Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

How Would I Be Perceived If I Challenge Individuals Sharing Misinformation? Exploring Misperceptions in the UK and Arab Samples and the Potential for the Social Norms Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Persuasive Technology (PERSUASIVE 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14636))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 491 Accesses

Abstract

Research conducted in the UK explored the presence of misperceptions, revealing that people anticipated more negative consequences for challenging misinformation on social media. These misperceptions include the anticipation of harming relationships, causing embarrassment and offense to others, the belief that challenging may not yield success and the perception that such behaviour is unacceptable. As the UK culture is characterised as individualistic, we replicated this investigation in a collectivistic culture-Arab societies. Our aim is to explore the differences and similarities of these misperceptions across cultures and to examine whether applying the social norms approach can be a solution to address the inaction towards challenging misinformation. Comparing the UK (N = 250) and Arabs (N = 212), we showed that, in both cultures there are misperceptions towards challenging misinformation. While misperceptions regarding concerning relationship costs and futility remain consistent across cultures the concerns about causing harm to others and the acceptability of the behaviour differ. Participants in the UK show a higher concern about offense or embarrassment, in contrast, participants in Arab countries exhibit higher misperceptions about injunctive norms, perceiving challenging misinformation as less socially acceptable than it actually is. This study also shows that participants’ likelihood to challenge misinformation is influenced by their misperceptions about potential harm to others and perceived injunctive norms. These findings present an opportunity to apply the social norms approach to behaviour change by addressing these misperceptions. Messages emphasising social acceptability of correcting misinformation and highlighting that people appreciate being corrected could serve as powerful tools to encourage users to challenge misinformation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., Aral, S.: The spread of true and false news online. Science 359(6380), 1146–1151 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Garrett, R.K., Weeks, B.E.: The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tanaka, Y., Sakamoto, Y., Matsuka, T.: Toward a social-technological system that inactivates false rumors through the critical thinking of crowds, pp. 649–658. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Guo, Z., Schlichtkrull, M., Vlachos, A.: A survey on automated fact-checking. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 10, 178–206 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Paul, S., et al.: Fake news detection in social media using blockchain. In: 2019 7th International Conference on Smart Computing & Communications (ICSCC). IEEE (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nakov, P., et al.: Overview of the CLEF–2021 CheckThat! lab on detecting check-worthy claims, previously fact-checked claims, and fake news. In: Candan, K.S., et al. (eds.) CLEF 2021. LNCS, vol. 12880, pp. 264–291. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85251-1_19

  7. de Oliveira, N.R., et al.: Identifying fake news on social networks based on natural language processing: trends and challenges. Information 12(1), 38 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fernandez, M., Alani, H.: Online misinformation: challenges and future directions. In: Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vraga, E.K., Bode, L.: Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Sci. Commun. 39(5), 621–645 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Walter, N., Murphy, S.T.: How to unring the bell: a meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Commun. Monogr. 85(3), 423–441 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bode, L., Vraga, E.K.: See something, say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Commun. 33, 1131 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tully, M., Bode, L., Vraga, E.K.: Mobilizing users: does exposure to misinformation and its correction affect users’ responses to a health misinformation post? Soc. Media + Soc. 6, 205630512097837 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chadwick, A., Vaccari, C.: News sharing on UK social media: misinformation, disinformation, and correction. In: 2019: Loughborough: Online Civic Culture Centre, Loughborough University (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tandoc, E.C., Lim, D., Ling, R.: Diffusion of disinformation: how social media users respond to fake news and why. Journalism 21(3), 381–398 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vicol, D.O.: Who is most likely to believe and to share misinformation? Full Fact. (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bode, L., Vraga, E.K.: Correction experiences on social media during COVID-19. Soc. Media + Soc. 7, 205630512110088 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bode, L., Vraga, E.K.: Value for correction: documenting perceptions about peer correction of misinformation on social media in the context of COVID-19. J. Quant. Description Digit. Media 1 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Swire, B., Ecker, U.: ELEVEN misinformation and its correction: cognitive mechanisms and recommendations for mass communication. In: Misinformation and Mass Audiences, pp. 195–211. University of Texas Press (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gurgun, S., et al.: Why do we not stand up to misinformation? Factors influencing the likelihood of challenging misinformation on social media and the role of demographics, in factors influencing the likelihood of challenging misinformation on social media and the role of demographics. Technol. Soc. 76, 102444 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cialdini, R.B., Trost, M.R.: Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn., vol. 1–2, pp. 151–192. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dempsey, R.C., McAlaney, J., Bewick, B.M.: A critical appraisal of the social norms approach as an interventional strategy for health-related behavior and attitude change. Front. Psychol. 9, 2180 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Berkowitz, A.D.: The social norms approach: theory, research, and annotated bibliography. Citeseer (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gurgun, S., et al.: Challenging Misinformation on Social Media: Users’ Perceptions and Misperceptions and Their Impact on the Likelihood to Challenge. Available at SSRN 4600006 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hofstede, G.: Country Comparison Tool (2023). https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-tool. Cited 2023

  26. Heinrichs, N., et al.: Cultural differences in perceived social norms and social anxiety. Behav. Res. Ther. 44(8), 1187–1197 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schreier, S.S., et al.: Social anxiety and social norms in individualistic and collectivistic countries. Depress. Anxiety 27(12), 1128–1134 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, vol. 5. Sage (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., Norenzayan, A.: The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33(2–3), 61–83 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chadwick, A., Vaccari, C., Hall, N.-A.: Covid vaccines and online personal messaging: the challenge of challenging everyday misinformation. Loughborough University (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tjosvold, D., Sun, H.F.: Understanding conflict avoidance: relationship, motivations, actions, and consequences. Int. J. Confl. Manage. 13, 142–164 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Adair, W.L., Okumura, T., Brett, J.M.: Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: the United States and Japan. J. Appl. Psychol. 86(3), 371 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mutz, D.C.: The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46, 838–855 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sleeper, M., et al.: The post that wasn’t: exploring self-censorship on Facebook (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Steen-Johnsen, K., Enjolras, B.: The fear of offending: social norms and freedom of expression. Society 53(4), 352–362 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-016-0044-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Van Houtte, M., Stevens, P.A.J.: Sense of futility: the missing link between track position and self-reported school misconduct. Youth Soc. 40(2), 245–264 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Brookover, W.B., et al.: Elementary school social climate and school achievement. Am. Educ. Res. J. 15(2), 301–318 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lapinski, M.K., Rimal, R.N.: An explication of social norms. Commun. Theory 15(2), 127–147 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rimal, R.N., Real, K.: Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Commun. Theory 13(2), 184–203 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Perkins, H.W.: The emergence and evolution of the social norms approach to substance abuse prevention. In: The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians, pp. 3–17 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  41. McAlaney, J., et al.: Personal and perceived peer use of and attitudes toward alcohol among university and college students in seven EU countries: project SNIPE. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 76(3), 430–438 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McAlaney, J., McMahon, J.: Normative beliefs, misperceptions, and heavy episodic drinking in a British student sample. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 68(3), 385–392 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Borsari, B., Carey, K.B.: Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: a meta-analytic integration. J. Stud. Alcohol 64(3), 331–341 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bandura, A.: Social Foundations of Thought and Action, pp. 23–28, Englewood Cliffs (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Berkowitz, A.D.: Applications of social norms theory to other health and social justice issues. In: Perkins, H.W. (ed.) The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians, pp. 259–279. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bowen, A.M., Bourgeois, M.J.: Attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: the contribution of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic social impact, and contact theories. J. Am. Coll. Health 50(2), 91–96 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lewis, M.A., et al.: Gender-specific normative misperceptions of risky sexual behavior and alcohol-related risky sexual behavior. Sex Roles 57(1–2), 81–90 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Carter, P.M., et al.: Social norms and risk perception: predictors of distracted driving behavior among novice adolescent drivers. J. Adolesc. Health. 54(5), S32–S41 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Statista, Q.: Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide as of 4th quarter 2015 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Centre for International Governance, I. and Ipsos, CIGI‐Ipsos Global Survey on Internet Security and Trust (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ellison, N.B., Boyd, D.: Sociality Through Social Network Sites. The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies, pp. 151–172 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kim, Y.: The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: the relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(2), 971–977 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Valenzuela, S., Kim, Y., Gil de Zúñiga, H.: Social networks that matter: exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. Int. J. Public Opinion Res. 24(2), 163–184 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Zhang, Z.-X., Wei, X.: Superficial harmony and conflict avoidance resulting from negative anticipation in the workplace. Manag. Organ. Rev. 13(4), 795–820 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhang, Z.-X., Zhang, Y., Wang, M.: Harmony, illusory relationship costs, and conflict resolution in Chinese contexts. In: Leung, A.K.Y., Chiu, C.-Y., Hong, Y.-Y. (eds.) Cultural Processes: A Social Psychological Perspective, pp. 188–209. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Milliken, F.J., Morrison, E.W., Hewlin, P.F.: An exploratory study of employee silence: issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. J. Manage. Stud. 40(6), 1453–1476 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Altay, S., Hacquin, A.-S., Mercier, H.: Why do so few people share fake news? It hurts their reputation. New Media Soc. 24, 1461444820969893 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hulin, C., Cudeck, R.: Cronbach’s alpha on two-item scales. J. Consum. Psychol. 10(1/2), 55 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sandstrom, M., Makover, H., Bartini, M.: Social context of bullying: do misperceptions of group norms influence children’s responses to witnessed episodes? Soc. Influ. 8(2–3), 196–215 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Perkins, J.M., Perkins, H.W., Craig, D.W.: Peer weight norm misperception as a risk factor for being over and underweight among UK secondary school students. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 64(9), 965–971 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kenney, S.R., LaBrie, J.W., Lac, A.: Injunctive peer misperceptions and the mediation of self-approval on risk for driving after drinking among college students. J. Health Commun. 18(4), 459–477 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Duong, H.T., Parker, L.: Going with the flow: young motorcyclists’ misperceived norms and motorcycle speeding behaviour. J. Soc. Mark. 8(3), 314–332 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Morris, M.W., et al.: Conflict management style: accounting for cross-national differences. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 29(4), 729–747 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kamehkhosh, N., Larina, T.V.: Cultural values and politeness strategies in British and Persian family discourse. In: Proceedings of INTCESS, p. 7 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Larina, T.: Directness, imposition and politeness in English and Russian. Cambridge ESOL Res. Notes 33, 33–38 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Triandis, H.C.: Culture and social behavior (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  68. McAlaney, J., et al.: Perceptions and misperceptions of smartphone use: applying the social norms approach. Information 11(11), 513 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Reid, A.E., Aiken, L.S.: Correcting injunctive norm misperceptions motivates behavior change: a randomized controlled sun protection intervention. Health Psychol. 32(5), 551 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wickström, G., Bendix, T.: The “Hawthorne effect”—what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 26, 363–367 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Hoorens, V.: Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 4(1), 113–139 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Brown, J.D.: Evaluations of self and others: self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Soc. Cogn. 4(4), 353–376 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., Schwarz, N.: Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Grimm, P.: Social Desirability Bias. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. Wiley, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This publication was supported by NPRP 14 Cluster grant # NPRP 14C-0916–210015 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The findings herein reflect the work and are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK

    Selin Gurgun, Emily Arden-Close & Keith Phalp

  2. College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar

    Muaadh Noman & Raian Ali

Authors
  1. Selin Gurgun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muaadh Noman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily Arden-Close
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Keith Phalp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raian Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Selin Gurgun .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

    Nilufar Baghaei

  2. Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar

    Raian Ali

  3. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    Khin Win

  4. York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kiemute Oyibo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gurgun, S., Noman, M., Arden-Close, E., Phalp, K., Ali, R. (2024). How Would I Be Perceived If I Challenge Individuals Sharing Misinformation? Exploring Misperceptions in the UK and Arab Samples and the Potential for the Social Norms Approach. In: Baghaei, N., Ali, R., Win, K., Oyibo, K. (eds) Persuasive Technology. PERSUASIVE 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14636. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58226-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58226-4_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-58225-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-58226-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation