Designing social media to foster user engagement in challenging misinformation: a cross-cultural comparison between the UK and Arab countries.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]