skip to main content
10.1145/3584931.3608915acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Adopting an Ecological Approach to Misinformation: Understanding the Broader Impacts on Online Communities

Published:14 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Prior work has acknowledged the significance of social and community oriented factors in the spread and impacts of misinformation. However, interventions have largely focused on individual pieces of false and misleading content as misinformation, de-emphasizing the role of community-oriented factors that are involved in and contribute to the broad impacts of misinformation. My dissertation highlights the consequences that arise from such an individualistic focus. To account for the broader scope of this misinformation and its impacts, it proposes adopting an ecological perspective to misinformation. Employing this perspective, my work examines the community-level impacts of misinformation, from shaping perceptions about online communities to shifting the way online communities interpret and respond to the world’s events. Indeed, understanding and accounting for such significant impacts of misinformation on online communities is important if we hope to address the broader, systemic nature of misinformation and its effects at the community level.

References

  1. 2017. Fact-checking fake news on Facebook works - just too slowly.https://apnews.com/article/north-america-technology-business-fake-news-ap-fact-check-e03283b4169f4d8c8a7e51042d61bcb5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2018. How whatsapp helped turn an Indian village into a lynch mob. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2020. Expanding Facebook’s U.S. Fact-Checking Program and Supporting the Fact-Checking Ecosystem. https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/fact-checking-expansion-and-investment-2020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2020. Fake news and its impact on the economy.https://priorityconsultants.com/blog/fake-news-and-its-impact-on-the-economy/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2021. Twitter launches crowd-sourced fact-checking project. https://apnews.com/article/twitter-launch-crowd-sourced-fact-check-589809d4c9a7eceda1ea8293b0a14af2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Zhila Aghajari, Eric P. S. Baumer, and Dominic DiFranzo. 2023. Reviewing Interventions to Address Misinformation: The Need to Expand Our Vision Beyond an Individualistic Focus. (2023).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhila Aghajari, Eric P. S. Baumer, and Dominic DiFranzo. 2023. What’s the Norm Around Here? Individuals’ Responses Can Mitigate the Effects of Misinformation Prevalence in Shaping Perceptions of a Community. (2023).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Eric P. S. Baumer, Vera Khovanskaya, Mark Matthews, Lindsay Reynolds, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Geri Gay. 2014. Reviewing reflection: on the use of reflection in interactive system design. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems. 93–102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Robert D Benford and David A Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology (2000), 611–639.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Md Momen Bhuiyan, Michael Horning, Sang Won Lee, and Tanushree Mitra. 2021. NudgeCred: Supporting News Credibility Assessment on Social Media Through Nudges. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research 3, Jan (2003), 993–1022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Alexandre Bovet and Hernán A Makse. 2019. Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nature communications 10, 1 (2019), 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonas Colliander. 2019. “This is fake news”: Investigating the role of conformity to other users’ views when commenting on and spreading disinformation in social media. Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019), 202–215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Adam M Enders, Joseph E Uscinski, Casey Klofstad, and Justin Stoler. 2020. The different forms of COVID-19 misinformation and their consequences. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Robert M Entman. 1993. Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory 390 (1993), 397.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. William A Gamson. 1989. News as framing: Comments on Graber. American behavioral scientist 33, 2 (1989), 157–161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. William A Gamson and Andre Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American journal of sociology 95, 1 (1989), 1–37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Erving Goffman. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Andrew M Guess and Benjamin A Lyons. 2020. Misinformation, disinformation, and online propaganda. Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform 10 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 1984. Choices, values, and frames.American psychologist 39, 4 (1984), 341.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Alex Zhi-Xiong Koo, Min-Hsin Su, SangWon Lee, So-Yun Ahn, and Hernando Rojas. 2021. What Motivates People to Correct Misinformation? Examining the Effects of Third-person Perceptions and Perceived Norms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (2021), 1–24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. David MJ Lazer, Matthew A Baum, Yochai Benkler, Adam J Berinsky, Kelly M Greenhill, Filippo Menczer, Miriam J Metzger, Brendan Nyhan, Gordon Pennycook, David Rothschild, 2018. The science of fake news. Science 359, 6380 (2018), 1094–1096.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich KH Ecker, and John Cook. 2017. Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition 6, 4 (2017), 353–369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich KH Ecker, Colleen M Seifert, Norbert Schwarz, and John Cook. 2012. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological science in the public interest 13, 3 (2012), 106–131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Sahil Loomba, Alexandre de Figueiredo, Simon J Piatek, Kristen de Graaf, and Heidi J Larson. 2021. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature human behaviour 5, 3 (2021), 337–348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon Pennycook and David G Rand. 2021. Examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 Presidential Election. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Shruti Phadke, Mattia Samory, and Tanushree Mitra. 2021. What Makes People Join Conspiracy Communities? Role of Social Factors in Conspiracy Engagement. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ankita Rao. 2021. Guardian News and Media. (2021, January 5). US pharmacist who tried to ruin Covid vaccine doses is a conspiracy THEORIST, police say.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/04/wisconsin-pharmacist-covid-19-vaccine-doses-steven-brandenburg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Dietram A Scheufele. 2000. Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass communication & society 3, 2-3 (2000), 297–316.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Briony Swire, Adam J Berinsky, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Ullrich KH Ecker. 2017. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society open science 4, 3 (2017), 160802.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1985. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Dror Walter and Yotam Ophir. 2019. News frame analysis: An inductive mixed-method computational approach. Communication Methods and Measures 13, 4 (2019), 248–266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Claire Wardle, Hossein Derakhshan, 2018. Thinking about ‘information disorder’: formats of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information. Ireton, Cherilyn; Posetti, Julie. Journalism,‘fake news’& disinformation. Paris: Unesco (2018), 43–54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Adopting an Ecological Approach to Misinformation: Understanding the Broader Impacts on Online Communities

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CSCW '23 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
            October 2023
            596 pages
            ISBN:9798400701290
            DOI:10.1145/3584931

            Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 14 October 2023

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • abstract
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

            Upcoming Conference

            CSCW '24

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format