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. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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. Felix Chopra & Ingar K. Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2021. "The Demand for Fact-Checking," CESifo Working Paper Series 9061, CESifo.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Tuval Danenberg & Drew Fudenberg, 2024. "Endogenous Attention and the Spread of False News," Papers 2406.11024, arXiv.org.
    5. 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.
    6. Gonzalo Cisternas & Jorge Vásquez, 2022. "Misinformation in Social Media: The Role of Verification Incentives," Staff Reports 1028, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    7. Jan A. Kempkes & Francesco Suprano & Andreas Wömpener, 2024. "How management support systems affect job performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 2013-2086, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Drews, Stefan & Savin, Ivan & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2022. "Biased perceptions of other people's attitudes to carbon taxation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    10. Gritsenko, Daria, 2024. "Advancing UN digital cooperation: Lessons from environmental policy and governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Steve Rathje & Jon Roozenbeek & Jay J. Bavel & Sander Linden, 2023. "Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(6), pages 892-903, June.
    15. Gordon Pennycook & David G. Rand, 2022. "Nudging Social Media toward Accuracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 152-164, March.
    16. Aasen, Marianne & Thøgersen, John & Vatn, Arild & Stern, Paul C., 2024. "The role of norm dynamics for climate relevant behavior: A 2019–2021 panel study of red meat consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    17. Guglielmo Zappalà, 2023. "Drought Exposure and Accuracy: Motivated Reasoning in Climate Change Beliefs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 649-672, August.
    18. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    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.