Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy

  2. 2.

    http://www.mturk.com/

  3. 3.

    http://pic.twitter.com/

  4. 4.

    http://www.instagram.com/

  5. 5.

    We filter by language of the source tweet, because that is the tweet we show during the surveys

  6. 6.

    Retweets were identified as tweets containing the field “retweeted_status” pointing to the original tweet.

  7. 7.

    e.g., http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/sorting-the-real-sandy-photos-from-the-fakes/264243/

  8. 8.

    http://images.google.com/

  9. 9.

    with the exception that corroboration is not always available

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):3

    Article  Google 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 675–684

  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):623–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Eagly A, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Orlando, FL, USA

  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):573–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fallis D (2004) On verifying the accuracy of information: philosophical perspectives. Libr Trends 52(3):463–487

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fallis D (2008) Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 59(10):1662–1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Flanagin A, Metzger M (2000) Perceptions of internet information credibility. J Mass Commun Quart 77(3):515–540

    Google 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 1–15

  10. Goldman A (1999) Knowledge in a social world. Clarendon Press, Oxford

  11. Goldman AI (1986) Epistemology and cognition. Harvard University Press, Harvard

  12. Gupta M, Zhao P, Han J (2012) Evaluating event credibility on twitter. In: Proceedings of SDM 2012

  13. Hargittai E, Fullerton L, Menchen-Trevino E, Thomas K (2010) Trust online: young adults evaluation of web content. Int J Commun 4(1):468–494

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hasher L, Goldstein D, Toppino T (1977) Frequency and the conference of referential validity. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 16(1):107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hermida A (2012) Tweets and truth: journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification. J Pract 6(5–6):659–668

    Google 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 2751–2754

  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 1239–1256

  18. Hume D (2001) An enquiry concerning human understanding, vol 3. Oxford University Press, USA

  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):622–642

    Google 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 179–188

  21. Koohang A, Weiss E (2003) Misinformation: toward creating a prevention framework. Inf Sci

  22. Krippendorff K (2012) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, Sage

  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 591–600

  24. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174

    Google 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):139–202

    Google 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):106–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lipton P (1998) The epistemology of testimony. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 29(1):1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Matheson D (2004) Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: some trends in online journalism. New Media Soc 6(4):443–468

    Article  Google 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 441–450

  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 293–301

  31. OBrien J, Farid H (2012) Exposing photo manipulation with inconsistent reflections. ACM Trans Gr 31(1):4

    Google Scholar 

  32. Petty R, Cacioppo J (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 19(1):123–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Piaget J, Wells P (1972) Psychology and epistemology: towards a theory of knowledge. Penguin Harmondsworth

  34. Piper P (2000) Better read that again: web hoaxes and misinformation. Searcher 8(8):40–49

    Google 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 232–245

  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):137–146

    Google 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 887–894

  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 1–8

  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 575–586

  41. Zubiaga A, Ji H, Knight K (2013) Curating and contextualizing twitter stories to assist with social newsgathering. In: Proceedings of IUI 2013, pp 213–224

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arkaitz Zubiaga.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Uncovering Deception in Social Media.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zubiaga, A., Ji, H. Tweet, but verify: epistemic study of information verification on Twitter. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 4, 163 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-014-0163-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Real Picture
  • Twitter User
  • Information Credibility
  • Information Verification
  • Author Detail