Advertisement

Tweet, but verify: epistemic study of information verification on Twitter

  • Arkaitz Zubiaga
  • Heng Ji
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Uncovering Deception in Social Media

Abstract

While Twitter provides an unprecedented opportunity to learn about breaking news and current events as they happen, it often produces skepticism among users as not all the information is accurate but also hoaxes are sometimes spread. While avoiding the diffusion of hoaxes is a major concern during fast-paced events such as natural disasters, the study of how users trust and verify information from tweets in these contexts has received little attention so far. We survey users on credibility perceptions regarding witness pictures posted on Twitter related to Hurricane Sandy. By examining credibility perceptions on features suggested for information verification in the field of epistemology, we evaluate their accuracy in determining whether pictures were real or fake compared to professional evaluations performed by experts. Our study unveils insight about tweet presentation, as well as features that users should look at when assessing the veracity of tweets in the context of fast-paced events. Some of our main findings include that while author details not readily available on Twitter feeds should be emphasized in order to facilitate verification of tweets, showing multiple tweets corroborating a fact misleads users to trusting what actually is a hoax. We contrast some of the behavioral patterns found on tweets with literature in psychology research.

Keywords

Real Picture Twitter User Information Credibility Information Verification Author Detail 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for providing us with constructive comments and suggestions. This work was supported by the US Army Research Laboratory under Cooperative Agreement No. W911NF-09-2-0053 (NS-CTA), US NSF CAREER Award under Grant IIS-0953149, US DARPA Award No. FA8750-13-2-0041 in the “Deep Exploration and Filtering of Text” (DEFT) Program and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Start-up fund for Heng Ji. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the social policies, either expressed or implied, of the US Government. The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation here on.

References

  1. Allport F, Lepkin M (1945) Wartime rumors of waste and special privilege: why some people believe them. J Abnormal Soc Psychol 40(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castillo C, Mendoza M, Poblete B (2011) Information credibility on twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, pp 675–684Google Scholar
  3. Cotter E (2008) Influence of emotional content and perceived relevance on spread of urban legends: a pilot study 1, 2. Psychol Rep 102(2):623–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eagly A, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Orlando, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Eysenbach G, Köhler C (2002) How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 324(7337):573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fallis D (2004) On verifying the accuracy of information: philosophical perspectives. Libr Trends 52(3):463–487Google Scholar
  7. Fallis D (2008) Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 59(10):1662–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flanagin A, Metzger M (2000) Perceptions of internet information credibility. J Mass Commun Quart 77(3):515–540Google Scholar
  9. Fogg B, Soohoo C, Danielson D, Marable L, Stanford J, Tauber E (2003) How do users evaluate the credibility of web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. In: Proceedings of designing for user experiences, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  10. Goldman A (1999) Knowledge in a social world. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldman AI (1986) Epistemology and cognition. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  12. Gupta M, Zhao P, Han J (2012) Evaluating event credibility on twitter. In: Proceedings of SDM 2012Google Scholar
  13. Hargittai E, Fullerton L, Menchen-Trevino E, Thomas K (2010) Trust online: young adults evaluation of web content. Int J Commun 4(1):468–494Google Scholar
  14. Hasher L, Goldstein D, Toppino T (1977) Frequency and the conference of referential validity. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 16(1):107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hermida A (2012) Tweets and truth: journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification. J Pract 6(5–6):659–668Google Scholar
  16. Hu M, Liu S, Wei F, Wu Y, Stasko J, Ma KL (2012) Breaking news on twitter. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’12. ACM, New York, pp 2751–2754Google Scholar
  17. Huang H, Zubiaga A, Ji H, Deng H, Wang D, Le HK, Abdelzaher TF, Han J, Leung A, Hancock J et al (2012) Tweet ranking based on heterogeneous networks. In: COLING, pp 1239–1256Google Scholar
  18. Hume D (2001) An enquiry concerning human understanding, vol 3. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson T, Kaye B (2004) Wag the blog: how reliance on traditional media and the internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. J Mass Commun Quart 81(3):622–642Google Scholar
  20. Kang B, O’Donovan J, Höllerer T (2012) Modeling topic specific credibility on twitter. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on intelligent user interfaces, pp 179–188Google Scholar
  21. Koohang A, Weiss E (2003) Misinformation: toward creating a prevention framework. Inf SciGoogle Scholar
  22. Krippendorff K (2012) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, SageGoogle Scholar
  23. Kwak H, Lee C, Park H, Moon S (2010) What is twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pp 591–600Google Scholar
  24. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174Google Scholar
  25. Lazar J, Meiselwitz G, Feng J (2007) Understanding web credibility: a synthesis of the research literature. Found Trends Hum-Comput Interact 1(2):139–202Google Scholar
  26. Lewandowsky S, Ecker U, Seifert C, Schwarz N, Cook J (2012) Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest 13(3):106–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lipton P (1998) The epistemology of testimony. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 29(1):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matheson D (2004) Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: some trends in online journalism. New Media Soc 6(4):443–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morris M, Counts S, Roseway A, Hoff A, Schwarz J (2012) Tweeting is believing? Understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2012, pp 441–450Google Scholar
  30. ODonovan J, Kang B, Meyer G, Hollerer T, Adalii S (2012) Credibility in context: an analysis of feature distributions in twitter. In: SocialCom/PASSAT 2012, pp 293–301Google Scholar
  31. OBrien J, Farid H (2012) Exposing photo manipulation with inconsistent reflections. ACM Trans Gr 31(1):4Google Scholar
  32. Petty R, Cacioppo J (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 19(1):123–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Piaget J, Wells P (1972) Psychology and epistemology: towards a theory of knowledge. Penguin HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  34. Piper P (2000) Better read that again: web hoaxes and misinformation. Searcher 8(8):40–49Google Scholar
  35. Schaal M, ODonovan J, Smyth B (2012) An analysis of topical proximity in the twitter social graph. In: Aberer K, Flache A, Jager W, Liu L, Tang J, Guret C (eds) Social informatics, lecture notes in computer science, vol 7710. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 232–245Google Scholar
  36. Silverman C, Buttry S, Wardle C, Barot T, Browne M, Ingram M, Meier P, Knight S, Tsubaki R (2014) Verification handbook. European Journalism Centre. Available at:  http://verificationhandbook.com/
  37. Stemler S (2001) An overview of content analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 7(17):137–146Google Scholar
  38. Suzuki Y, Nadamoto A (2011) Credibility assessment using Wikipedia for messages on social network services. In: Dependable, autonomic and secure computing (DASC), 2011 IEEE Ninth International Conference on, pp 887–894Google Scholar
  39. Wang D, Abdelzaher T, Ahmadi H, Pasternack J, Roth D, Gupta M, Han J, Fatemieh O, Le H, Aggarwal CC (2011) On bayesian interpretation of fact-finding in information networks. In: Information fusion (FUSION), pp 1–8Google Scholar
  40. Yang J, Counts S, Morris M, Hoff A (2013) Microblog credibility perceptions: comparing the united states and china. In: Proceedings of CHI 2013, pp 575–586Google Scholar
  41. Zubiaga A, Ji H, Knight K (2013) Curating and contextualizing twitter stories to assist with social newsgathering. In: Proceedings of IUI 2013, pp 213–224Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science Department, Queens College and Graduate Center City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations