through social media has become a fundamental challenge in modern society. Recent studies have evaluated various strategies for addressing this problem, such as by modifying social media platforms or educating people about misinformation, to varying degrees of success. Our goal is to develop a new strategy for countering misinformation: intelligent tools that encourage social media users to foster metacognitive skills "in the wild." As a first step, we conducted focus groups with social media users to discover how they can be best supported in combating misinformation. Qualitative analyses of the discussions revealed that people find it difficult to detect misinformation. Findings also indicated a need for but lack of resources to support cross-validation of information. Moreover, misinformation had a nuanced emotional impact on people. Suggestions for the design of intelligent tools that support social media users in information selection, information engagement, and emotional response management are presented.

Misunderstanding Misinformation

Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online

Misinformation on Misinformation: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges

The Importance of Epistemology for the Study of Misinformation

Encounters with Visual Misinformation and Labels Across Platforms: An Interview and Diary Study to Inform Ecosystem Approaches to Misinformation Interventions

Misinformation is not about Bad Facts: An Analysis of the Production and Consumption of Fringe Content

Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation

(Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?

Disagreement as a way to study misinformation and its effects

Folk Models of Misinformation on Social Media

Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online

Considering information-sharing motives to reduce misinformation

A broader view of misinformation reveals potential for intervention

Stumble on information or misinformation? Examining the interplay of incidental news exposure, narcissism, and new media literacy in misinformation engagement

Nudging Social Media toward Accuracy

Processing of misinformation as motivational and cognitive biases

The Paradox of Participation Versus Misinformation: Social Media, Political Engagement, and the Spread of Misinformation

Exploring Lightweight Interventions at Posting Time to Reduce the Sharing of Misinformation on Social Media

A survey of expert views on misinformation: Definitions, determinants, solutions, and future of the field

FakeNewsLab: Experimental Study on Biases and Pitfalls Preventing us from Distinguishing True from False News

Finding Strategies Against Misinformation in Social Media: A Qualitative Study