Abstract
Social media are pervaded by unsubstantiated or untruthful rumors, that contribute to the alarming phenomenon of misinformation. The widespread presence of a heterogeneous mass of information sources may affect the mechanisms behind the formation of public opinion. Such a scenario is a florid environment for digital wildfires when combined with functional illiteracy, information overload, and confirmation bias. In this essay, we focus on a collection of works aiming at providing quantitative evidence about the cognitive determinants behind misinformation and rumor spreading. We account for users’ behavior with respect to two distinct narratives: (a) conspiracy and (b) scientific information sources. In particular, we analyze Facebook data on a time span of 5 years in both the Italian and the US context, and measure users’ response to (1) information consistent with one’s narrative, (2) troll contents, and (3) dissenting information e.g., debunking attempts. Our findings suggest that users tend to (a) join polarized communities sharing a common narrative (echo chambers), (b) acquire information confirming their beliefs (confirmation bias) even if containing false claims, and (c) ignore dissenting information.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adamic LA, Glance N (2005) The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 36–43
Adar E, Zhang L, Adamic LA (2004) Lukose RM: implicit structure and the dynamics of blogspace. In: Workshop on the weblogging ecosystem, vol 13, pp 16989–16995
Aikin SF (2013) Poe’s law, group polarization, and argumentative failure in religious and political discourse. Soc Semiot 23(3):301–317
Akerlof GA, Yellen JL, Katz ML (1996) An analysis of out-of-wedlock childbearing in the United States. Q J Econ 111:277–317
AlMansour AA, Brankovic L, Iliopoulos CS (2014) A model for recalibrating credibility in different contexts and languages-a twitter case study. Int J Digit Inf Wirel Commun 4(1): 53–62
Aral S, Muchnik L, Sundararajan A (2009) Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(51):21544–21549
Asch SE (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Readings About Soc Anim 193:17–26
Bakshy E, Hofman JM, Mason WA, Watts DJ (2011) Everyone’s an influencer: quantifying influence on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 65–74
Bakshy E, Messing S, Adamic LA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on facebook. Science 348(6239):1130–1132
Bessi A, Coletto M, Davidescu GA, Scala A, Caldarelli G, Quattrociocchi W (2015) Science vs conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PLoS One 10(2):e0118,093
Bessi A, Petroni F, Del Vicario M, Zollo F, Anagnostopoulos A, Scala A, Caldarelli G, Quattrociocchi W (2015) Viral misinformation: the role of homophily and polarization. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 355–356
Bessi A, Petroni F, Del Vicario M, Zollo F, Anagnostopoulos A, Scala A, Caldarelli G, Quattrociocchi W (2016) Homophily and polarization in the age of misinformation. Eur Phys J Spec Top 225(10):2047–2059
Centola D (2010) The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329(5996):1194–1197
Centre WHOM (2014) Ebola: Experimental therapies and rumoured remedies. Situation Assessment (2014). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/15-august-2014/en/
Cheng J, Adamic L, Dow PA, Kleinberg JM, Leskovec J (2014) Can cascades be predicted? In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Canton of Geneva, pp 925–936
Ciampaglia GL, Shiralkar P, Rocha LM, Bollen J, Menczer F, Flammini A (2015) Computational fact checking from knowledge networks. PLoS One 10(6):e0128193
Conover M, Ratkiewicz J, Francisco MR, Gonçalves B, Menczer F, Flammini A (2011) Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM 133:89–96
Conover MD, Goncalves B, Ratkiewicz J, Flammini A, Menczer F (2011) Predicting the political alignment of twitter users. In: 2011 IEEE third international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust and 2011 IEEE third international conference on social computing, pp 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/PASSAT/SocialCom.2011.34
Del Vicario M, Bessi A, Zollo F, Petroni F, Scala A, Caldarelli G, Stanley HE, Quattrociocchi W (2016) The spreading of misinformation online. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(3):554–559
Dong XL, Gabrilovich E, Murphy K, Dang V, Horn W, Lugaresi C, Sun S, Zhang W (2015) Knowledge-based trust: estimating the trustworthiness of web sources. Proc VLDB Endowment 8(9):938–949
Dow PA, Adamic LA, Friggeri A (2013) The anatomy of large Facebook cascades. In: ICWSM
Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C (2007) The benefits of facebook “friends:” social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput-Mediat Commun 12(4): 1143–1168
Erich O, Udi W: News feed fyi: Showing fewer hoaxes (2015). http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/01/news-feed-fyi-showing-fewer-hoaxes/
Facebook: Using the graph api. Website (2017). https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/using-graph-api/. Last checked: 24.02.2017
Gupta A, Kumaraguru P, Castillo C, Meier P (2014) Tweetcred: real-time credibility assessment of content on twitter. In: Social informatics. Springer, Berlin, pp 228–243.
Howell WL (2013) Digital wildfires in a hyperconnected world. Tech. Rep. Global Risks 2013, World Economic Forum
Jenni Sargent MD (2017) First draft coalition. Website. https://firstdraftnews.com
Kahan DM (1997) Social influence, social meaning, and deterrence. Virginia Law Rev 83: 349–395
Katz E, Lazarsfeld PF (1970) Personal influence, the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
Knobloch-Westerwick S (2012) Selective exposure and reinforcement of attitudes and partisanship before a presidential election. J Commun 62(4):628–642
Kuklinski JH, Quirk PJ, Jerit J, Schwieder D, Rich RF (2000) Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. J Polit 62(3):790–816
Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson B, Gaudet H (1968) The peoples choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press, New York
Lazer D, Pentland AS, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabasi AL, Brewer D, Christakis N, Contractor N, Fowler J, Gutmann M, et al (2009) Life in the network: the coming age of computational social science. Science (New York, NY) 323(5915):721
Lessig L (2009) Code: and other laws of cyberspace. www.ReadHowYouWant.com
Levy P (1999) Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444
Moore JP (2009) The dangers of denying HIV. Nature 459(7244):168–168
Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2(2):175
Nyhan B, Reifler J (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit Behav 32(2):303–330
Pariser E (2011) The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin, London
Peto R, Peto J (1972) Asymptotically efficient rank invariant test procedures. J R Stat Soc Ser A 135:185–207
Qazvinian V, Rosengren E, Radev DR, Mei Q (2011) Rumor has it: identifying misinformation in microblogs. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, New Brunswick, pp 1589–1599
Ratkiewicz J, Conover M, Meiss M, Gonçalves B, Flammini A, Menczer F (2011) Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. In: ICWSM
Resnick P, Carton S, Park S, Shen Y, Zeffer N (2014) Rumorlens: a system for analyzing the impact of rumors and corrections in social media. In: Proceedings of the computational journalism conference
Stoner JA (1968) Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: the influence of widely held values. J Exp Soc Psychol 4(4):442–459
Sunstein CR (2002) The law of group polarization. J Polit Philos 10(2):175–195
Sunstein CR (2009) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Ugander J, Backstrom L, Marlow C, Kleinberg J (2012) Structural diversity in social contagion. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(16):5962–5966
Watts DJ, Dodds PS (2007) Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. J Consum Res 34(4):441–458
Zollo F, Bessi A, Del Vicario M, Scala A, Caldarelli G, Shekhtman L, Havlin S, Quattrociocchi W (2015) Debunking in a world of tribes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.04267
Zollo F, Novak PK, Del Vicario M, Bessi A, Mozetič I, Scala A, Caldarelli G, Quattrociocchi W (2015) Emotional dynamics in the age of misinformation. PLoS One 10(9):e0138740
Acknowledgements
This work is based on co-authored material. We thank Aris Anagnostopoulos, Alessandro Bessi, Guido Caldarelli, Michela Del Vicario, Shlomo Havlin, Igor Mozetič, Petra Kralj Novak, Fabio Petroni, Antonio Scala, Louis Shekhtman, H. Eugene Stanley, and Brian Uzzi.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zollo, F., Quattrociocchi, W. (2018). Misinformation Spreading on Facebook. In: Lehmann, S., Ahn, YY. (eds) Complex Spreading Phenomena in Social Systems. Computational Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77332-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77332-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77331-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77332-2
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)