Incredible: is (almost) all web content trustworthy? analysis of psychological factors related to website credibility evaluation

This paper describes the results of a study conducted in February 2013 on Amazon Mechanical Turk aimed at identifying various determinants of credibility evaluations. 2046 adult participants evaluated credibility of websites with diversified trustworthiness reference index. We concentrated on psychological factors that lead to the characteristic positive bias observed in many working social feedback systems on the Internet. We have used International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) and measured the following traits: trust, conformity, risk taking, need for cognition and intellect. Results suggest that trustworthiness and risk taking are factors clearly differentiating people with respect to tendency to overestimate, underestimate and judge accordingly websites' credibility. Intuitively people characterized by high general trust tend to be more generous in their credibility evaluations. On the other hand, people who are more willing to take risk, tend to be more critical of the Internet content. The latter indicates that high credibility evaluations are being treated as a default option, and lower ratings require special conditions. Other, more detailed psychological patterns related to websites' credibility evaluations are described in full paper.

[1]  Ponnurangam Kumaraguru,et al.  Credibility ranking of tweets during high impact events , 2012, PSOSM '12.

[2]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Barbara Poblete,et al.  Information credibility on twitter , 2011, WWW.

[4]  Matthew L. Jensen,et al.  Effects of Automated and Participative Decision Support in Computer-Aided Credibility Assessment , 2009, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Melvin J. Kimmel,et al.  Twenty Years of Experimental Gaming: Critique,Synthesis, and Suggestions for the Future , 1977 .

[6]  Virgílio A. F. Almeida,et al.  Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Privacy and Security in Online Social Media , 2012 .

[7]  Jesse R. Sparks,et al.  Readers' reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  J. Rotter A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. , 1967, Journal of personality.

[10]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Cognitive Biases and Nonverbal Cue Availability in Detecting Deception , 2008 .

[11]  T. Graepel,et al.  Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Michael Luca,et al.  Aggregation of Consumer Ratings: An Application to Yelp.com , 2012 .

[13]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market , 2006, Science.

[14]  Adam Wierzbicki,et al.  On the subjectivity and bias of web content credibility evaluations , 2013, WWW.

[15]  Vassilis Kostakos,et al.  Is the Crowd's Wisdom Biased? A Quantitative Analysis of Three Online Communities , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering.

[16]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Perceptions of Internet Information Credibility , 2000 .

[17]  Rienco Muilwijk Trust in online information - A comparison among high school students, college students and PhD students with regard to trust in Wikipedia , 2012 .

[18]  Miriam J. Metzger Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Vassilis Kostakos Is the crowd's wisdom biased? A quantitative asessment of three online communities , 2009, ArXiv.