A field's dilemmas

Kai Kupferschmidt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu2100

IF: 56.9

2024-11-01

Science

Abstract:Misinformation research has exploded. But scientists are still grappling with fundamental challenges

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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
(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
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.
Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think

Ullrich Ecker,Jon Roozenbeek,Sander van der Linden,Li Qian Tay,John Cook,Naomi Oreskes,Stephan Lewandowsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01587-3

IF: 64.8

2024-06-06

Nature

Abstract:In today's polarized political climate, researchers who combat mistruths have come under attack and been labelled as unelected arbiters of truth. But the fight against misinformation is valid, warranted and urgently required. In today's polarized political climate, researchers who combat mistruths have come under attack and been labelled as unelected arbiters of truth. But the fight against misinformation is valid, warranted and urgently required.

multidisciplinary sciences
An Agenda for Disinformation Research

Nadya Bliss,Elizabeth Bradley,Joshua Garland,Filippo Menczer,Scott W. Ruston,Kate Starbird,Chris Wiggins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.08572

2020-12-16

Abstract:In the 21st Century information environment, adversarial actors use disinformation to manipulate public opinion. The distribution of false, misleading, or inaccurate information with the intent to deceive is an existential threat to the United States--distortion of information erodes trust in the socio-political institutions that are the fundamental fabric of democracy: legitimate news sources, scientists, experts, and even fellow citizens. As a result, it becomes difficult for society to come together within a shared reality; the common ground needed to function effectively as an economy and a nation. Computing and communication technologies have facilitated the exchange of information at unprecedented speeds and scales. This has had countless benefits to society and the economy, but it has also played a fundamental role in the rising volume, variety, and velocity of disinformation. Technological advances have created new opportunities for manipulation, influence, and deceit. They have effectively lowered the barriers to reaching large audiences, diminishing the role of traditional mass media along with the editorial oversight they provided. The digitization of information exchange, however, also makes the practices of disinformation detectable, the networks of influence discernable, and suspicious content characterizable. New tools and approaches must be developed to leverage these affordances to understand and address this growing challenge.

Computers and Society,Social and Information Networks
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.
Are there 34,000 human emotions? Deconstructing patterns of scientific misinformation

Jonas Polfuß

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2393813

2024-08-28

Abstract:Background: Scientific misinformation is a much-discussed topic, and the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of reliability in science and research. However, limiting misinformation is complicated because of the growing number of communication channels, in which scientific and nonscientific content are often mixed. Methods: This case study combines the examination of references, online observation, and a content and frequency analysis to investigate the dissemination of scientific misinformation in the interplay of different genres and media. Results: Using the example of the claimed existence of 34,000 human emotions, this study demonstrates how questionable statements are spread in science, popular science, and pseudoscience, making it particularly challenging to track and correct them. Conclusions: The findings highlight epistemic authority, trust, and injustice within and between scientific and nonscientific communities. The author argues that, in the digital age, researchers should defend and monitor scientific principles beyond academia.
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
The chronic growing pains of communicating science online

Dominique Brossard,Dietram A Scheufele,Dietram A. Scheufele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo0668

IF: 56.9

2022-02-11

Science

Abstract:Scientists have not yet adapted to new information environments

multidisciplinary sciences
Misinformation and children's fact-checking

Isaac Bisla,Melissa A. Koenig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02030-3

IF: 24.252

2024-10-19

Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract:Although research on misinformation and fact-checking flourishes, developmental studies that involve younger participants remain scarce. Through two experiments among 4- to 7-year-olds and a computer simulation study, Orticio et al. found that when children encountered more misleading information, they intended to seek more evidence before accepting new claims.

psychology, experimental,neurosciences,multidisciplinary sciences
What we do — and don't — know about how misinformation spreads online

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01618-z

IF: 64.8

2024-06-06

Nature

Abstract:There are gaps in our understanding of how and why digital misinformation propagates. To help design effective interventions to minimize the spread of falsehoods, researchers need data and transparency from online platforms. There are gaps in our understanding of how and why digital misinformation propagates. To help design effective interventions to minimize the spread of falsehoods, researchers need data and transparency from online platforms.

multidisciplinary sciences
Debunking Three Myths About Misinformation

Bertram Gawronski,Lea S. Nahon,Nyx L. Ng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214241280907

IF: 7.867

2024-11-24

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Abstract:Current Directions in Psychological Science, Ahead of Print. Recent years have seen a surge in research on why people fall for misinformation and what can be done about it. Drawing on a framework that conceptualizes truth judgments of true and false information as a signal-detection problem, the current article identifies three inaccurate assumptions in the public and scientific discourse about misinformation: (1) People are bad at discerning true from false information, (2) partisan bias is not a driving force in judgments of misinformation, and (3) gullibility to false information is the main factor underlying inaccurate beliefs. Counter to these assumptions, we argue that (1) people are quite good at discerning true from false information, (2) partisan bias in responses to true and false information is pervasive and strong, and (3) skepticism against belief-incongruent true information is much more pronounced than gullibility to belief-congruent false information. These conclusions have significant implications for person-centered misinformation interventions to tackle inaccurate beliefs.

psychology, multidisciplinary
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
Misinformation vs. Situational Awareness: The Art of Deception and the Need for Cross-Domain Detection

Constantinos-Giovanni Xarhoulacos,Argiro Anagnostopoulou,George Stergiopoulos,Dimitris Gritzalis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21165496

2021-08-15

Abstract:The world has been afflicted by the rise of misinformation. The sheer volume of news produced daily necessitates the development of automated methods for separating fact from fiction. To tackle this issue, the computer science community has produced a plethora of approaches, documented in a number of surveys. However, these surveys primarily rely on one-dimensional solutions, i.e., deception detection approaches that focus on a specific aspect of misinformation, such as a particular topic, language, or source. Misinformation is considered a major obstacle for situational awareness, including cyber, both from a company and a societal point of view. This paper explores the evolving field of misinformation detection and analytics on information published in news articles, with an emphasis on methodologies that handle multiple dimensions of the fake news detection conundrum. We analyze and compare existing research on cross-dimensional methodologies. Our evaluation process is based on a set of criteria, including a predefined set of performance metrics, data pre-processing features, and domains of implementation. Furthermore, we assess the adaptability of each methodology in detecting misinformation in real-world news and thoroughly analyze our findings. Specifically, survey insights demonstrate that when a detection approach focuses on several dimensions (e.g., languages and topics, languages and sources, etc.), its performance improves, and it becomes more flexible in detecting false information across different contexts. Finally, we propose a set of research directions that could aid in furthering the development of more advanced and accurate models in this field.
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
Misinformation research needs ecological validity

James Crum,Cara Spencer,Emily Doherty,Erin Richardson,Sage Sherman,Amy W. Hays,Nitesh Saxena,Richard E. Niemeyer,Allison P. Anderson,Marta Čeko,Leanne Hirshfield

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02015-2

IF: 24.252

2024-10-08

Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract:How misinformation affects cognition and behaviour is of increasing interest. Research has identified predictors of susceptibility, but how they play out during real-world behaviour remains unclear. We urge misinformation neuroscience researchers to prioritize ecological validity by collecting data across the ecological spectrum.

psychology, experimental,neurosciences,multidisciplinary sciences
Human-Misinformation interaction: Understanding the interdisciplinary approach needed to computationally combat false information

Alireza Karduni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1903.07136

2019-03-18

Abstract:The prevalence of new technologies and social media has amplified the effects of misinformation on our societies. Thus, it is necessary to create computational tools to mitigate their effects effectively. This study aims to provide a critical overview of computational approaches concerned with combating misinformation. To this aim, I offer an overview of scholarly definitions of misinformation. I adopt a framework for studying misinformation that suggests paying attention to the source, content, and consumers as the three main elements involved in the process of misinformation and I provide an overview of literature from disciplines of psychology, media studies, and cognitive sciences that deal with each of these elements. Using the framework, I overview the existing computational methods that deal with 1) misinformation detection and fact-checking using Content 2) Identifying untrustworthy Sources and social bots, and 3) Consumer-facing tools and methods aiming to make humans resilient to misinformation. I find that the vast majority of works in computer science and information technology is concerned with the crucial tasks of detection and verification of content and sources of misinformation. Moreover, I find that computational research focusing on Consumers of Misinformation in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and related fields are very sparse and often do not deal with the subtleties of this process. The majority of existing interfaces and systems are less concerned with the usability of the tools rather than the robustness and accuracy of the detection methods. Using this survey, I call for an interdisciplinary approach towards human-misinformation interaction that focuses on building methods and tools that robustly deal with such complex psychological/social phenomena.

Human-Computer Interaction,Social and Information Networks
Determinants of Gullibility to Misinformation: A Study of Climate Change, COVID-19 and Artificial Intelligence

Sven Gruener

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02601079221083482

2022-04-02

Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics

Abstract:This article explores whether susceptibility to misinformation is context-dependent. For this purpose, a survey experiment has been conducted in which subjects from Germany had to rate the reliability of several statements in the fields of climate change, COVID-19 and artificial intelligence. These contexts differed with respect to the frequency of media coverage, population activity in the form of demonstrations, daily number of deaths, and scientific knowledge. We find some similarities (for example, trust in social networks is positively associated with falling for misinformation in all three contexts) but also substantial differences (for example, risk perception as well as the extent to which people consider evidence to adjust their beliefs seem to matter for climate change and COVID-19 but not for artificial intelligence). More systematic work on context-related differences and narratives is required to design adequate measures against misinformation. JEL: C91, D01, D80
Disinformation: A Bibliometric Review

Shixiong Wang,Fangfang Su,Lu Ye,Yuan Jing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416849

IF: 4.614

2022-12-15

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Objectives: This paper aimed to provide a systematic review of relevant articles from the perspectives of literature distribution, research hotspots, and existing results to obtain the frontier directions in the field of disinformation. Methods: We analyzed disinformation publications published between 2002 and 2021 using bibliometric methods based on the Web of Science. There were 5666 papers analyzed using Derwent Data Analyzer (DDA). Results: The result shows that the USA was the most influential country in this area, while Ecker and Lewandowsky from the University of Western Australia published the largest volumes of papers. Keywords such as “social media”, “COVID-19”, and “vaccination” have gained immense popularity recently. Conclusions: We summarized four themes that are of the biggest concern to scholars: group heterogeneity of misinformation in memory, disinformation mechanism in social media, public health related to COVID-19, and application of big data technology in the infodemic. The future agenda of disinformation is summarized from three aspects: the mechanism of disinformation, social media users, and the application of algorithms. This work can be a meaningful resource for researchers’ study in the area of disinformation.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences
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.

A field's dilemmas

The Importance of Epistemology for the Study of Misinformation

(Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?

Misinformation on Misinformation: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges

Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think

An Agenda for Disinformation Research

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

Are there 34,000 human emotions? Deconstructing patterns of scientific misinformation

Misunderstanding Misinformation

The chronic growing pains of communicating science online

Misinformation and children's fact-checking

What we do — and don't — know about how misinformation spreads online

Debunking Three Myths About Misinformation

A broader view of misinformation reveals potential for intervention

Misinformation vs. Situational Awareness: The Art of Deception and the Need for Cross-Domain Detection

Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation

Misinformation research needs ecological validity

Human-Misinformation interaction: Understanding the interdisciplinary approach needed to computationally combat false information

Determinants of Gullibility to Misinformation: A Study of Climate Change, COVID-19 and Artificial Intelligence

Disinformation: A Bibliometric Review

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