Inside the echo chamber: Linguistic underpinnings of misinformation on Twitter
Pages 31 - 41
Abstract
Social media users drive the spread of misinformation online by sharing posts that include erroneous information or commenting on controversial topics with unsubstantiated arguments often in earnest. Work on echo chambers has suggested that users’ perspectives are reinforced through repeated interactions with like-minded peers, promoted by homophily and bias in information diffusion. Building on long-standing interest in the social bases of language and linguistic underpinnings of social behavior, this work explores how conversations around misinformation are mediated through language use. We compare a number of linguistic measures, e.g., in-/out-group cues, readability, and discourse connectives, within and across topics of conversation and user communities. Our findings reveal increased presence of group identity signals and processing fluency within echo chambers during discussions of misinformation. We discuss the specific character of these broader trends across topics and examine contextual influences.
Supplemental Material
MP4 File - Uni_Stgt_Web-Science_Xinyu_Wang_240604
Inside the echo chamber: Linguistic underpinnings of misinformation on Twitter
- Download
- 592.74 MB
References
[1]
Elissa M Abrams and Matthew Greenhawt. 2020. Mitigating misinformation and changing the social narrative. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 8, 10 (2020), 3261–3263.
[2]
Aseel Addawood, Adam Badawy, Kristina Lerman, and Emilio Ferrara. 2019. Linguistic cues to deception: Identifying political trolls on social media. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Vol. 13. 15–25.
[3]
Nor Aishah Ahad, Suhaida Abdullah, Choo Heng Lai, and Nazihah Mohd Ali. 2012. Relative power performance of t-test and bootstrap procedure for two-sample. Pertanika Journal of Science & Technology 20, 1 (2012), 43–52.
[4]
Hunt Allcott, Matthew Gentzkow, and Chuan Yu. 2019. Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics 6, 2 (2019), 2053168019848554.
[5]
Adam L Alter and Daniel M Oppenheimer. 2009. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and social psychology review 13, 3 (2009), 219–235.
[6]
John Robert Anderson and Jane Crawford. 1980. Cognitive psychology and its implications. wh freeman San Francisco.
[7]
Richard C Bailey. 2013. Increasing processing fluency in the classroom instructional system. CELE Journal 21 (2013), 43–52.
[8]
Pablo Barberá. 2020. Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform 34 (2020).
[9]
Pablo Barberá, John T Jost, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A Tucker, and Richard Bonneau. 2015. Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological science 26, 10 (2015), 1531–1542.
[10]
Christian Bentz, Dan Dediu, Annemarie Verkerk, and Gerhard Jäger. 2018. The evolution of language families is shaped by the environment beyond neutral drift. Nature Human Behaviour 2, 11 (2018), 816–821.
[11]
Bethan Benwell. 2006. Discourse and identity. Edinburgh University Press.
[12]
Jan Blommaert. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press.
[13]
J Scott Brennen, Felix M Simon, Philip N Howard, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2020. Types, sources, and claims of COVID-19 misinformation. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Oxford.
[14]
Marilynn B Brewer 1999. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of social issues 55 (1999), 429–444.
[15]
Axel Bruns. 2017. Echo chamber? What echo chamber? Reviewing the evidence. In 6th Biennial Future of Journalism Conference (FOJ17).
[16]
Leonardo Bursztyn, Aakaash Rao, Christopher P Roth, and David H Yanagizawa-Drott. 2020. Misinformation during a pandemic. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.
[17]
Rossella Canestrino, Pierpaolo Magliocca, and Yang Li. 2022. The Impact of Language Diversity on Knowledge Sharing Within International University Research Teams: Evidence From TED Project. Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022), 879154.
[18]
Shelly Chaiken and Alison Ledgerwood. 2012. A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. Handbook of theories of social psychology 1 (2012), 246–266.
[19]
Matteo Cinelli, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Alessandro Galeazzi, Walter Quattrociocchi, and Michele Starnini. 2021. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 9 (2021).
[20]
Wesley Cota, Silvio C Ferreira, Romualdo Pastor-Satorras, and Michele Starnini. 2019. Quantifying echo chamber effects in information spreading over political communication networks. EPJ Data Science 8, 1 (2019), 35.
[21]
Ludivine Crible, Mathis Wetzel, and Sandrine Zufferey. 2021. Lexical and structural cues to discourse processing in first and second language. Frontiers in psychology 12 (2021), 685491.
[22]
Scott A Crossley, Kristopher Kyle, and Danielle S McNamara. 2016. The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior research methods 48, 4 (2016), 1227–1237.
[23]
Sergio Currarini, Matthew O Jackson, and Paolo Pin. 2009. An economic model of friendship: Homophily, minorities, and segregation. Econometrica 77, 4 (2009), 1003–1045.
[24]
Rick Dale and Gary Lupyan. 2012. Understanding the origins of morphological diversity: The linguistic niche hypothesis. Advances in complex systems 15, 03n04 (2012), 1150017.
[25]
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 113, 3 (2016), 554–559.
[26]
Jorge Faber and Lilian Martins Fonseca. 2014. How sample size influences research outcomes. Dental press journal of orthodontics 19 (2014), 27–29.
[27]
Anjalie Field, Chan Young Park, Antonio Theophilo, Jamelle Watson-Daniels, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2022. An analysis of emotions and the prominence of positivity in# BlackLivesMatter tweets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 35 (2022), e2205767119.
[28]
Rudolph Flesch. 1948. A new readability yardstick.Journal of applied psychology 32, 3 (1948), 221.
[29]
John Fox and Sanford Weisberg. 2002. Bootstrapping regression models. An R and S-PLUS Companion to Applied Regression: A Web Appendix to the Book. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. URL http://cran. r-project. org/doc/contrib/Fox-Companion/appendix-bootstrapping. pdf (2002).
[30]
Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé Iii, and Kate Crawford. 2021. Datasheets for datasets. Commun. ACM 64, 12 (2021), 86–92.
[31]
Steven Greene. 2004. Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly 85, 1 (2004), 136–153.
[32]
“Five Graces Group”, Clay Beckner, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language learning 59 (2009), 1–26.
[33]
Andrew Guess, Brendan Nyhan, Benjamin Lyons, and Jason Reifler. 2018. Avoiding the echo chamber about echo chambers. Knight Foundation 2 (2018), 1–25.
[34]
Lynn Hasher, David Goldstein, and Thomas Toppino. 1977. Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior 16, 1 (1977), 107–112.
[35]
Isabel Íñigo-Mora. 2004. On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics 3, 1 (2004), 27–52.
[36]
Natascha A Karlova and Karen E Fisher. 2013. A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation for understanding human information behaviour. (2013).
[37]
KP Krishna Kumar and G Geethakumari. 2014. Detecting misinformation in online social networks using cognitive psychology. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences 4, 1 (2014), 1–22.
[38]
Haewoon Kwak, Changhyun Lee, Hosung Park, and Sue Moon. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. 591–600.
[39]
Ro’ee Levy. 2021. Social media, news consumption, and polarization: Evidence from a field experiment. American economic review 111, 3 (2021), 831–70.
[40]
Jianing Li and Min-Hsin Su. 2020. Real talk about fake news: Identity language and disconnected networks of the US public’s “fake news” discourse on Twitter. Social Media+ Society 6, 2 (2020), 2056305120916841.
[41]
Thomas Lumley, Paula Diehr, Scott Emerson, and Lu Chen. 2002. The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annual review of public health 23, 1 (2002), 151–169.
[42]
Gary Lupyan and Rick Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PloS one 5, 1 (2010), e8559.
[43]
Gary Lupyan and Rick Dale. 2016. Why are there different languages? The role of adaptation in linguistic diversity. Trends in cognitive sciences 20, 9 (2016), 649–660.
[44]
Alice E Marwick and William Clyde Partin. 2022. Constructing alternative facts: Populist expertise and the QAnon conspiracy. New Media & Society (2022), 14614448221090201.
[45]
Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology 27, 1 (2001), 415–444.
[46]
Lesley Milroy and James Milroy. 1992. Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model1. Language in society 21, 1 (1992), 1–26.
[47]
Daniel M Oppenheimer. 2008. The secret life of fluency. Trends in cognitive sciences 12, 6 (2008), 237–241.
[48]
Ethan Pancer, Vincent Chandler, Maxwell Poole, and Theodore J Noseworthy. 2019. How readability shapes social media engagement. Journal of Consumer Psychology 29, 2 (2019), 262–270.
[49]
Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc.2022. INTRODUCING LIWC-22 A NEW SET OF TEXT ANALYSIS TOOLS AT YOUR FINGERTIPS. https://www.liwc.app/
[50]
Alastair Pennycook. 1994. The politics of pronouns. (1994).
[51]
Gordon Pennycook, Tyrone D Cannon, and David G Rand. 2018. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news.Journal of experimental psychology: general 147, 12 (2018), 1865.
[52]
RE Petty and DT Wegener. 1999. The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies In Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37–72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.[Google Scholar] (1999).
[53]
E Petty Richard and John T Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change.
[54]
Steve Rathje, Jay J Van Bavel, and Sander van der Linden. 2021. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 26 (2021).
[55]
Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer, and Shiri Lev-Ari. 2020. The role of social network structure in the emergence of linguistic structure. Cognitive Science 44, 8 (2020), e12876.
[56]
Rolf Reber. 2012. Processing fluency, aesthetic pleasure, and culturally shared taste. Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (2012), 223–249.
[57]
Rolf Reber and Christian Unkelbach. 2010. The epistemic status of processing fluency as source for judgments of truth. Review of philosophy and psychology 1, 4 (2010), 563–581.
[58]
Rolf Reber, Piotr Winkielman, and Norbert Schwarz. 1998. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological science 9, 1 (1998), 45–48.
[59]
Samuel C Rhodes. 2022. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news: how social media conditions individuals to be less critical of political misinformation. Political Communication 39, 1 (2022), 1–22.
[60]
Catherine M Ridings, David Gefen, and Bay Arinze. 2002. Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The journal of strategic information systems 11, 3-4 (2002), 271–295.
[61]
Seán Roberts and James Winters. 2012. Social structure and language structure: The new nomothetic approach. Psychology of Language and Communication 16, 2 (2012), 89–112.
[62]
Nancy L Rosenblum and Russell Muirhead. 2019. 1. Conspiracy without the Theory. In A Lot of People Are Saying. Princeton University Press, 19–41.
[63]
Jieun Shin, Lian Jian, Kevin Driscoll, and François Bar. 2018. The diffusion of misinformation on social media: Temporal pattern, message, and source. Computers in Human Behavior 83 (2018), 278–287.
[64]
Herbert A Simon. 1978. Information-processing theory of human problem solving. Handbook of learning and cognitive processes 5 (1978), 271–295.
[65]
Andrew N Smith, Eileen Fischer, and Chen Yongjian. 2012. How does brand-related user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?Journal of interactive marketing 26, 2 (2012), 102–113.
[66]
Jan E Stets and Peter J Burke. 2000. Identity theory and social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly (2000), 224–237.
[67]
Caroline Tagg and Philip Seargeant. 2014. The language of social media: Identity and community on the internet. Palgrave Macmillan.
[68]
Henri Tajfel and John C Turner. 2004. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. (2004).
[69]
Henri Tajfel, John C Turner, William G Austin, and Stephen Worchel. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader 56, 65 (1979), 9780203505984–16.
[70]
Alexander Todorov, Shelly Chaiken, and Marlone D Henderson. 2002. The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice 23 (2002), 195–211.
[71]
Sabine Trepte and Laura S Loy. 2017. Social identity theory and self-categorization theory. The international encyclopedia of media effects (2017), 1–13.
[72]
Craig W Trumbo. 1999. Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Analysis 19, 3 (1999), 391–400.
[73]
Christian Unkelbach and Sarah C Rom. 2017. A referential theory of the repetition-induced truth effect. Cognition 160 (2017), 110–126.
[74]
Christian Unkelbach and Felix Speckmann. 2021. Mere Repetition Increases Belief in Factually True COVID-19-Related Information. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (2021).
[75]
Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 6380 (2018), 1146–1151.
[76]
Ying Xiong, Moonhee Cho, and Brandon Boatwright. 2019. Hashtag activism and message frames among social movement organizations: Semantic network analysis and thematic analysis of Twitter during the# MeToo movement. Public relations review 45, 1 (2019), 10–23.
[77]
Michele Zappavigna. 2011. Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New media & society 13, 5 (2011), 788–806.
[78]
Michele Zappavigna. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. Vol. 6. A&C Black.
[79]
Michele Zappavigna. 2014. Enacting identity in microblogging through ambient affiliation. Discourse & Communication 8, 2 (2014), 209–228.
[80]
Justine Zhang, William Hamilton, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Dan Jurafsky, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Community identity and user engagement in a multi-community landscape. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 11.
[81]
Melissa Zimdars and Kembrew McLeod. 2020. Fake news: understanding media and misinformation in the digital age. MIT Press.
[82]
Fabiana Zollo, Petra Kralj Novak, Michela Del Vicario, Alessandro Bessi, Igor Mozetič, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2015. Emotional dynamics in the age of misinformation. PloS one 10, 9 (2015), e0138740.
[83]
Sandrine Zufferey, Willem Mak, Liesbeth Degand, and Ted Sanders. 2015. Advanced learners’ comprehension of discourse connectives: The role of L1 transfer across on-line and off-line tasks. Second Language Research 31, 3 (2015), 389–411.
Index Terms
- Inside the echo chamber: Linguistic underpinnings of misinformation on Twitter
Recommendations
Linguistic Signals under Misinformation and Fact-Checking: Evidence from User Comments on Social Media
Misinformation and fact-checking are opposite forces in the news environment: the former creates inaccuracies to mislead people, while the latter provides evidence to rebut the former. These news articles are often posted on social media and attract user ...
Are Mutated Misinformation More Contagious? A Case Study of COVID-19 Misinformation on Twitter
WebSci '22: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Web Science Conference 2022The spread of online misinformation has become a major global risk. Understanding how misinformation propagates on social media is vital. While prior studies suggest that the content factors, such as emotion and topic in texts, are closely related to the ...
The Dynamics of (Not) Unfollowing Misinformation Spreaders
WWW '24: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024Many studies explore how people "come into" misinformation exposure. But much less is known about how people "come out of" misinformation exposure. Do people organically sever ties to misinformation spreaders? And what predicts doing so? Over six months, ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2024
395 pages
ISBN:9798400703348
DOI:10.1145/3614419
Copyright © 2024 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 21 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Data Availability
Uni_Stgt_Web-Science_Xinyu_Wang_240604: Inside the echo chamber: Linguistic underpinnings of misinformation on Twitter https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3614419.3644009#Uni_Stgt_Web-Science_Xinyu_Wang_240604.mp4
Conference
Websci '24
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 245 of 933 submissions, 26%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 108Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)108
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11
Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format