
Research on the Differences in Effectiveness and Cognitive Mechanisms of Crowdsourcing Methods Reply Misinformation Based on Fact-Checking Labels
Wang Yuyu, Xia Zhijie
Knowledge Management Forum ›› 2024, Vol. 9 ›› Issue (3) : 330-340.
Research on the Differences in Effectiveness and Cognitive Mechanisms of Crowdsourcing Methods Reply Misinformation Based on Fact-Checking Labels
[Purpose/Significance] This study aims to help the public play a better role and reduce the harm caused by the inundation of misinformation on social media. [Method/Process] An experimental design was used to add fact-checking tags to information on social media to explore the effect of fact-checking tags on the public's identification and dissemination of misinformation, the difference in effectiveness between professionals and crowdsourced tagging, and the cognitive mechanisms by which tags affect people's judgments about the authenticity of information. [Result/Conclusion] Fact-checking tags can significantly improve the ability of social media users to identify misinformation and reduce the public's willingness to spread it. There is no significant difference in the impact of fact-checking tags from professionals and crowdsourcing tags from the general public on participants. By exploring people's uncertainty about information, it is found that people rely heavily on the results of fact-checking tags to determine the authenticity of information, and the existence of tags does not stimulate their critical thinking.
social media / misinformation / crowdsourcing / fact-checking tags / public
[1] |
ZHANG X, CHENG Y, CHEN A, et al. How rumors diffuse in the infodemic: evidence from the healthy online social change in China[J]. Technological forecasting and social change, 2022, 185(1): 122089.
|
[2] |
ALLEN J, ARECHAR A A, PENNYCOOK G, et al. Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds[J]. Science advances, 2021, 7(36): 43-63.
|
[3] |
PENNYCOOK G, BEAR A, COLLINS E T, et al. The implied truth effect: attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings[J]. Management science, 2020, 66(11): 4944-4957.
|
[4] |
SOPRANO M, ROITERO K, LA B D, et al. The many dimensions of truthfulness: crowdsourcing misinformation assessments on a multidimensional scale[J]. Information processing & management, 2021, 58(6): 102710.
|
[5] |
LUTZKE L, DRUMMOND C, SLOVIC P, et al. Priming critical thinking: simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook[J]. Global environmental change, 2019, 58(1): 101964.
|
[6] |
FALLIS D. Whatisdisinformation?[J]. Librarytrends, 2015, 63(3):401-426.
|
[7] |
PENNYCOOK G, CANNON T D, RAND D G. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news[J]. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 2018, 147(12): 1865–1880.
|
[8] |
GAO Z D. Flagging fake news on social media: an experimental study of media consumers' identification of fake news[J]. Government information quarterly, 2021, 38(3): 101591.
|
[9] |
MORAVEC P L, KIM A, DENNIS A R. Appealing to sense and sensibility: system 1 and system 2 interventions for fake news on social media[J]. Information systems research, 2020, 31(3): 987-1006.
|
[10] |
JOHNSON T J, KAYE B K. Reasons to believe: influence of credibility on motivations for using social networks[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2015, 50(1): 544-555.
|
[11] |
王诣铭,夏志杰,戴志宏.公众参与应对社交媒体虚假信息的众包模式及激励策略研究[J].信息资源管理学报,2021,11(5):84-95.(WANG Y M, XIA Z J, DAI Z H. Research on crowdsourcing model and incentive strategy of public participation to response social media misinformation[J]. Journal of information resources management, 2021,11(5):84-95.)
|
[12] |
HOWE J. The rise of crowdsourcing[J]. Wired magazine, 2006, 14(6): 1-4.
|
[13] |
严杰,刘人境,刘晗.国内外众包研究综述[J].中国科技论坛, 2017(8):59-68,151.(YAN J, LIU R J, LIU H. A literature review of domestic and foreign crowdsourcing research[J]. Forum on science and technology in China, 2017(8):59-68,151.)
|
[14] |
PENNYCOOK G, RAND D G. Crowdsourcing judgments of news source quality [J/OL]. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018[2023-08-25]. https://www.bothonce.com/10.2139/ssrn.3118471.
|
[15] |
王明,郑念,宋雨琦.短视频时代政府辟谣机制创新研究——基于“抖音辟谣”的众包实践分析[J].自然辩证法通讯, 2022, 44(2):75-82.(WANG M, ZHENG N, SONG Y Q. lnnovation in the government's rumor refutation mechanism in the era of short videos: an analysis of the crowd-souring practice of Tiktok[J]. Journal of dialectics of nature, 2022, 44(2):75-82.)
|
[16] |
KIM J, TABIBIAN B, OH A, et al. Leveraging the crowd to detect and reduce the spread of fake news and misinformation[C]//Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining. New York: ACM Press, 2018: 324-332.
|
[17] |
姚建华.在线众包平台的运作机制和劳动控制研究——以亚马逊土耳其机器人为例[J].新闻大学, 2020(7):17-32,121-122.(YAO J H. The mechanism and labor-control of online crowdsourcing: a study of the Amazon Mechanical Turk[J]. Journalism research, 2020(7): 17-32,121-122.)
|
[18] |
PENNYCOOK G, RAND D G. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning[J]. Cognition, 2019, 188(2): 39-50.
|
[19] |
LINDEN S. Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public[J]. Nature medicine, 2022, 28(3):460-467.
|
[20] |
KHATRI V, SAMUEL B, DENNIS A R. System 1 and System 2 cognition in the decision to adopt and use a new technology[J]. Information & management, 2018, 55(6): 709-724.
|
[21] |
DENNIS A R, MINAS R K. Security on autopilot: why current security theories Hijack our thinking and lead us astray[J]. Database for advances in information systems, 2018, 49(1): 15-38.
|
[22] |
CLAYTON K, BLAIR S, BUSAM J A, et al. Real solutions for fake news? measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media[J]. Political behavior, 2020, 42(1): 1073-1095.
|
[23] |
MENA P. Cleaning up social media: the effect of warning labels on likelihood of sharing false news on Facebook[J]. Policy & internet, 2020, 12(2): 165-183.
|
[24] |
SOTIROVIC M. Heuristic information‐processing[J]. The international encyclopedia of political communication, 2015(3): 1-5.
|
[25] |
MESSNER C, WANKE M. Unconscious information processing reduces information overload and increases product satisfaction[J]. Journal of consumer psychology, 2011, 21(1): 9-13.
|
[26] |
JUCKS R, THON F M. Better to have many opinions than one from an expert? social validation by one trustworthy source versus the masses in online health forums[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2017, 70(5): 375-381.
|
[27] |
WANG Q, YANG X, XI W. Effects of group arguments on rumor belief and transmission in online communities: an information cascade and group polarization perspective[J]. Information & management, 2018, 55(4): 441-449.
|
[28] |
PAEK H J, HOVE T, JU J H, et al. Peer or expert? the persuasive impact of YouTube public service announcement producers[J]. International journal of advertising, 2011, 30(1): 161-188.
|
[29] |
CHUA A Y K, BANERJEE S. Intentions to trust and share online health rumors: an experiment with medical professionals[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2018, 87(1): 1-9.
|
王钰昱:撰写初稿,修改论文;
夏志杰:进行选题指导,提出论文修改意见及定稿。
/
〈 |
|
〉 |