Detecting misinformation in online social networks: A think-aloud study on user strategies

Abstract

Although online social networks (OSN) facilitate the distribution of misinformation, one way of reducing the spread of false information in OSN is for users to detect it. Building on the framework of how audiences act to authenticate information, this study provides a user perspective on which strategies people use in evaluating information in OSN. In 15 qualitative interviews, participants were asked to think aloud while evaluating whether the content of posts from their own newsfeeds and of interviewer-supplied posts was true or false. Their answers were analyzed to determine which evaluation strategies they used. Analyzing participants’ thoughts as they evaluate information is more reliable than directly asking participants which strategies they think they use. Results show that users’ strategies in information evaluation are searching for more information, knowledge of account or content carries the most weight, and every detail needs to fit. A comparison of strategy usage for posts from befriended versus unknown personal accounts as well as for posts from followed news outlets versus not followed news outlets shows that for posts from followed news outlets, knowledge of the account was the most-used strategy followed by knowledge of the content. For other types of posts, strategy usage varied more widely and depended on each post. This highlights the importance and possible higher ecological validity of research on posts from news outlets that users actually follow, as users’ experiences with previous posts seem to play a major role in how they go about evaluating information in new posts.

Believing and sharing misinformation, fact-checks, and accurate information on social media: The role of anxiety during COVID-19

“…However, another explanation for these same outcomes is that individuals simply possess different beliefs about which sources are accurate ( Druckman and McGrath, 2019 ), since source credibility and trustworthiness are known to influence beliefs ( Metzger et al, 2010 ; Pornpitakpan, 2004 ; Wilson and Sherrell, 1993 ). Notably, the effect of source cues in news contexts ( Freiling, 2019 ; Tandoc, 2019 ) is evident in US polls. For 48% of Americans, the news outlet has a large impact on a story’s perceived credibility ( Barthel and Mitchell, 2017 ).…”

Effects of fact‐checking warning labels and social endorsement cues on climate change fake news credibility and engagement on social media

“…The perceived credibility of fake news is likely driven more by heuristics than by systematic evaluations of fake news' content. Perceived message credibility is often the result of heuristics (Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and interviews with media users using think‐aloud protocols have shown that users seldomly scrutinize fake news carefully (Freiling, 2019). One central heuristic could be the social endorsement of a message, that is, the number of likes or shares on social media (the so‐called bandwagon effect, see Sundar et al, 2008).…”

“…From the perspective of the HSM and in light of the benefits of systematic processing for individuals' resilience against fake news (Pennycook & Rand, 2019), it is also desirable to foster elaboration. Qualitative research (Freiling, 2019; Tandoc et al, 2018) has indicated that two elaboration strategies are frequently employed by social media users: Exchanging with others about a suspected fake news piece and searching for additional information. Consequentially, countermeasures that increase such elaboration techniques are desirable.…”

Effects of fact-checking warning labels and social endorsement cues on climate change fake news credibility and engagement on social media

“…The same routines affect the processing of fake news. In a think-aloud study with a forced exposure to fake news on Facebook, Freiling (2019) found that her participants relied heuristically on their prior knowledge about the content, style and source of a post and only under conditions of high motivation searched for additional information to evaluate the credibility of fake news. Although perceived credibility can mediate (fake) news effects (Halpern et al, 2019), perceived credibility is an "effect on its own right" (Appelman & Sundar, 2016, p. 63) and thus studied as our first central dependent variable in this study.…”

“…Notwithstanding users don't have to follow their impulses but also do sometimes elaborate more carefully on a post (particularly, when the credibility of the post is ambivalent, see section 2.1). The studies by Tandoc et al (2018) and Freiling (2019) indicate that both interpersonal validation (i.e., talking to others) and searching for additional information (be it via google or news media) were frequently used as elaboration strategies in this context. Such a careful engagement is likely to diminish the reach of fake news.…”