skip to main content
research-article

By the Crowd and for the Crowd: Perceived Utility and Willingness to Contribute to Trustworthiness Indicators on Social Media

Published:13 July 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This study explores how people perceive the potential utility of trustworthiness indicators and how willing they are to consider contributing to them as a way to combat the problem of misinformation and disinformation on social media. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data from the survey (N=376) indicates that a majority of respondents believe trustworthiness indicators would be valuable as they can reduce uncertainty and provide guidance on how to interact with content. However, perceptions of how and when these indicators can provide value vary widely in detail. A majority of respondents are also willing to contribute to trustworthiness indicators on social media to some extent due to their sense of duty and personal expertise in information verification practices but are very wary of the effort or burden it would place on them. Respondents who did not want to use or contribute to trustworthiness indicators attributed it to their lack of faith in the concept of trustworthiness indicators stemming from perceived inherent and unsurmountable biases on social media. Together our findings highlight the complexity of designing, structuring and presenting trustworthiness indicators keeping in mind the diverse set of user attitudes and perceptions.

References

  1. Maansi Bansal-Travers, David Hammond, Philip Smith, and K. Michael Cummings. 2011. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. Am J Prev Med 40, 6 (June 2011), 674--682. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.021Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Anna E. Bargagliotti and Lingfang (Ivy) Li. 2013. Decision Making Using Rating Systems: When Scale Meets Binary. Decision Sciences 44, 6 (2013), 1121--1137. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12049Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bill Bishop. Americans have lost faith in institutions. That's not because of Trump or 'fake news.' Washington Post. Retrieved May 12, 2020 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/03/americans-have-lost-faith-in-institutions-thats-not-because-of-trump-or-fake-news/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga. 2015. In Related News, That Was Wrong: The Correction of Misinformation Through Related Stories Functionality in Social Media. JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 65, 4 (August 2015), 619--638. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Shannon Bond. 2020. Twitter Expands Warning Labels To Slow Spread of Election Misinformation?: NPR. Retrieved October 24, 2020 from https://www.npr.org/2020/10/09/922028482/twitter-expands-warning-labels-to-slow-spread-of-election-misinformationGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Manuel Cabrera, Leandro Machín, Alejandra Arrúa, Lucía Antúnez, María Rosa Curutchet, Ana Giménez, and Gastón Ares. 2017. Nutrition warnings as front-of-pack labels: influence of design features on healthfulness perception and attentional capture. Public Health Nutr 20, 18 (December 2017), 3360--3371. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898001700249XGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Katherine Clayton, Spencer Blair, Jonathan A. Busam, Samuel Forstner, John Glance, Guy Green, Anna Kawata, Akhila Kovvuri, Jonathan Martin, Evan Morgan, Morgan Sandhu, Rachel Sang, Rachel Scholz-Bright, Austin T. Welch, Andrew G. Wolff, Amanda Zhou, and Brendan Nyhan. 2019. Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the Effectiveness of General Warnings and Fact-Check Tags in Reducing Belief in False Stories on Social Media. Polit Behav (February 2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2007. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd edition ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc, Los Angeles, Calif.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Dan Cosley, Shyong K. Lam, Istvan Albert, Joseph A. Konstan, and John Riedl. 2003. Is seeing believing? how recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03), Association for Computing Machinery, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 585--592. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642713 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, and David T. W. Tang. 2010. Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Mem Cognit 38, 8 (December 2010), 1087--1100. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.8.1087Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Mingkun Gao, Ziang Xiao, Karrie Karahalios, and Wai-Tat Fu. 2018. To Label or Not to Label: The Effect of Stance and Credibility Labels on Readers' Selection and Perception of News Articles. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (November 2018), 55:1--55:16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3274324 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Andrew M. Guess, Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. 2020. Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nat Hum Behav (March 2020), 1--9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0833-xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hendrik Heuer and Andreas Breiter. 2018. Trust in news on social media. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI '18), Association for Computing Machinery, Oslo, Norway, 137--147. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240172 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Avery E. Holton, Mark Coddington, and Homero Gil de Zúñiga. 2013. Whose News? Whose Values? Journalism Practice 7, 6 (December 2013), 720--737. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.766062Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Nabil Jeddi and Imed Zaiem. 2010. The Impact of Label Perception on the Consumer's Purchase Intention: An application on food products. IBIMA Business Review (January 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Shan Jiang and Christo Wilson. 2018. Linguistic Signals under Misinformation and Fact-Checking: Evidence from User Comments on Social Media. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (November 2018), 82:1--82:23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3274351 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Michael Kranish. 2014. Facebook draws fire on ?related articles' push - The Boston Globe. The Boston Globe. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/05/03/facebook-push-related-articles-users-without-checking-credibility-draws-fire/rPae4M2LlzpVHIJAmfDYNL/story.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Travis Kriplean, Jonathan Morgan, Deen Freelon, Alan Borning, and Lance Bennett. 2012. Supporting reflective public thought with considerit. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '12), Association for Computing Machinery, Seattle, Washington, USA, 265--274. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145249 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Issie Lapowsky. Gallup Poll: Labeling Sites May Help Stop Fake News Spread. Wired. Retrieved May 12, 2020 from https://www.wired.com/story/gallup-poll-fake-news-ratings/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Alex Leavitt and John J. Robinson. 2017. Upvote My News: The Practices of Peer Information Aggregation for Breaking News on reddit.com. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, CSCW (December 2017), 65:1--65:18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3134700 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rachel Lerman. Facebook says it has taken down 7 million posts for spreading coronavirus misinformation. Washington Post. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/08/11/facebook-covid-misinformation-takedowns/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Colleen M. Seifert, Norbert Schwarz, and John Cook. 2012. Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest 13, 3 (December 2012), 106--131. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Tessa Lyons. 2017. Replacing Disputed Flags With Related Articles. Facebook News. Retrieved May 12, 2020 from https://about.fb.com/news/2017/12/news-feed-fyi-updates-in-our-fight-against-misinformation/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Warih Maharani, Dwi H. Widyantoro, and Masayu L. Khodra. 2016. Discovering Users' Perceptions on Rating Visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference in HCI and UX Indonesia 2016 (CHIuXiD '16), Association for Computing Machinery, Jakarta, Indonesia, 31--38. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2898459.2898464 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Patricia Moravec, Randall Minas, and Alan Dennis. 2019. Fake News on Social Media: People Believe What They Want to Believe When it Makes No Sense At All. MIS Quarterly 43, 4 (2019), 1343--1360. DOI:https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/15505Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Adam Mosseri. 2016. Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News. Facebook News. Retrieved May 12, 2020 from https://about.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-addressing-hoaxes-and-fake-news/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Nic Newman, Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, David A.L. Levy, and Rasmus Kleis Neilsen. 2017. Digital News Report 2017. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved May 11, 2020 from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital%20News%20Report%202017%20web_0.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Rasmus Kleis Nielsen and Lucas Graves. 2017. "News you don't believe": Audience perspectives on fake news. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved May 11, 2020 from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/news-you-dont-believe-audience-perspectives-fake-newsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler. 2010. When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Polit Behav 32, 2 (June 2010), 303--330. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010--9112--2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Denise-Marie Ordway, Journalist's Resource September 1, and 2017. 2017. Fake news and the spread of misinformation: A research roundup. Journalist's Resource. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/internet/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Will Oremus. 2019. These Startups Want to Protect You From Fake News. Can You Trust Them? Slate Magazine. Retrieved May 12, 2020 from https://slate.com/technology/2019/01/newsguard-nuzzelrank-media-ratings-fake-news.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Gordon Pennycook, Adam Bear, and Evan Collins. 2019. The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Headlines Increases Perceived Accuracy of Headlines Without Warnings. Management Science (August 2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Gordon Pennycook, Tyrone Cannon, and David G. Rand. 2018. Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2958246Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sarah Perez. 2020. Twitter to add labels and warning messages to disputed and misleading COVID-19 info. TechCrunch. Retrieved October 24, 2020 from https://social.techcrunch.com/2020/05/11/twitter-to-add-labels-and-warning-messages-to-disputed-and-misleading-covid-19-info/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Yoel Roth and Nick Pickles. 2020. Updating our approach to misleading information. Retrieved October 24, 2020 from https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonathon P. Schuldt. 2013. Does Green Mean Healthy? Nutrition Label Color Affects Perceptions of Healthfulness. Health Communication 28, 8 (November 2013), 814--821. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.725270Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Haeseung Seo, Aiping Xiong, and Dongwon Lee. 2019. Trust It or Not: Effects of Machine-Learning Warnings in Helping Individuals Mitigate Misinformation. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science (WebSci '19), Association for Computing Machinery, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 265--274. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3292522.3326012 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Ricky J. Sethi. 2017. Crowdsourcing the Verification of Fake News and Alternative Facts. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT '17), Association for Computing Machinery, Prague, Czech Republic, 315--316. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3078714.3078746 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Chengcheng Shao, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2016. Hoaxy: A Platform for Tracking Online Misinformation. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (WWW '16 Companion), International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 745--750. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2872518.2890098 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Kai Shu, Amy Sliva, Suhang Wang, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. 2017. Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 19, 1 (September 2017), 22--36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3137597.3137600 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. E. Isaac Sparling and Shilad Sen. 2011. Rating: how difficult is it? In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems (RecSys '11), Association for Computing Machinery, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 149--156. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2043932.2043961 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Kate Starbird, Ahmer Arif, and Tom Wilson. 2019. Disinformation as Collaborative Work: Surfacing the Participatory Nature of Strategic Information Operations. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW (November 2019), 127:1--127:26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359229 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Brian Stelter. 2016. Facebook to start putting warning labels on "fake news." Retrieved October 24, 2020 from https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/15/media/facebook-fake-news-warning-labels/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Briony Swire-Thompson, Joseph DeGutis, and David Lazer. 2020. Searching for the Backfire Effect: Measurement and Design Considerations. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 9, 3 (September 2020), 286--299. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Sebastian Tschiatschek, Adish Singla, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, Arpit Merchant, and Andreas Krause. 2018. Fake News Detection in Social Networks via Crowd Signals. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018 (WWW '18), International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Lyon, France, 517--524. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3184558.3188722 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Georgia Wells. 2020. Twitter to Add Labels to Disputed Coronavirus Posts, as Misinformation Proliferates. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 16, 2020 from https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-to-add-labels-to-disputed-coronavirus-posts-as-misinformation-proliferates-11589226911Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Georgia Wells and Lukas I. Alpert. 2018. In Facebook's Effort to Fight Fake News, Human Fact-Checkers Struggle to Keep Up. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-facebooks-effort-to-fight-fake-news-human-fact-checkers-play-a-supporting-role-1539856800Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Darrell M. West. 2017. How to combat fake news and disinformation. Retrieved May 11, 2020 from https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-combat-fake-news-and-disinformation/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Tom Wilson, Kaitlyn Zhou, and Kate Starbird. 2018. Assembling Strategic Narratives: Information Operations as Collaborative Work within an Online Community. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (November 2018), 183:1--183:26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3274452 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Chen Xu and Qin Zhang. 2019. The dominant factor of social tags for users' decision behavior on e-commerce websites: Color or text. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 70, 9 (2019), 942--953. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24118Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. 2018. A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation: report of the independent High-level Group on fake news and online disinformation. Publication Office of European Union. Retrieved May 11, 2020 from http://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6ef4df8b-4cea-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. How Facebook's Fact-Checking Program Works. How Facebook's Fact-Checking Program Works. Retrieved October 24, 2020 from https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking/how-it-worksGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. By the Crowd and for the Crowd: Perceived Utility and Willingness to Contribute to Trustworthiness Indicators 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!