IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-02329-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do online users respond to crowdsourced fact-checking?

Author

Listed:
  • Folco Panizza

    (IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca)

  • Piero Ronzani

    (International Security and Development Center)

  • Tiffany Morisseau

    (Université Paris Cité and Univ. Gustave Eiffel, LaPEA)

  • Simone Mattavelli

    (Bicocca University)

  • Carlo Martini

    (Vita-Salute San Raffaele University
    University of Helsinki)

Abstract

Recently, crowdsourcing has been proposed as a tool for fighting misinformation online. Will internet users listen to crowdsourced fact-checking, and how? In this experiment we test how participants follow others’ opinions to evaluate the validity of a science-themed Facebook post and examine which factors mediate the use of this information. Participants observed a post presenting either scientific information or misinformation, along with a graphical summary of previous participants’ judgements. Even though most participants reported not having used information from previous raters, their responses were influenced by previous assessments. This happened regardless of whether prior judgements were accurate or misleading. Presenting crowdsourced fact-checking however did not translate into the blind copying of the majority response. Rather, participants tended to use this social information as a cue to guide their response, while also relying on individual evaluation and research for extra information. These results highlight the role of individual reasoning when evaluating online information, while pointing to the potential benefit of crowd-sourcing-based solutions in making online users more resilient to misinformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Folco Panizza & Piero Ronzani & Tiffany Morisseau & Simone Mattavelli & Carlo Martini, 2023. "How do online users respond to crowdsourced fact-checking?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-02329-y
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-02329-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-02329-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-02329-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michail Tsikerdekis, 2013. "The effects of perceived anonymity and anonymity states on conformity and groupthink in online communities: A Wikipedia study," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(5), pages 1001-1015, May.
    2. Michail Tsikerdekis, 2013. "The effects of perceived anonymity and anonymity states on conformity and groupthink in online communities: A Wikipedia study," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(5), pages 1001-1015, May.
    3. Gordon Pennycook & Ziv Epstein & Mohsen Mosleh & Antonio A. Arechar & Dean Eckles & David G. Rand, 2021. "Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online," Nature, Nature, vol. 592(7855), pages 590-595, April.
    4. Philipp Lorenz-Spreen & Stephan Lewandowsky & Cass R. Sunstein & Ralph Hertwig, 2020. "How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1102-1109, November.
    5. Aarøe, Lene & Petersen, Michael Bang, 2020. "Cognitive Biases and Communication Strength in Social Networks: The Case of Episodic Frames," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 1561-1581, October.
    6. Dimitar Nikolov & Mounia Lalmas & Alessandro Flammini & Filippo Menczer, 2019. "Quantifying Biases in Online Information Exposure," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(3), pages 218-229, March.
    7. Gordon Pennycook & Adam Bear & Evan T. Collins & David G. Rand, 2020. "The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Headlines Increases Perceived Accuracy of Headlines Without Warnings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 4944-4957, November.
    8. Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, 2010. "Defeating the merchants of doubt," Nature, Nature, vol. 465(7299), pages 686-687, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John M. Carey & Andrew M. Guess & Peter J. Loewen & Eric Merkley & Brendan Nyhan & Joseph B. Phillips & Jason Reifler, 2022. "The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(2), pages 236-243, February.
    2. Danielle Caled & Mário J. Silva, 2022. "Digital media and misinformation: An outlook on multidisciplinary strategies against manipulation," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 123-159, May.
    3. Gonzalo Cisternas & Jorge Vásquez, 2022. "Misinformation in Social Media: The Role of Verification Incentives," Staff Reports 1028, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    4. Adam Worrall & Alicia Cappello & Rachel Osolen, 2021. "The importance of socio‐emotional considerations in online communities, social informatics, and information science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(10), pages 1247-1260, October.
    5. Merfeld, Katrin & Wilhelms, Mark-Philipp & Henkel, Sven & Kreutzer, Karin, 2019. "Carsharing with shared autonomous vehicles: Uncovering drivers, barriers and future developments – A four-stage Delphi study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 66-81.
    6. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    7. Garrett Morrow & Briony Swire‐Thompson & Jessica Montgomery Polny & Matthew Kopec & John P. Wihbey, 2022. "The emerging science of content labeling: Contextualizing social media content moderation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(10), pages 1365-1386, October.
    8. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    9. Nicolás Ajzenman & Bruno Ferman & Sant’Anna Pedro C., 2023. "Discrimination in the Formation of Academic Networks: A Field Experiment on #EconTwitter," Working Papers 235, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    10. Buechel, Berno & Klößner, Stefan & Meng, Fanyuan & Nassar, Anis, 2023. "Misinformation due to asymmetric information sharing," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    11. Joseph B. Bak-Coleman & Ian Kennedy & Morgan Wack & Andrew Beers & Joseph S. Schafer & Emma S. Spiro & Kate Starbird & Jevin D. West, 2022. "Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1372-1380, October.
    12. Felix Chopra & Ingar K. Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2021. "The Demand for Fact-Checking," CESifo Working Paper Series 9061, CESifo.
    13. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/27dls12b6d8aor7i6sipg9ie3g is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Emeric Henry & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Sergei Guriev, 2022. "Checking and Sharing Alt-Facts," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 55-86, August.
    15. Xuhao Shao & Ao Li & Chuansheng Chen & Elizabeth F. Loftus & Bi Zhu, 2023. "Cross-stage neural pattern similarity in the hippocampus predicts false memory derived from post-event inaccurate information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Arora, Swapan Deep & Singh, Guninder Pal & Chakraborty, Anirban & Maity, Moutusy, 2022. "Polarization and social media: A systematic review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    17. Chopra, Felix & Haaland, Ingar & Roth, Christopher, 2022. "Do people demand fact-checked news? Evidence from U.S. Democrats," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    18. Manuel Foerster & Joel (J.J.) van der Weele, 2018. "Denial and Alarmism in Collective Action Problems," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-019/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Krishna Dasaratha & Kevin He, 2022. "Learning from Viral Content," Papers 2210.01267, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    20. Lara Marie Berger & Anna Kerkhof & Felix Mindl & Johannes Münster, 2023. "Debunking “Fake News” on Social Media: Short-Term and Longer-Term Effects of Fact Checking and Media Literacy Interventions," CESifo Working Paper Series 10576, CESifo.
    21. Jason Alexandra, 2021. "Navigating the Anthropocene’s rivers of risk—climatic change and science-policy dilemmas in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-21, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-02329-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.