Attacking science on social media: How user comments affect perceived trustworthiness and credibility (original) (raw)
Related papers
Claiming Credibility in Online Comments: Popular Debate Surrounding the COVID-19 Vaccine
Publications
At times of crisis, access to information takes on special importance, and in the Internet age of constant connectedness, this is truer than ever. Over the course of the pandemic, the huge public demand for constantly updated health information has been met with a massive response from official and scientific sources, as well as from the mainstream media. However, it has also generated a vast stream of user-generated digital postings. Such phenomena are often regarded as unhelpful or even dangerous since they unwittingly spread misinformation or make it easier for potentially harmful disinformation to circulate. However, little is known about the dynamics of such forums or how scientific issues are represented there. To address this knowledge gap, this chapter uses a corpus-assisted discourse approach to examine how “expert” knowledge and other sources of authority are represented and contested in a corpus of 10,880 reader comments responding to Mail Online articles on the developme...
Usage of Scientific References in MMR Vaccination Debates on Twitter
2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 2018
This research analyzes scientific information sharing behaviors on Twitter. Over an eleven-month period, we collected tweets related to the controversy over the supposed linkage between the MMR vaccine and autism. We examined the usage pattern of scientific information resources by both sides of the ongoing debate. Then, we explored how each side uses scientific evidence in the vaccine debate. To achieve this goal, we analyzed the usage of scientific and nonscientific URLs by both polarized opinions. A domain network, which connects domains shared by the same user, was generated based on the URLs "tweeted" by users engaging in the debate in order to understand the nature of different domains and how they relate to each other. Our results showed that people with anti-vaccine attitudes linked many times to the same URL while people with pro-vaccine attitudes linked to fewer overall sources but from a wider range of resources, and that they provided fewer total links compared to people with anti-vaccine attitudes. Moreover, our results showed that vocal journalists have a huge impact on users' opinions. This study has the potential to improve understanding about how health information is disseminated via social media by showing how scientific evidence is referenced in discussions about controversial health issues. Monitoring scientific evidence usage on social media can reveal concerns and misconceptions related to the usage of these types of evidence.
Social credibility online: The role of online comments in assessing news article credibility
Newspaper Research Journal
This 2 × 2 experimental study (N = 196) tested the effects of source expertise and opinion valence in readers' comments on the credibility of an online news story about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Source expertise had a significant influence on perceptions of article credibility; articles were judged more credible when public comments embedded in the story were from expert sources (e.g., scientists) rather than nonexpert sources (e.g., Twitter users). Effects were larger on high-frequency news users, regardless of whether comments were for or against GMOs. Results suggest that Internet users mainly use the peripheral or heuristic route of information processing to evaluate online news credibility. The importance for online journalism of social heuristics via opinions of other people is discussed.
Saw It on Facebook: The Role of Social Media in Facilitating Science Issue Awareness
Social media and society, 2020
Recent years have been marked by a decline of traditional science journalism as a source of science news for the public (Xenos, 2017) and a concurrent shift to online platforms as a supplement and substitute of traditional science news (Anderson et al., 2010; Brossard & Scheufele, 2013). Among those online platforms, social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube functions as information providers (Brossard, 2013) and discussion grounds for issues such as climate change (Jang & Hart, 2015) and vaccination (Dunn et al., 2015). Science news ranks third in surveys asking Americans about their interest in specific news topics, which is below local and political news, but ahead of topics like business and sports (Funk et al., 2017). Furthermore, Americans are interested not only in, and hold opinions on, science issues that receive more traditional media coverage such as climate change (Pew Research Center, 2015a) but also in more niche issues such as human gene editing (Pew Research Center, 2015a; Scheufele et al., 2017). In this changing news environment, the question of where Americans become aware of science issues is important, as awareness plays a role in attitude and behavior formation in general (Sweldens et al., 2014), as well as for science issues more specifically (Owens & Driffill, 2008). Awareness is also an important marker for the scientific community that often signals when to engage in debate with the public about research (Nerlich & McLeod, 2016). Understanding how the public seeks information and becomes aware about science might allow researchers to 930412S MSXXX10.
STEM CELLS Translational Medicine
He Jiankui et al. conducted an experiment that resulted in the birth of the first human babies with germline gene editing. Initial and predominant communications of their work occurred via social media and outside of the norms for reviewing, approving, and engaging around work in science. This case provides an opportunity to reflect on the evolving and increasing presence of social media in science, its strengths, weaknesses, and the potential to develop applications that improve how we review, approve, and engage around the work of science. Social media use in science presents significant challenges. The potential benefits of addressing these challenges and developing new social media tools include greater transparency, access, and engagement-and could nurture the public's trust.
Assessing the credibility of COVID-19 vaccine mis/disinformation in online discussion
Journal of Information Science
This study examines how the credibility of the content of mis- or disinformation, as well as the believability of authors creating such information is assessed in online discussion. More specifically, the investigation was focused on the credibility of mis- or disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. To this end, a sample of 1887 messages posted to a Reddit discussion group was scrutinised by means of qualitative content analysis. The findings indicate that in the assessment of the author’s credibility, the most important criteria are his or her reputation, expertise and honesty in argumentation. In the judgement of the credibility of the content of mis/disinformation, objectivity of information and plausibility of arguments are highly important. The findings highlight that in the assessment of the credibility of mis/disinformation, the author’s qualities such as poor reputation, incompetency and dishonesty are particularly significant because they trigger expectancies about how the ...
An Audience-Centered Analysis of Cues to Which Group of Disputing Scientists is More Credible
Americans evaluated 22 cues laypeople might use to decide which group of disagreeing scientists is more likely correct, rating perceptions of the cue's reliability in determining the more valid side, its availability in their information sources, and average Americans' ability to use it effectively, plus self-reported cue use. Overall scientists' experience, research quality, and credentials rated highest on these "expressed value" criteria, findings which can complement future "normative value" (e.g., expert judgments of cues' reliability, availability, and usability) and "persuasive value" (whether exposure to a cue changes lay views) research advancing theory and practice regarding lay assessment of intra-science disputes.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2014
Given the prevalence of online media today, credibility continues to be a popular subject of empirical research. However, studies examining the effects of discrediting strategies are rare. This issue is significant given the popularity of online media and the ease of such sources to spread misinformation. Therefore, the present study examines the effects of attacking the expertise and trustworthiness of a proponent of a major social issue. Results showed that support as well specific combinations of discrediting attack strategies significantly reduced message board readers' perceptions of the proponent's credibility. In addition, attacks on either the proponent's expertise or trustworthiness resulted in a reduced likelihood of readers taking action with respect to the issue.
Journalism
Fake science news is a type of fake news that can threaten the credibility of the scientific community. Scientists’ attention to fake science news can indirectly influence the way they react to tackling fake science news through socio-psychological factors. Applying the influence of presumed media influence (IPMI), this study examines how scientists’ attention to fake science news indirectly influences their support for initiatives to tackle fake science news through presumed harm of fake science news on other scientists and the general public, as well as their attitude and personal norm towards tackling fake science news. Specifically, this study explicates the behavioural outcome into support for education and support for legislation against fake science news. The results from a survey of 706 Singapore-based scientists supported the relationships posited in the IPMI. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.