Search

Challenging others who post misinformation is a type of social correction that complements algorithm-based approaches. However, participation rates in such social acts remain limited. In this paper, we study design techniques that leverage principles of persuasive system design and communication theories to foster such prosocial behaviour across two distinct cultural contexts: the British and the Arab. A total of 462 participants completed an online survey (250 UK, 212 Arabs). The study compared the two cultural contexts regarding willingness to challenge misinformation and the persuasiveness of seven design techniques to increase that willingness, namely predefined question stickers, thinking face reaction, sentence openers, fact checker badge, social norm messages, tone detector, and private commenting. Moreover, it explores the impact of individuals’ characteristics on their perception of the techniques as being more or less persuasive than a standard comment box. The study found that the willingness to challenge misinformation was significantly higher in the Arab context than in the UK context. Moreover, except for the private commenting, all techniques were more impactful in the Arab context than in the UK context. Some techniques, such as predefined question stickers, were more effective in both cultures compared to the standard comment box, while others, like the fact checker badge, were more effective only in the Arab context. However, in the UK, sentence openers had a lower impact. Furthermore, personality traits, age, and perspective-taking showed the potential but also the varying impacts on the persuasiveness of the techniques on users’ correction of misinformation across both cultural contexts while pointing to the need for considering both personal and cultural factors in designing social-correction-based solutions.

This study investigates the factors influencing the willingness to challenge misinformation on social media across two cultural contexts, the United Kingdom (UK) and Arab countries. A total of 462 participants completed an online survey (250 UK, 212 Arabs). The analysis revealed that three types of negative consequences (relationship cost, negative impact on the person being challenged, futility) and also injunctive norms influence the willingness to challenge misinformation. Cross-cultural comparisons using t-tests showed significant differences between the UK and the Arab countries in all factors except the injunctive norms. Multiple regression analyses identified differences between the UK and Arab participants concerning which of the factors predicted the willingness to challenge misinformation. The findings suggest that participants’ self-reported injunctive norms play a significant role in shaping their willingness to engage in corrective actions across both cultural contexts. Moreover, UK participants’ reporting of how others perceive negative impact on the person being challenged and injunctive norms were significant predictors, while for the Arabs, only the perceived relationship costs emerged as a significant predictor. This study has important implications for policymakers and social media platforms in developing culturally sensitive interventions encouraging users to correct misinformation.

This study investigates the barriers to challenging others who post misinformation on social media platforms. We conducted a survey amongst U.K. Facebook users (143 (57.2 %) women, 104 (41.6 %) men) to assess the extent to which the barriers to correcting others, as identified in literature across disciplines, apply to correcting misinformation on social media. We also group the barriers into factors and explore demographic differences amongst them. It has been suggested that users are generally hesitant to challenge misinformation. We found that most of our participants (58.8 %) were reluctant to challenge misinformation. We also identified moderating roles of age and gender in the likelihood of challenging misinformation. Older people were more likely to challenge misinformation compared to young adults while, men demonstrated a slightly greater likelihood to challenge compared to women. The 20 barriers influencing the decision to challenge misinformation, were then grouped into four main factors: social concerns, effort/interest considerations, prosocial intents, and content-related factors. We found that, controlling for age and gender, “social concerns” and “effort/interest considerations” have the significant impact on likelihood to challenge. Identified four factors were analysed in terms of demographic differences. Men ranked “effort/interest considerations” higher than women, while women placed higher importance on “content-related factors”. Moreover, older individuals were found to be more resilient to “social concerns”. The influence of educational background was most prominent in ranking “content-related factors”. Our findings provide important insights for the design of future interventions aimed at encouraging the challenging of misinformation on social media platforms, highlighting the need for tailored, demographically sensitive approaches.

Persuasive interfaces raise ethical concerns when users are unaware of persuasion or find it hard to resist it. Inoculation Theory suggests that attitudes can be inoculated against persuasive attacks. Studies show that disclosure statements in native advertising help people recognize persuasive intent. Likewise, just-in-time disclosure statements in persuasive interfaces may have a similar effect. In this article, explainable persuasion was used as an inoculation intervention to build resistance against persuasive interfaces. The effectiveness of this approach was assessed via a 4x2 online experiment, taking online gambling as an illustrative domain. 240 participants (age range 18–73 years, 138 male, 100 female, 2 participants choose not to disclose) were recruited from the UK. Inoculation was delivered through an animated video, while explainable persuasion was operationalized through the disclosure of persuasive intent. The findings showed that explainable persuasion increased awareness of the presence and risks of persuasive interfaces and strengthened user resistance to persuasive attempts. Explainable persuasion, being information-based, can be a cost-effective strategy for helping people stay in control over their digital usage while engaging with persuasive technologies.

Purpose: There is a scarcity of research studies on why people remain inactive when encountering and recognising misinformation online. The main aim of this paper is to provide a groundwork for future research into why users do not challenge misinformation on digital platforms by generating hypotheses through a synthesis of pertinent literature, including organisational behaviour, communication, human-computer interaction (HCI), psychology, and education. Design/methodology/approach: Given the lack of directly related literature, this paper synthesised findings from relevant fields where the findings might be relevant, as the tendency to withhold opinions or feedback is a well-documented practice in offline interaction. Findings: Following our analysis of relevant literature, the potential reasons for online silence towards misinformation can be divided into six categories: self-oriented, relationship-oriented, others-oriented, content-oriented, individual characteristics, and technical factors. Originality: Although corrections coming from peers can effectively combat misinformation, several studies showed that people in cyberspace do not take such action. To the best of our knowledge, there has been scarce and virtually non-existent research investigating why people refrain from challenging others who post misinformation online. Thus, this paper attempts to address this gap and identify reasons in adjacent domains. The reasons provide a starting point for researching interventions to reduce reluctance and abstinence regarding the challenge of misinformation. Our findings can be beneficial beyond the area of challenging misinformation and are extensible to other types of content and communication that people are hesitant to discuss and challenge, such as online injustice, prejudice, and hate speech.