Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 1145–1162 | Cite as

Rumor response, debunking response, and decision makings of misinformed Twitter users during disasters

  • Bairong Wang
  • Jun Zhuang
Original Paper

Abstract

The rapid spread of rumors occurring on social media is a critical problem that poses a great risk to emergency situation navigation, especially during disasters. Many research questions, such as how misinformed users judge potential rumors or how they respond to them, are crucial issues for crisis communication, but have not been extensively studied. This paper fills this gap by originally documenting and studying Twitter users’ rumor and debunking response behaviors during disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013. To this end, two rumors from each disaster and their related tweets are documented for analysis. Users who were misinformed and involved in the rumor topic by posting tweet(s), could respond to a rumor by: (1) spreading (85.86–91.40%), (2) confirmation-seeking (5.39–9.37%), or (3) doubting (0.71–8.75%). However, if the rumor-spreading users were debunked, they would respond by: (1) deleting rumor tweet(s) (2.94–10.00%), (2) clarifying rumor information with a new tweet (0–19.75%), or (3) neither deleting nor clarifying (78.13–97.06%). We conclude that Twitter users perform poorly in rumor detection and rush to spread rumors. The majority of users who spread rumors do not take further action on their Twitter accounts to fix their rumor-spreading behaviors.

Keywords

Crisis information Twitter Rumor response Debunking response Decision analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) under award numbers 1730503, 1760586, 1762807. This research was also partially supported by China Scholarship Council (CSC) to support Bairong Wang. However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect views of the NSF, or CSC. We also thank two referees for providing constructive comments.

References

  1. Abbasi M-A, Liu H (2013) Measuring user credibility in social media. Springer, Berlin, pp 441–448Google Scholar
  2. Alexander DE (2014) Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Sci Eng Eth 20(3):717–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg BL, Lune H, Lune H (2004) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 5th edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake ES, Kimberlain TB, Berg RJ, Cangialosi JP, Beven II, John L (2013a) Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Sandy (AL182012), Technical report, National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL, USA, 22-29 October 2012Google Scholar
  5. Blake ES, Kimberlain TB, Berg RJ, John PC, Beven II, John L (2013b) Hurricane Sandy: October 22–29, 2012. Tropical Cyclone RepGoogle Scholar
  6. Castillo C, Mendoza M, Poblete B (2011) Information credibility on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’11, pp 675–684, Hyderabad, India. ACMGoogle Scholar
  7. Dang A, Smit M, Moh’d A, Minghim R, Milios E (2016) Toward understanding how users respond to rumours in social media. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp 777–784Google Scholar
  8. Friggeri A, Adamic LA, Eckles D, Cheng J (2014) Rumor cascades. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp 101–110, Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  9. Gayo-Avello EMM, Strohmaier HS, Metaxas PT, Gloor DP, Castillo C, Ma Mendoza, Poblete B (2013) Predicting information credibility in time-sensitive social media. Internet Res 23(5):560–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta A, Lamba H, Kumaraguru P (2013) $1.00 per RT # bostonmarathon # prayforboston: analyzing faking content on Twitter. In: eCrime Researchers Summit, pp 1–12, San Francisco. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  11. Harsin J (2006) The rumor bomb: a convergence theory of contemporary mediated American politics. Southern Review: Politics, Communication, Culture, SpringGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill K (2012) Hurricane Sandy, @comfortablysmug, and the flood of social media misinformation. [EB/OL], http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/10/30/hurricane-sandy-and-the-flood-of-social-media-misinformation/#63cd322cd967. Accessed 30 Oct 2012
  13. Hollywood Life Staff (2013) Martin Richard’s death: How I desperately tried to save him. [EB/OL], http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/04/19/martin-richard-death-firefighter-saves-boston-marathon-bombing/. Accessed 19 April 2013
  14. Holt K (2012) How false Sandy news spread on Twitter. [EB/OL], http://www.dailydot.com/news/false-sandy-reports-spread-twitter/ Accessed 30 Oct 2012
  15. Inside Breaking News (2012) Three Sandy rumors that circulated on social media. [EB/OL], http://blog.breakingnews.com/post/34652885735/three-sandy-rumors-that-circulated-on-social. Accessed 30 Oct 2012
  16. Jong W, Dückers MLA (2016) Self-correcting mechanisms and echo-effects in social media: an analysis of the “gunman in the newsroom” crisis. Comput Hum Behav 59:334–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kang B, Höllerer T, O’Donovan J (2015) Believe it or not? Analyzing information credibility in microblogs. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015, ASONAM ’15, pp 611–616, Paris, ACMGoogle Scholar
  18. Knopf TA (1975) Rumors, Race, and Riots. Transaction Publishers, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  19. Leberecht T (2010) Twitter grows up in aftermath of Haiti earthquake. [EB/OL], https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-grows-up-in-aftermath-of-haiti-earthquake/. Accessed 19 Jan 2010
  20. Levine TR, Park HS, McCornack SA (1999) Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: documenting the “veracity effect”. Commun Monogr 66(2):125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J (2012) Misinformation and its correction continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest 13(3):106–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu X, Nourbakhsh A, Li Q, Fang R, Shah S (2015) Real-time rumor debunking on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM ’15, pp 1867–1870, Melbourne, Australia. ACMGoogle Scholar
  23. Mohaimin SA, Ukkusuri SV, Hugh G (2017) The role of social networks and information sources on hurricane evacuation decision making. Nat Hazards Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000244 Google Scholar
  24. Montopoli B (2013) Eight-year-old Martin Richard killed in Boston bombings. [EB/OL], http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eight-year-old-martin-richard-killed-in-boston-bombings/. Accessed 16 April 2013
  25. Morris MR, Counts S, Roseway A, Hoff A, Schwarz J (2012) Tweeting is believing?: understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’12, pp 441–450, Seattle, Washington. ACMGoogle Scholar
  26. Neuendorf KA (2002) The content analysis guidebook. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  27. Oh O, Agrawal M, Rao HR (2011) Information control and terrorism: tracking the Mumbai terrorist attack through Twitter. Inf Syst Front 13(1):33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oremus W (2012) Dear Twitter, don’t believe everything you hear on a police scanner. [EB/OL], http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/30/false_hurricane_sandy_rumors_police_scanner_fools_twitter_into_spreading.html. Accessed 30 Oct 2012
  29. Ozturk P, Li H, Sakamoto Y (2015) Combating rumor spread on social media: the effectiveness of refutation and warning. In: 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp 2406–2414, Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd edn. SAGE, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  31. Richards J, Lewis P (2011) How Twitter was used to spread—and knock down—rumours during the riots. [EB/OL], https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/07/how-twitter-spread-rumours-riots. Accessed 07 Dec 2011
  32. Rosnow RL (1991) Inside rumor: a personal journey. Am Psychol 46(5):484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosnow RL, Fine GA (1976) Rumor and gossip: the social psychology of hearsay. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. Rubin VL (2017) Deception detection and rumor debunking for social media. In: Sloan L, Quan-Haase A (eds) The SAGE handbook of social media research methods. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  35. Sager J (2013) 10 Boston Marathon bombing rumors that need to be stopped immediately. [EB/OL], http://thestir.cafemom.com/crime/154242/10_boston_marathon_bombing_rumors. Accessed 17 April 2013
  36. Shibutani T (1969) Improvised news: a sociological study of rumor. Soc Res 36(1)Google Scholar
  37. Starbird K, Maddock J, Orand M, Achterman P, Mason RM (2014) Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: misinformation on Twitter after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. In: iConference 2014 Proceedings, pp 654–662, Berlin, Germany. iSchoolsGoogle Scholar
  38. Tripathy RM, Bagchi A, Mehta S (2013) Towards combating rumors in social networks: models and metrics. Intell Data Anal 17(1):149–175Google Scholar
  39. Tripathy RM, Bagchi A, Mehta S (2010) A study of rumor control strategies on social networks. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM ’10, pp 1817–1820, Toronto, ON, Canada. ACMGoogle Scholar
  40. Twitter Developer Documentation. REST APIs. [EB/OL]. https://dev.twitter.com/rest/public
  41. Wang B, Zhuang J (2017) Crisis information distribution on Twitter: a content analysis of tweets during hurricane sandy. Nat Hazards 89(1):161–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhao L, Yin J, Song Y (2016) An exploration of rumor combating behavior on social media in the context of social crises. Comput Hum Behav 58:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zubiaga A, Liakata M, Procter R, Hoi GWS, Tolmie P (2016) Analysing how people orient to and spread rumours in social media by looking at conversational threads. Plos One 11(3):e0150989CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations