Investigating Perceived Message Credibility and Detection Accuracy of Fake and Real Information Across Information Types and Modalities.
Article No.: 187, Pages 1 - 7
Abstract
(Mis-)information thrives on social media, so it has become increasingly important for users to tell real from misleading content because erroneously following misinformation can cause serious consequences. In this study, we investigated users’ subjective perceived information credibility and objective detection accuracy of fake and real information across three topics, each of which was delivered via two modalities. We conducted an online within-subject experiment (n = 293) with a three (information topics: health, science, and life) by two (modalities: text and image) by two (veracity: real and fake) design. Overall, our participants were better at identifying fake information from real information. Results also found that information types significantly mediated information modality and veracity. For real information, the text mode helped people perceive credibility in health, life, and science topics. However, for false information, the image mode helped raised the perceived credibility of life information than the text mode.
Supplementary Material
Pre-recorded Video Presentation
- Download
- 6.13 MB
References
[1]
Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives 31, 2 (2017), 211–36.
[2]
Hunt Allcott, Matthew Gentzkow, and Chuan Yu. 2019. Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics 6, 2 (2019), 2053168019848554.
[3]
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.
[4]
Alyssa Appelman and S Shyam Sundar. 2016. Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 93, 1 (2016), 59–79.
[5]
Zapan Barua, Sajib Barua, Salma Aktar, Najma Kabir, and Mingze Li. 2020. Effects of misinformation on COVID-19 individual responses and recommendations for resilience of disastrous consequences of misinformation. Progress in Disaster Science 8 (2020), 100119.
[6]
M Anne Britt, Tobias Richter, and Jean-François Rouet. 2014. Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist 49, 2 (2014), 104–122.
[7]
Juan Cao, Peng Qi, Qiang Sheng, Tianyun Yang, Junbo Guo, and Jintao Li. 2020. Exploring the role of visual content in fake news detection. Disinformation, Misinformation, and Fake News in Social Media (2020), 141–161.
[8]
Carlos Castillo, Marcelo Mendoza, and Barbara Poblete. 2011. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. 675–684.
[9]
Caitlin Drummond and Baruch Fischhoff. 2017. Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 36 (2017), 9587–9592.
[10]
Rebecca Edgar. 2002. Perceptual effects of modality in on-line news. Media Effects Research Laboratory, Penn State University, http://www. psu. edu/dept/medialab (2002).
[11]
Adam M Enders, Joseph E Uscinski, Casey Klofstad, and Justin Stoler. 2020. The different forms of COVID-19 misinformation and their consequences. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2020).
[12]
Martin Flintham, 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.
[13]
Brian J Fogg and Hsiang Tseng. 1999. The elements of computer credibility. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 80–87.
[14]
Carly M Goldstein, Eleanor J Murray, Jennifer Beard, Alexandra M Schnoes, and Monica L Wang. 2020. Science communication in the age of misinformation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 54, 12 (2020), 985–990.
[15]
David Gruber and Jacob A Dickerson. 2012. Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science 21, 8 (2012), 938–948.
[16]
Emily L Howell and Dominique Brossard. 2021. (Mis) informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 15 (2021), e1912436117.
[17]
Helena Jambor, Alberto Antonietti, Bradly Alicea, Tracy L Audisio, Susann Auer, Vivek Bhardwaj, Steven J Burgess, Iuliia Ferling, Małgorzata Anna Gazda, Luke H Hoeppner, 2021. Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications. PLoS biology 19, 3 (2021), e3001161.
[18]
Hélène Joffe. 2008. The power of visual material: Persuasion, emotion and identification. Diogenes 55, 1 (2008), 84–93.
[19]
Dan M Kahan, Ellen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman, and Gregory Mandel. 2012. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature climate change 2, 10 (2012), 732–735.
[20]
Hyun Suk Kim. 2015. Attracting views and going viral: How message features and news-sharing channels affect health news diffusion. Journal of Communication 65, 3 (2015), 512–534.
[21]
Nikhil L Kolluri and Dhiraj Murthy. 2021. CoVerifi: A COVID-19 news verification system. Online Social Networks and Media 22 (2021), 100123.
[22]
Nicole M Lee. 2018. Fake news, phishing, and fraud: a call for research on digital media literacy education beyond the classroom. Communication Education 67, 4 (2018), 460–466.
[23]
DS Levy, FC Ramos, GMAA Sordi, 2020. The impact of wrong mass media communication on citizens’ perception of radiation risks. (2020).
[24]
Mufan Luo, Jeffrey T Hancock, and David M Markowitz. 2022. Credibility perceptions and detection accuracy of fake news headlines on social media: Effects of truth-bias and endorsement cues. Communication Research 49, 2 (2022), 171–195.
[25]
David P McCabe and Alan D Castel. 2008. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107, 1 (2008), 343–352.
[26]
Miriam J Metzger, Andrew J Flanagin, Keren Eyal, Daisy R Lemus, and Robert M McCann. 2003. Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association 27, 1 (2003), 293–335.
[27]
Paul W Miniard, Sunil Bhatla, Kenneth R Lord, Peter R Dickson, and H Rao Unnava. 1991. Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer research 18, 1 (1991), 92–107.
[28]
Emilia Misheva. 2020. Neuromyths, neurobabble and pseudoscience: The complex relationship between the neuro-disciplines and education. In Child Neuropsychology in Practice. Springer, 9–27.
[29]
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.
[30]
Gordon Pennycook and David G Rand. 2019. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188 (2019), 39–50.
[31]
Gordon Pennycook and David G Rand. 2020. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of personality 88, 2 (2020), 185–200.
[32]
Thomas E Powell, Hajo G Boomgaarden, Knut De Swert, and Claes H de Vreese. 2018. Video killed the news article? Comparing multimodal framing effects in news videos and articles. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media 62, 4 (2018), 578–596.
[33]
David N Rapp and Nikita A Salovich. 2018. Can’t we just disregard fake news? The consequences of exposure to inaccurate information. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, 2 (2018), 232–239.
[34]
Jon Roozenbeek, Claudia R Schneider, Sarah Dryhurst, John Kerr, Alexandra LJ Freeman, Gabriel Recchia, Anne Marthe Van Der Bles, and Sander Van Der Linden. 2020. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society open science 7, 10 (2020), 201199.
[35]
Paul I Rosenthal. 1971. Specificity, verifiability, and message credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech 57, 4 (1971), 393–401.
[36]
Kim Christian Schrøder. 2019. What do news readers really want to read about? How relevance works for news audiences. (2019).
[37]
Kiwon Seo. 2020. Meta-analysis on visual persuasion–does adding images to texts influence persuasion. Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications 6, 3 (2020), 177–190.
[38]
Aviv J Sharon and Ayelet Baram-Tsabari. 2020. Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?Science Education 104, 5 (2020), 873–894.
[39]
Shijie Song, Yuxiang Zhao, Xiaokang Song, and Qinghua Zhu. 2019. The role of health literacy on credibility judgment of online health misinformation. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI). IEEE, 1–3.
[40]
Francesca Spezzano, Anu Shrestha, Jerry Alan Fails, and Brian W Stone. 2021. That’s Fake News! Reliability of News When Provided Title, Image, Source Bias & Full Article. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–19.
[41]
S Shyam Sundar. 2008. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative Cambridge, MA.
[42]
Yu-Chia Tseng, Nanyi Bi, Yung-Ju Chang, and Chien Wen Yuan. 2022. Investigating Correction Effects of Different Modalities for Misinformation about COVID-19. In Companion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 54–58.
[43]
Yariv Tsfati, Hajo G Boomgaarden, Jesper Strömbäck, Rens Vliegenthart, Alyt Damstra, and Elina Lindgren. 2020. Causes and consequences of mainstream media dissemination of fake news: literature review and synthesis. Annals of the International Communication Association 44, 2 (2020), 157–173.
[44]
Sebastián Valenzuela, Daniel Halpern, James E Katz, and Juan Pablo Miranda. 2019. The paradox of participation versus misinformation: Social media, political engagement, and the spread of misinformation. Digital Journalism 7, 6 (2019), 802–823.
[45]
Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. science 359, 6380 (2018), 1146–1151.
[46]
Ben Wasike. 2022. Memes, Memes, Everywhere, nor Any Meme to Trust: Examining the Credibility and Persuasiveness of COVID-19-Related Memes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 27, 2 (2022), zmab024.
[47]
Liang Wu, Fred Morstatter, Kathleen M Carley, and Huan Liu. 2019. Misinformation in social media: definition, manipulation, and detection. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 21, 2 (2019), 80–90.
[48]
Xinyi Zhou, Reza Zafarani, Kai Shu, and Huan Liu. 2019. Fake news: Fundamental theories, detection strategies and challenges. In Proceedings of the twelfth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. 836–837.
Index Terms
- Investigating Perceived Message Credibility and Detection Accuracy of Fake and Real Information Across Information Types and Modalities.
Recommendations
eWOM source credibility, perceived risk and food product customer's information adoption
This study examined the relations between source credibility of eWOM (electronic word of mouth), perceived risk and food products customer's information adoption mediated by argument quality and information usefulness. eWOM has been commonly used to ...
Diffusion of real versus misinformation during a crisis event: A big data-driven approach
AbstractMisinformation has captured the interest of academia in recent years with several studies looking at the topic broadly with inconsistent results. In this research, we attempt to bridge the gap in the literature by examining the impacts ...
Highlights- Tweets that were novel were more likely to go viral.
- Tweets with negative ...
Investigating the mediating role of perceived playfulness in the acceptance of hedonic information systems
ICS'09: Proceedings of the 13th WSEAS international conference on SystemsWith the proliferation of hedonic information systems, understanding users' acceptance of hedonic information systems has become a new topic for practitioners and academics. While perceived playfulness or perceived enjoyment has been found to have a ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
April 2023
3914 pages
ISBN:9781450394222
DOI:10.1145/3544549
Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 19 April 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Work in progress
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
CHI '23
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%
Upcoming Conference
CHI 2025
- Sponsor:
- sigchi
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 262Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)170
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)22
Reflects downloads up to 14 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView 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.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format