How does information spread? An exploratory study of true and fake news

37 citations

Abstract

The intentional and non-intentional use of social media platforms resulting in digital wildfires of misinformation has increased significantly over the last few years. However, the factors that influence this rapid spread in the online space remain largely unknown. We study how believability and intention to share information are influenced by multiple factors, in addition to confirmation bias. We conducted an experiment where a mix of true and false articles was evaluated by study participants. Using hierarchical linear modelling to analyze our data, we found that, in addition to confirmation bias, believability is influenced by source endorser credibility and argument quality, both of which are moderated by the type of information – true or false. Source likeability had a positive main effect on believability. After controlling for belief and confirmation bias, intention to share information was affected by source endorser credibility and information source likeability.

37
Citations
Research
Paper Only

Study specs

Year
2020
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.