Exploring the impact of automated correction of misinformation in social media
Abstract
Correcting misinformation is a complex task, influenced by various psychological, social, and technical factors. Most research evaluation methods for identifying effective correction approaches tend to rely on either crowdsourcing, questionnaires, lab‐based simulations, or hypothetical scenarios. However, the translation of these methods and findings into real‐world settings, where individuals willingly and freely disseminate misinformation, remains largely unexplored. Consequently, we lack a comprehensive understanding of how individuals who share misinformation in natural online environments would respond to corrective interventions. In this study, we explore the effectiveness of corrective messaging on 3898 users who shared misinformation on Twitter/X over 2 years. We designed and deployed a bot to automatically identify individuals who share misinformation and subsequently alert them to related fact‐checks in various message formats. Our analysis shows that only a small minority of users react positively to the corrective messages, with most users either ignoring them or reacting negatively. Nevertheless, we also found that more active users were proportionally more likely to react positively to corrections and we observed that different message tones made particular user groups more likely to react to the bot.
References
[1]
Berinsky, Adam J., Rocky Cole, Ziv Epstein, Kiran Garimella, Andrew Gully, Jackson G. Lu, Robert M. Ross, et al. 2023. “Understanding and Combating Misinformation Across 16 Countries on Six Continents.” Nature Human Behaviour 7: 1502–1513.
[2]
Bode, Leticia, Emily K. Vraga, and Melissa Tully. 2020. “Do the Right Thing: Tone May Not Affect Correction of Misinformation on Social Media.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
[3]
Boukes, Mark, and Michael Hameleers. 2023. “Fighting Lies with Facts or Humor: Comparing the Effectiveness of Satirical and Regular Fact‐Checks in Response to Misinformation and Disinformation.” Communication Monographs 90(1): 69–91.
[4]
Braun, Daniel. 2023. “I Beg to Differ: How Disagreement is Handled in the Annotation of Legal Machine Learning Data Sets.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 1–24. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506‐023‐09369‐4
[5]
Buchanan, T. 2020. “Why do People Spread False Information Online? The Effects of Message and Viewer Characteristics on Self‐Reported Likelihood of Sharing Social Media Disinformation.” PLoS One 15(10): e0239666.
[6]
Burel, Grégoire, and Harith Alani. September 2023. “The Fact‐Checking Observatory: Reporting the Co‐Spread of Misinformation and Fact‐Checks on Social Media.” In HT '23: Proceedings of the 34th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM.
[7]
Burel, Grégoire, Tracie Farrell, and Harith Alani. 2021. “Demographics and Topics Impact on the Co‐Spread of Covid‐19 Misinformation and Fact‐Checks on Twitter.” Information Processing & Management 58(6): 102732.
[8]
Burel, Gregoire, Tracie Farrell, Martino Mensio, Prashant Khare, and Harith Alani. 2020. “Co‐Spread of Misinformation and Fact‐Checking Content During the Covid‐19 Pandemic.” In Proceedings of the 12th International Social Informatics Conference (SocInfo), LNCS.
[9]
Chan, M.‐P. S., C. R. Jones, K. H. Jamieson, and D. Albarracín. 2017. “Debunking: A Meta‐Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation.” Psychological Science 28: 1531–1546.
[10]
Ecker Lewandowsky, S, Ullrich K. H., Colleen M. Seifert, Norbert Schwarz, and John Cook. 2012. “Misinformation and its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 13(3): 106–131.
[11]
Ecker, Ullrich K. H., Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Philipp Schmid, Lisa K. Fazio, Nadia Brashier, Panayiota Kendeou, Emily K. Vraga, and Michelle A. Amazeen. 2022. “The Psychological Drivers of Misinformation Belief and its Resistance to Correction.” Nature Reviews Psychology 1(1): 13–29.
[12]
Ecker, Ullrich K. H., Ziggy O'Reilly, Jesse S. Reid, and Ee Pin Chang. 2020. “The Effectiveness of Short‐Format Refutational Fact‐Checks.” British Journal of Psychology 111(1): 36–54.
[13]
Flintham, Martin, 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.
[14]
Fridkin, Kim, Patrick J. Kenney, and Amanda Wintersieck. 2015. “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: How Fact‐Checking Influences Citizens' Reactions to Negative Advertising.” Political Communication 32(1): 127–151.
[15]
Friggeri, Adrien, Lada Adamic, Dean Eckles, and Justin Cheng. 2014. “Rumor Cascades.” In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14559.
[16]
Gwiaździński, Paweł, Aleksander B. Gundersen, Michal Piksa, Izabela Krysińska, Jonas R. Kunst, Karolina Noworyta, Agata Olejniuk, et al. 2023. “Psychological Interventions Countering Misinformation in Social Media: A Scoping Review.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 13: 974782.
[17]
Hameleers, Michael, and Toni G. L. A. van der Meer. 2020. “Misinformation and Polarization in a High‐Choice Media Environment: How Effective are Political Fact‐Checkers?” Communication Research 47(2): 227–250.
[18]
He, Bing, Mustaque Ahamad, and Srijan Kumar. 2023. “Reinforcement Learning‐Based Counter‐Misinformation Response Generation: A Case Study of Covid‐19 Vaccine Misinformation.” In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, 2698–2709.
[19]
Heckman, James J. 1990. “Selection Bias and Self‐Selection.” In Econometrics: The New Palgrave, edited by John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
[20]
Huang, Yan, and Weirui Wang. 2022. “When a Story Contradicts: Correcting Health Misinformation on Social Media Through Different Message Formats and Mechanisms.” Information, Communication & Society 25(8): 1192–1209.
[21]
Kozyreva, Anastasia, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Ralph Hertwig. 2020. “Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges with Cognitive Tools.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 21(3): 103–156.
[22]
Kozyreva, Anastasia, Philipp Lorenz‐Spreen, Stefan M. Herzog, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ralph Hertwig. Ayesha Ali, et al. 2022. “Toolbox of Interventions Against Online Misinformation and Manipulation.” PsyArXiv. December 16. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x8ejt
[23]
Lee, Jiyoung, and Kim Bissell. 2023. “User Agency–Based Versus Machine Agency–Based Misinformation Interventions: The Effects of Commenting and AI Fact‐Checking Labeling on Attitudes Toward the Covid‐19 Vaccination.” New Media & Society 14614448231163228.
[24]
Mensio, Martino, Gregoire Burel, Tracie Farrell, and Harith Alani. 2023. “MisinfoMe: A Tool for Longitudinal Assessment of Twitter Accounts' Sharing of Misinformation.” In UMAP '23: 31st ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, 72–75. ACM.
[25]
Momen Bhuiyan, Md, Kexin Zhang, Kelsey Vick, Michael A. Horning, and Tanushree Mitra. 2018. “FeedReflect: A Tool for Nudging Users to Assess News Credibility on Twitter.” In Companion of the 2018 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 205–208.
[26]
Mosleh, Mohsen, Cameron Martel, Dean Eckles, and David Rand. 2021. “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 Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13.
[27]
Nyhan, Brendan, Ethan Porter, Jason Reifler, and Thomas J. Wood. 2020. “Taking Fact‐Checks Literally but not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact‐Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability.” Political Behavior 42: 939–960.
[28]
Nyhan, Brendan, and Jason Reifler. 2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior, 32: 303–330.
[29]
Oortwijn, Yvette, Thijs Ossenkoppele, and Arianna Betti. 2021. “Interrater Disagreement Resolution: A Systematic Procedure to Reach Consensus in Annotation Tasks.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human Evaluation of NLP Systems (HumEval), 131–141.
[30]
Opgenhaffen, Michael. 2022. “Fact‐Checking Interventions on Social Media Using Cartoon Figures: Lessons Learned from “The Tooties”.” Digital Journalism 10(5): 888–911.
[31]
Pennycook, Gordon, David Rand, Brian Guay, and Adam J. Berinsky. 2023. “How to Think About Whether Misinformation Interventions Work.” Nature Human Behaviour 7: 1231–1233.
[32]
Piccolo, Lara, Azizah C. Blackwood, Tracie Farrell, and Martino Mensio. July 2021. “Agents for Fighting Misinformation Spread on Twitter: Design Challenges.” In Conversational User Interfaces CUI 2021. New York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
[33]
Qian Tay, Li, Mark J. Hurlstone, Tim Kurz, and Ullrich K. H. Ecker. 2022. “A Comparison of Prebunking and Debunking Interventions for Implied Versus Explicit Misinformation.” British Journal of Psychology 113(3): 591–607.
[34]
Swire‐Thompson, Briony, John Cook, Lucy H. Butler, Jasmyne A. Sanderson, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Ullrich K. H. Ecker. 2021. “Correction Format has A Limited Role when Debunking Misinformation.” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 6(1): 83.
[35]
Swire, Briony, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, and Stephan Lewandowsky. 2017. “The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 43(12): 1948–1961.
[36]
Velez, Yamil R., Ethan Porter, and Thomas J. Wood. 2023. “Latino‐Targeted Misinformation and the Power of Factual Corrections.” The Journal of Politics 85(2): 789–794.
[37]
Wang, Austin Horng‐En. 2022. “PM Me the Truth? The Conditional Effectiveness of Fact‐Checks Across Social Media Sites.” Social Media+ Society 8(2): 20563051221098347.
[38]
Whitehead, Hannah S., Clare E. French, Deborah M. Caldwell, Louise Letley, and Sandra Mounier‐Jack. 2023. “A Systematic Review of Communication Interventions for Countering Vaccine Misinformation.” Vaccine 41: 1018–1034.
[39]
Wood, Thomas, and Ethan Porter. 2019. “The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes' Steadfast Factual Adherence.” Political Behavior 41: 135–163.
[40]
Zhang, Yuqi, Bin Guo, Yasan Ding, Jiaqi Liu, Chen Qiu, Sicong Liu, and Zhiwen Yu. 2022. “Investigation of the Determinants for Misinformation Correction Effectiveness on Social Media During Covid‐19 Pandemic.” Information Processing & Management 59(3): 102935.
Recommendations
The diffusion of misinformation on social media
This study examines dynamic communication processes of political misinformation on social media focusing on three components: the temporal pattern, content mutation, and sources of misinformation. We traced the lifecycle of 17 popular political rumors ...
Spread of misinformation on social media: What contributes to it and how to combat it
AbstractWith the prevalence and increasing impact of misinformation on social media, numerous studies have explored the characteristics of misinformation. However, we lack a holistic understanding of what factors contribute to the viral spread ...
Highlights- This systematic review summarizes findings from 423 studies that were published between 2010 and 2021
A statistical approach for reducing misinformation propagation on twitter social media
Highlights- To address the menace of misinformation by computing the credibility of Twitter users.
AbstractMisinformation on Twitter has caused havoc all over the world, thus posing a prime cybersecurity concern. Hence, our research objective is to tackle the menace of infodemic by computing the credibility of Twitter users. Our proposed ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
© 2024 The Author(s). AI Magazine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Publisher
American Association for Artificial Intelligence
United States
Publication History
Published: 04 June 2024
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 12 Aug 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in