Get Back! You Don't Know Me Like That: The Social Mediation of Fact Checking Interventions in Twitter Conversations

The prevalence of misinformation within social media and online communities can undermine public security and distract attention from important issues. Fact-checking interventions, in which users cite fact-checking websites such as Snopes.com and FactCheck.org, are a strategy users can employ to refute false claims made by their peers. While laboratory research suggests such interventions are not effective in persuading people to abandon false ideas, little work considers how such interventions are actually deployed in real-world conversations. Using approximately 1,600 interventions observed on Twitter between 2012 and 2013, we examine the contexts and consequences of fact-checking interventions.W e focus in particular on the social relationship between the individual who issues the fact-check and the individual whose facts are challenged. Our results indicate that though fact-checking interventions are most commonly issued by strangers, they are more likely to draw user attention and responses when they come from friends. Finally, we discuss implications for designing more effective interventions against misinformation.

[1]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Political Polarization on Twitter , 2011, ICWSM.

[2]  L. Postman,et al.  The psychology of rumor , 1947 .

[3]  R. Garrett Troubling Consequences of Online Political Rumoring , 2011 .

[4]  Mark S. Granovetter Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  Social influence: compliance and conformity. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[6]  B. Nyhan,et al.  When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions , 2010 .

[7]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. , 2002, Psychological review.

[8]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Truthy: mapping the spread of astroturf in microblog streams , 2010, WWW.

[9]  K. Weick FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

[10]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[11]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog , 2005, LinkKDD '05.

[12]  Ullrich K. H. Ecker,et al.  Misinformation and Its Correction , 2012, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[13]  Kathleen D. Vohs,et al.  Gossip as Cultural Learning , 2004 .

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

[15]  Dragomir R. Radev,et al.  Rumor has it: Identifying Misinformation in Microblogs , 2011, EMNLP.

[16]  Scott Counts,et al.  Tweeting is believing?: understanding microblog credibility perceptions , 2012, CSCW.

[17]  D. Kahan Fixing the communications failure , 2010, Nature.

[18]  Alice H. Oh,et al.  Self-Disclosure and Relationship Strength in Twitter Conversations , 2012, ACL.

[19]  R. Kelly Garrett,et al.  Undermining the Corrective Effects of Media‐Based Political Fact Checking? The Role of Contextual Cues and Naïve Theory , 2013 .

[20]  Wai-Tat Fu,et al.  Understanding experts' and novices' expertise judgment of twitter users , 2012, CHI.

[21]  P. Bordia,et al.  Rumor Psychology: Social and Organizational Approaches , 2006 .

[22]  Stephan Lewandowsky,et al.  Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[23]  Eric K. Foster Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions , 2004 .