skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

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

Published:22 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. [n.d.]. Combatting Vaccine Misinformation - About Facebook. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/03/combatting-vaccinemisinformation/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [n.d.]. Facebook apologises for blocking Prager University's videos. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45247302Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [n.d.]. Facebook is ditching its own solution to fake news because it didn't work. https://qz.com/1162973/to-fight-fakenews-facebook-is-replacing-flagging-posts-as-disputed-with-related-articles/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [n.d.]. https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking. https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checkingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jennifer Nancy Lee Allen, Antonio Alonso Arechar, Gordon Pennycook, and David Rand. 2020. Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Marc-André Argentino. [n.d.]. QAnon and the storm of the U.S. Capitol: The offline effect of online conspiracy theories. https://theconversation.com/qanon-and-the-storm-of-the-u-s-capitol-the-offline-effect-of-online-conspiracy-theories-152815Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Natalya N Bazarova, Yoon Hyung Choi, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, Dan Cosley, and Janis Whitlock. 2015. Social sharing of emotions on Facebook: Channel differences, satisfaction, and replies. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 154--164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Shashank Bengali. 2019. How WhatsApp is battling misinformation in India, where 'fake news is part of our culture'. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-india-whatsapp-2019-story.html (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Md Momen Bhuiyan, Amy X Zhang, Connie Moon Sehat, and Tanushree Mitra. 2020. Investigating Differences in Crowdsourced News Credibility Assessment: Raters, Tasks, and Expert Criteria. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Leticia Bode and Emily K Vraga. 2018. See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health communication, Vol. 33, 9 (2018), 1131--1140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Alexandre Bovet and Hernán A Makse. 2019. Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nature communications, Vol. 10, 1 (2019), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlos Castillo, Marcelo Mendoza, and Barbara Poblete. 2011. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. 675--684.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Kathy Charmaz and Linda Liska Belgrave. 2007. Grounded theory. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Edward T Cokely, Mirta Galesic, Eric Schulz, Saima Ghazal, and Rocio Garcia-Retamero. 2012. Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test. Judgment and Decision making (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Alistair Coleman. [n.d.]. 'Hundreds dead' because of Covid-19 misinformation. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-53755067Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Michela Del Vicario, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Fabio Petroni, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, H Eugene Stanley, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2016. The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, 3 (2016), 554--559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Nicholas Dias, Gordon Pennycook, and David G Rand. 2020. Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, Vol. 1, 1 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Pranav Dixit and Ryan Mac. 2018. How WhatsApp Destroyed A Village. Buzzfeed News (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ziv Epstein, Gordon Pennycook, and David Rand. 2020. Will the crowd game the algorithm? Using layperson judgments to combat misinformation on social media by downranking distrusted sources. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Martin Flintham, Christian Karner, Khaled Bachour, Helen Creswick, Neha Gupta, and Stuart Moran. 2018. Falling for fake news: investigating the consumption of news via social media. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Shane Frederick. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic perspectives, Vol. 19, 4 (2005), 25--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Christine Geeng, Savanna Yee, and Franziska Roesner. 2020. Fake News on Facebook and Twitter: Investigating How People (Don't) Investigate. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Lucas Graves. 2016. Deciding what's true: The rise of political fact-checking in American journalism. Columbia University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Nir Grinberg, Kenneth Joseph, Lisa Friedland, Briony Swire-Thompson, and David Lazer. 2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science, Vol. 363, 6425 (2019), 374--378.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Nir Grinberg, Shankar Kalyanaraman, Lada A Adamic, and Mor Naaman. 2017. Understanding feedback expectations on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 726--739.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jennifer Grygiel and Nina Brown. 2019. Are social media companies motivated to be good corporate citizens? Examination of the connection between corporate social responsibility and social media safety. Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 43, 5 (2019), 445--460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Andrew Guess, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua Tucker. 2019. Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science advances, Vol. 5, 1 (2019), eaau4586.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Maria Haigh, Thomas Haigh, and Tetiana Matychak. 2019. Information Literacy vs. Fake News: The Case of Ukraine. Open Information Science, Vol. 3, 1 (2019), 154--165.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Aniko Hannak, Drew Margolin, Brian Keegan, and Ingmar Weber. 2014. Get Back! You Don't Know Me Like That: The Social Mediation of Fact Checking Interventions in Twitter Conversations.. In ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Yasmin Ibrahim. 2017. Facebook and the Napalm Girl: reframing the iconic as pornographic. Social Media Society, Vol. 3, 4 (2017), 2056305117743140Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Alireza Karduni, Isaac Cho, Ryan Wesslen, Sashank Santhanam, Svitlana Volkova, Dustin L Arendt, Samira Shaikh, and Wenwen Dou. 2019. Vulnerable to misinformation? Verifi!. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 312--323.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Makena Kelly. [n.d.]. Facebook proves Elizabeth Warren's point by deleting her ads about breaking up Facebook. https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/11/18260857/facebook-senator-elizabeth-warren-campaign-ads-removal-tech-break-up-regulationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jooyeon Kim, Behzad Tabibian, Alice Oh, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez. 2018. Leveraging the crowd to detect and reduce the spread of fake news and misinformation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 324--332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Frauke Kreuter, Stanley Presser, and Roger Tourangeau. 2008. Social desirability bias in cati, ivr, and web surveysthe effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public opinion quarterly, Vol. 72, 5 (2008), 847--865.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Travis Kriplean, Caitlin Bonnar, Alan Borning, Bo Kinney, and Brian Gill. 2014. Integrating on-demand fact-checking with public dialogue. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1188--1199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics (1977), 159--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Farhad Manjoo. 2013. You won't finish this article. Why people online don't read to the end: Slate (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Drew B Margolin, Aniko Hannak, and Ingmar Weber. 2018. Political fact-checking on Twitter: When do corrections have an effect? Political Communication, Vol. 35, 2 (2018), 196--219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Cameron Martel, Mohsen Mosleh, and David Gertler Rand. 2021. You're definitely wrong, maybe: Correction style has minimal effect on corrections of misinformation online. Media and Communication, Vol. 9, 1 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Alice E Marwick. 2018. Why do people share fake news? A sociotechnical model of media effects. Georgetown Law Technology Review, Vol. 2, 2 (2018), 474--512.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Jim McCambridge, John Witton, and Diana R Elbourne. 2014. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of clinical epidemiology, Vol. 67, 3 (2014), 267--277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Meredith Ringel Morris, Scott Counts, Asta Roseway, Aaron Hoff, and Julia Schwarz. 2012. Tweeting is believing? Understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. 441--450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Mohsen Mosleh, Cameron Martel, Dean Eckles, and David G. Rand. 2021 a. Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking: Being Corrected by Another User for Posting False Political News Increases Subsequent Sharing of Low Quality, Partisan, and Toxic Content in a Twitter Field Experiment. In To appear in proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Mohsen Mosleh, Cameron Martel, Dean Eckles, and David G Rand. 2021 b. Shared partisanship dramatically increases social tie formation in a Twitter field experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 118, 7 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Mohsen Mosleh, Gordon Pennycook, Antonio A Arechar, and David G Rand. 2021 c. Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter. Nature Communications, Vol. 12, 1 (2021), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Mohsen Mosleh, Gordon Pennycook, and David G Rand. 2020. Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on Twitter. Plos one, Vol. 15, 2 (2020), e0228882.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Samuel Murray, Matthew Stanley, Jonathon McPhetres, Gordon Pennycook, and Paul Seli. 2020. " I've said it before and I will say it again": Repeating statements made by Donald Trump increases perceived truthfulness for individuals across the political spectrum. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Onook Oh, Kyounghee Hazel Kwon, and H Raghav Rao. 2010. An Exploration of Social Media in Extreme Events: Rumor Theory and Twitter during the Haiti Earthquake 2010.. In Icis, Vol. 231. 7332--7336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Sheila O'Riordan, Gaye Kiely, Bill Emerson, and Joseph Feller. 2019. Do you have a source for that? Understanding the Challenges of Collaborative Evidence-based Journalism. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Open Collaboration. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Gordon Pennycook, Adam Bear, Evan T Collins, and David G Rand. 2020 a. The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Gordon Pennycook, Tyrone D Cannon, and David G Rand. 2018. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of experimental psychology: general, Vol. 147, 12 (2018), 1865.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Gordon Pennycook, Ziv Epstein, Mohsen Mosleh, Antonio A Arechar, Dean Eckles, and David G Rand. 2021. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Gordon Pennycook, Jonathon McPhetres, Yunhao Zhang, Jackson G Lu, and David G Rand. 2020 b. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological science, Vol. 31, 7 (2020), 770--780.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Gordon Pennycook and David G Rand. 2019 a. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116, 7 (2019), 2521--2526.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Gordon Pennycook and David G Rand. 2019 b. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, Vol. 188 (2019), 39--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Julie Posetti and Alice Matthews. 2018. A short guide to the history of ?fake news' and disinformation. International Center For Journalists (2018), 2018--07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Martin Potthast, Sebastian Köpsel, Benno Stein, and Matthias Hagen. 2016. Clickbait detection. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 810--817.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Chris Preist, Elaine Massung, and David Coyle. 2014. Competing or aiming to be average? Normification as a means of engaging digital volunteers. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1222--1233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Walter Quattrociocchi, Antonio Scala, and Cass R Sunstein. 2016. Echo chambers on Facebook. Available at SSRN 2795110 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. John Reed. 2018. Hate speech, atrocities and fake news: The crisis of democracy in Myanmar. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www. ft. com/content/2003d54e-169a-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Ana Lucía Schmidt, Fabiana Zollo, Antonio Scala, Cornelia Betsch, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2018. Polarization of the vaccination debate on Facebook. Vaccine, Vol. 36, 25 (2018), 3606--3612.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Scott Shane. 2017. The fake Americans Russia created to influence the election. The New York Time, Vol. 7, 09 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Chengcheng Shao, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Onur Varol, Kai-Cheng Yang, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2018. The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature communications, Vol. 9, 1 (2018), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Jieun Shin, Lian Jian, Kevin Driscoll, and Francc ois Bar. 2017. Political rumoring on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election: Rumor diffusion and correction. new media & society, Vol. 19, 8 (2017), 1214--1235.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Jieun Shin and Kjerstin Thorson. 2017. Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication, Vol. 67, 2 (2017), 233--255.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Robert Shrimsley. [n.d.]. Facebook photos: snap judgments. https://www.ft.com/content/dbcdf744-7ac6-11e6-b837-eb4b4333ee43Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Kai Shu, Amy Sliva, Suhang Wang, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. 2017. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, Vol. 19, 1 (2017), 22--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Sara Spray. [n.d.]. Facebook Is Embroiled In A Row With Activists Over "Censorship". https://www.buzzfeed.com/saraspary/facebook-in-dispute-with-pro-kurdish-activists-over-deletedGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Kate Starbird, Ahmer Arif, Tom Wilson, Katherine Van Koevering, Katya Yefimova, and Daniel Scarnecchia. 2018a. Ecosystem or Echo-System? Exploring Content Sharing across Alternative Media Domains.. In ICWSM. 365--374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Kate Starbird, Dharma Dailey, Owla Mohamed, Gina Lee, and Emma S Spiro. 2018b. Engage early, correct more: How journalists participate in false rumors online during crisis events. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Kate Starbird, Jim Maddock, Mania Orand, Peg Achterman, and Robert M Mason. 2014. Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: Misinformation on twitter after the 2013 boston marathon bombing. IConference 2014 Proceedings (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Paul Steinhauser. [n.d.]. Arizona certifies Biden as election winner, with Wisconsin following hours later. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/arizona-wisconsin-election-certification-biden-trumpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Anselm L Strauss. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. S Shyam Sundar. 1998. Effect of source attribution on perception of online news stories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 75, 1 (1998), 55--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science, Vol. 359, 6380 (2018), 1146--1151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Emily K Vraga and Leticia Bode. 2017. Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, Vol. 39, 5 (2017), 621--645.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Emily K Vraga and Leticia Bode. 2020. Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Communication, Vol. 37, 1 (2020), 136--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan. 2017. Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe report, Vol. 27 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew. 2017. Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Liang Wu, Jundong Li, Xia Hu, and Huan Liu. 2017. Gleaning wisdom from the past: Early detection of emerging rumors in social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 SIAM international conference on data mining. SIAM, 99--107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Waheeb Yaqub, Otari Kakhidze, Morgan L Brockman, Nasir Memon, and Sameer Patil. 2020. Effects of Credibility Indicators on Social Media News Sharing Intent. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Amy X Zhang, Aditya Ranganathan, Sarah Emlen Metz, Scott Appling, Connie Moon Sehat, Norman Gilmore, Nick B Adams, Emmanuel Vincent, Jennifer Lee, Martin Robbins, et almbox. 2018. A structured response to misinformation: Defining and annotating credibility indicators in news articles. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018. 603--612.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Arkaitz Zubiaga, Maria Liakata, Rob Procter, Geraldine Wong Sak Hoi, and Peter Tolmie. 2016. Analysing how people orient to and spread rumours in social media by looking at conversational threads. PloS one, Vol. 11, 3 (2016), e0150989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

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

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!