Author:
Borukhson David,Lorenz-Spreen Philipp,Ragni Marco
Abstract
AbstractA new phenomenon is the spread and acceptance of misinformation and disinformation on an individual user level, facilitated by social media such as Twitter. So far, state-of-the-art socio-psychological theories and cognitive models focus on explaining how the accuracy of fake news is judged on average, with little consideration of the individual. In this paper, a breadth of core models are comparatively assessed on their predictive accuracy for the individual decision maker, i.e., how well can models predict an individual’s decision before the decision is made. To conduct this analysis, it requires the raw responses of each individual and the implementation and adaption of theories to predict the individual’s response. Building on methods formerly applied on smaller and more limited datasets, we used three previously collected large datasets with a total of 3794 participants and searched for, analyzed and refined existing classical and heuristic modeling approaches. The results suggest that classical reasoning, sentiment analysis models and heuristic approaches can best predict the “Accept” or “Reject” response of a person, headed by a model put together from research by Jay Van Bavel, while other models such as an implementation of “motivated reasoning” performed worse. Further, hybrid models that combine pairs of individual models achieve a significant increase in performance, pointing to an adaptive toolbox.
Funder
Danish Institute of Advanced Studies
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Volkswagen Foundation
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Developmental and Educational Psychology,Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Reference54 articles.
1. Allcott, H., and Gentzkow, M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31, 2 (2017), 211–36.
2. Borukhson, D., Lorenz-Spreen, P., and Ragni, M. When does an individual accept misinformation? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (2021), vol. 43.
3. Brand, D., Riesterer, N. O., and Ragni, M. (n.d.). Unifying models for belief and syllogistic reasoning.
4. Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Galeazzi, A., Valensise, C. M., Brugnoli, E., Schmidt, A. L., Zola, P., Zollo, F., and Scala, A. The covid-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports 10, 1 (2020), 1–10.
5. Crawford, J. R., and Henry, J. D. The positive and negative affect schedule (panas): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 43, 3 (2004), 245–265.
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献