The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collective attention in the age of (mis)information
Open accessAbstract
Display Omitted How 2.3 Facebook users consumed different information.Qualitatively different information is consumed in a similar way.Users more prone to interact with false claims are usually exposed to conspiracy rumors. In this work we study, on a sample of 2.3million individuals, how Facebook users consumed different information at the edge of political discussion and news during the last Italian electoral competition. Pages are categorized, according to their topics and the communities of interests they pertain to, in (a) alternative information sources (diffusing topics that are neglected by science and main stream media); (b) online political activism; and (c) main stream media. We show that attention patterns are similar despite the different qualitative nature of the information, meaning that unsubstantiated claims (mainly conspiracy theories) reverberate for as long as other information. Finally, we classify users according to their interaction patterns among the different topics and measure how they responded to the injection of 2788 false information. Our analysis reveals that users which are prominently interacting with conspiracists information sources are more prone to interact with intentional false claims.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog
Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005) · Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery · doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277 · Cited by 2,619
Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures
Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2009) · Journal of Political Philosophy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x · Cited by 1,050 · cited 2×
“nment, are more susceptible to false information. Conclusions Conspiracists generally tend to explain a signicant social or political aspect as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations [17] and their activity is proliferating over the web. This study provides a genuine outline of the online social dynami…”
BackgroundThe dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network
González-Bailón, S., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., & Moreno, Y. (2011) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep00197 · Cited by 571
Friggeri, A., Adamic, L., Eckles, D., & Cheng, J. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14559 · Cited by 382
Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict
Atran, S., & Ginges, J. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1216902 · Cited by 309
The Twitter of babel: mapping world languages through microblogging platforms
Mocanu, D., Baronchelli, A., Perra, N., Gonçalves, B., Zhang, Q., & Vespignani, A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061981 · Cited by 293
Self-citationHannak, A., Margolin, D., Keegan, B., & Weber, I. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14555 · Cited by 90
Cited by
The spreading of misinformation online
Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1517441113 · Cited by 2,407
Self-citationInfluence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election
Bovet, A., & Makse, H. A. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07761-2 · Cited by 701
Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation
Bessi, A., Coletto, M., Davidescu, G. A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118093 · Cited by 645
Self-citationPolitical Effects of the Internet and Social Media
Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M., & Enikolopov, R. (2020) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239 · Cited by 560
Online misinformation about climate change
Treen, K. M. D., Williams, H. T. P., & O'Neill, S. J. (2020) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.665 · Cited by 441
Metadata
- Authors
- Mocanu, D., Rossi, L., Zhang, Q., Karsai, M., & Quattrociocchi, W.
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-10
- Volume
- 51
- Pages
- 1198-1204
- ISSN
- 0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2039222427
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 95.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Collective attention in the age of (mis)information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.024
- The paper
- Mocanu, D., Rossi, L., Zhang, Q., Karsai, M., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2015). Collective attention in the age of (mis)information. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.024
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
