Analysis of User Verification Behavior Towards Misinformation in Social Media

Abstract

The rise of social media in the consumption of information and news has led to concerns about the accuracy of the information. For this reason, the problem of misinformation, has become a subject that needs to be investigated. In this study, verification behaviors for false or suspicious information in social media were examined. The model proposed within the framework of the Elaboration Likelihood Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior were analyzed by Structural Equation Modeling. As a result of the analysis, hypotheses regarding the effect of systematic information processing and information quality factors, which are the central route, on attitude were accepted. While the hypotheses developed for the effect of source credibility and message interaction level, which are determined as peripheral route, on attitude were accepted, the other peripheral factor, homophily hypothesis, was rejected. In addition, it was found that there was a positive relationship between attitude and perceived behavioral control and verification intention, while subjective norms had no effect on intention.

Keywords

• Social media
• Misinformation
• Verification behavior
• Elaboration Likelihood Model
• Theory of Planned Behavior

Sosyal Medyadaki Yanlış Bilgiye Yönelik Kullanıcı Doğrulama Davranışlarının İncelenmesi

Abstract

Sosyal medyanın bilgi ve haber tüketiminde ilk sıralara yükselmesi, bu ortamda yer alan bilginin doğruluğu konusunda endişelere yol açmıştır. Bu nedenle hem bireysel hem de toplumsal bağlamda etkileri görülmeye başlanan yanlış bilgi problemi, araştırılması gereken bir konu haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmada sosyal medyadaki yanlış veya şüpheli bilgilere yönelik doğrulama davranışları incelenmiştir. Araştırmada, Ayrıntılandırma Olasılığı Modeli ve Planlı Davranış Teorisi çerçevesinde oluşturulan model ile doğruluk kontrol davranışını etkileyen faktörler, Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi ile analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda merkezi yollar olan sistematik bilgi işleme ve bilgi kalitesi faktörlerinin tutum üzerindeki etkisine yönelik hipotezler kabul edilmiştir. Çevresel faktör olarak belirlenen kaynak güvenilirliği ve mesaj etkileşim düzeyinin tutum üzerindeki etkisine yönelik geliştirilen hipotezler kabul edilirken, diğer çevresel faktör olan homofilinin tutum üzerindeki etkisine yönelik hipotez ise reddedilmiştir. Ayrıca, tutum ve algılanan davranışsal kontrol ile doğrulama niyeti arasında olumlu bir ilişki varken, öznel normların niyet üzerinde bir etkisi olmadığı saptanmıştır.

Keywords

• Sosyal medya
• Yanlış bilgi
• Doğrulama davranışı
• Ayrıntılandırma Olasılığı Modeli
• Planlı Davranış Teorisi

References

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2. Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. 6.06.2019 tarihinde https://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
3. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
4. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa116
5. Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS quarterly, 30(4), 805-825. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148755
6. Bruns, A. (2019). Are filter bubbles real? Polity Press.
7. Castells, M. (2013). Ağ toplumunun yükselişi. (E.Kılıç Çev.) İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
8. Celliers, M., & Hattingh, M. (2020). A systematic review on fake news themes reported in literature. M. Hattingh, M. Matthee, H. Smuts, I. Pappas, Y. K. Dwivedi, M. Mäntymäki (Ed). Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology içinde (ss. 223-234). Springer.

9. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Ed). Unintended thought içinde (ss. 212- 252). The Guilford Press.
10. Chang, Y. T., Yu, H., & Lu, H. P. (2015). Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion, and message diffusion in social media marketing. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 777-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2014.11.027
11. Chen, C. Y., Kearney, M., & Chang, S. L. (2021). Belief or identification of false news according to the elaboration likelihood model. International Journal of Communication, 15, 1263-1285. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ ijoc/article/view/14804
12. Currarini, M., & Mengel, F. (2016). Identity, homophily and in-group bias. European Economic Review, 90, 40- 55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.02.015
13. Çömlekçi, M. F., & Başol, O. (2019). Sosyal medya haberlerine güven ve kullanıcı teyit alışkanlıkları üzerine bir inceleme. Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi, 30, 55-77. https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.518697
14. Çapık, C., Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2018). Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlama aşamaları, dil ve kültür uyarlaması: Güncellenmiş rehber. Florence Nightingale journal of Nursing, 26(3), 199-210. https://doi.org/10.26650/ FNJN397481
15. Danesi, M. (2009). Dictionary of media and communications. M.E. Sharpe.
16. Erten, S. (2002). Planlanmış davranış teorisi ile uygulamalı öğretim metodu. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 217-232. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/huefd/issue/41192/500777
17. European Commission. (2018, 04 27). Fake news and disinformation online. 12.10. 2018 tarihinde Publications Office of the European Union: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2d79b85a- 4cea-11e8 – be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en adresinden edinilmiştir.
18. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
19. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 37(2), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083- 6101.2009.01440.x
20. Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L. A. (2013). Dual process theories. D. E. Carlston (Ed). The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition içinde (ss. 282-312). Oxford University Press.
21. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. Cengage.
22. Hendricks, V. F., & Vestergaard, M. (2019). Reality lost. Springer.
23. Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy Jr, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0014694
24. Khan, M. L., & Idris, I. K. (2019). Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: a reasoned action and information literacy perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(12), 1194-1212. https://doi. org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.157.8828
25. Koohikamali, M., & Sidorova, A. (2017). Information re-sharing on social network sites in the age of fake news. Informing Science, 20, 215-235. https://doi.org/10.28945/3871
26. Lee, A. R., Son, S. M., & Kim, K. K. (2016). Information and communication technology overload and social networking service fatigue: A stress perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 51-61. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.011
27. Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378- 7206(02)00043-5
28. Marwick, A. E. (2018). Why do people share fake news? A sociotechnical model of media effects. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 2(2), 474-512.
29. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(4), 323-332. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.x
30. Mele, N., Lazer, D, Baum, M., Grinberg, N., Friedland, L., Joseph, K., Mattsson, C. (2017, 03 02). Combating Fake News: An Agenda for Research and Action. 12.10. 2019 tarihinde Shorenstein Center: https:// shorensteincenter.org/combating-fake-news-agenda-for-research/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
31. Meng, B., & Choi, K. (2019). Tourists’ intention to use location-based services (LBS): Converging the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the elaboration likelihood model (ELM). International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(8), 3097-3115. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2018-0734
32. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & McCann, R. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 293-335. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23808.985.2003.11679029
33. Miller, S. (2019). Examining engagement behavior on social media related to fake news. [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. University of South Alabama.
34. Miller, Z. D., Freimund, W., Metcalf, E. C., Nickerson, N., & Powell, R. B. (2019). Merging elaboration and the theory of planned behavior to understand bear spray behavior of day hikers in Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Management, 63(3), 366-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267.019.01139-w
35. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Eddy, K., & Nielsen, R. K. (2022). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
36. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andı, S., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020). Digital news report 20.04.2021 tarihinde https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-06/ DNR_2020_FINAL.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
37. Orçan, F. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first?. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 414-421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
38. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin.
39. Perloff, L. M. (2013). The dynamics of persuasion: communication and attitudes in the 21st century (5. Baskı). Routledge.
40. Petrov, A., & Proncheva, O. (2018). Modeling propaganda battle: decision-making, homophily, and echo chambers. Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Proceedings. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-01204-5_19
41. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Westview Press.
42. Postman, N. (2010). Televizyon öldüren eğlence: Gösteri çağında kamusal söylem (Cilt 3. Baskı). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
43. Pundir, V., Devi, E. B., & Nath, V. (2021). Arresting fake news sharing on social media: a theory of planned behavior approach. Management Research Review, 1108-1138. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2020- 0286
44. Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016, 06 13). Echo Chambers on Facebook. 05.10.2018 tarihinde https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795110 adresinden erişilmiştir.
45. Renjith, R. (2017). The effect of information overload in digital media news content. Communication and Media Studies, 6(1), 73-85.
46. Schemer, C., Matthes, J., & Wirth, W. (2008). Toward improving the validity and reliability of media information processing measures in surveys. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(3), 193-225. https://doi. org/10.1080/193.124.50802310474
47. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press.
48. Suntwal, S., Brown, S., & Patton, M. (2020). How does information spread? A study of true and fake news. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
49. Swire, B., & Ecker, U. K. (2018). Misinformation and its correction: Cognitive mechanisms and recommendations for mass communication. B. Southwell, E. A. Thorson, & L. Sheble (Ed). Misinformation and mass audiences içinde (ss. 195-211). University of Texas Press.
50. Tandoc Jr, E. C., Ling, R., Westlund, O., Duffy, A., Goh, D., & Zheng Wei, L. (2018). Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2745- 2763. https://doi.org/10.1177/146.144.4817731756
51. Teng, S., Khong, K. W., & Goh, W. W. (2015). Persuasive communication: A study of major attitude-behavior theories in a social media context. Journal of Internet Commerce, 14(1), 42-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15332.861.2015.1006515
52. Torres, R., Gerhart, N., & Negahban, A. (2018). Epistemology in the era of fake news: An exploration of information verification behaviors among social networking site users. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 49(3), 78-97.https://doi.org/10.1145/3242.734.3242740
53. Van Dijk, J. (2016). Ağ toplumu. (Ö. Sakin, Dü.) Kafka, Epsilon Yayıncılık.
54. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017, 10 27). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. 05.05.2019 tarihinde https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c adresinden erişilmiştir.
55. White, H. E. (2019, 07 02). Elaboration Likelihood Model. Oxford Bibliographies. 9.07.2020 tarihinde https:// www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-978.019.9756841/obo-978.019.9756841-0053. xml#obo-978.019.9756841-0053-bibItem-0003 adresinden erişilmiştir.
56. Zhao, L., Yin, J., & Song, Y. (2016). An exploration of rumor combating behavior on social media in the context of social crises. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.054.
57. Zhou,, X., & Zafarani, R. A survey of fake news: fundamental theories, detection methods, and opportunities 17.07.2020 tarihinde https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.00315 adresinden erişilmiştir.