CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Misinformation and Its ImpactsComplex Network Analysis TechniquesSocial Media and Politics

Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation

Open access
Bak-Coleman, Joseph B., Kennedy, Ian, Wack, Morgan, Beers, Andrew, Schafer, Joseph S., Spiro, Emma S., Starbird, Kate, West, Jevin D.·2022·Nature Human Behaviour
DOI 10.1038/s41562-022-01388-6PMC PMC9584817

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Misinformation online poses a range of threats, from subverting democratic processes to undermining public health measures. Proposed solutions range from encouraging more selective sharing by individuals to removing false content and accounts that create or promote it. Here we provide a framework to evaluate interventions aimed at reducing viral misinformation online both in isolation and when used in combination. We begin by deriving a generative model of viral misinformation spread, inspired by research on infectious disease. By applying this model to a large corpus (10.5 million tweets) of misinformation events that occurred during the 2020 US election, we reveal that commonly proposed interventions are unlikely to be effective in isolation. However, our framework demonstrates that a combined approach can achieve a substantial reduction in the prevalence of misinformation. Our results highlight a practical path forward as misinformation online continues to threaten vaccination efforts, equity and democratic processes around the globe.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-022-01388-6

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. [5]Lazer DMJ The science of fake news Science 2018 359 1094 1096 10.1126/science.aao2998 29590025 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [6]Velásquez, N. et al. Online hate network spreads malicious COVID-19 content outside the control of individual social media platforms. Sci. Rep.10.1038/s41598-021-89467-y (2021). PMC8206165 34131158 · DOI
  3. [7]Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Research note: examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev.10.37016/mr-2020-51 (2021). · DOI
  4. [8]Huszár, F. et al. Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA10.1073/pnas.2025334119 (2022). PMC8740571 34934011
  5. [9]Sanderson, Z., Brown, M. A., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. A. Twitter flagged Donald Trump’s tweets with election misinformation: they continued to spread both on and off the platform. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev.10.37016/MR-2020-77 (2021). · DOI
  6. [10]Bak-Coleman JB Stewardship of global collective behavior Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2021 118 2025764118 10.1073/pnas.2025764118 PMC8271675 34155097 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [12]Bakshy, E., Mason, W. A., Hofman, J. M. & Watts, D. J. Everyone’s an influencer: quantifying influence on Twitter. In Proc. 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM 2011 65–74 (ACM Press, 2011); 10.1145/1935826.1935845 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [14]Lloyd-Smith JO Schreiber SJ Kopp PE Getz WM Superspreading and the effect of individual variation on disease emergence Nature 2005 438 355 359 10.1038/nature04153 16292310 PMC7094981 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [15]Levin S Social–ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications Environ. Dev. Econ. 2013 18 111 132 10.1017/S1355770X12000460 · DOI
  10. [18]Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C. & Adamic, L. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In WWW ’12—Proc. 21st Annual Conference on World Wide Web 519–528 (ACM Press, 2012); 10.1145/2187836.2187907 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [19]Kimura, M. & Saito, K. Tractable models for information diffusion in social networks. In Proc. 10th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (eds Fürnkranz, J. et al.) 259–271 (Springer, 2006); 10.1007/11871637 · DOI
  12. [21]Lerman K Information is not a virus, and other consequences of human cognitive limits Future Internet 2016 8 21 10.3390/fi8020021 · DOI
  13. [22]Juul, J. L. & Ugander, J. Comparing information diffusion mechanisms by matching on cascade size. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA10.1073/pnas.2100786118 (2021). PMC8609637 34750252
  14. [23]Wang L Wood BC An epidemiological approach to model the viral propagation of memes Appl. Math. Model. 2011 35 5442 5447 10.1016/j.apm.2011.04.035 · DOI
  15. [24]Martin, T., Hofman, J. M., Sharma, A., Anderson, A. & Watts, D. J. Exploring limits to prediction in complex social systems. In Proc. 25th International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2016 683–694 (International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2016); 10.1145/2872427.2883001 · DOI
  16. [25]Arif, A. et al. How information snowballs: exploring the role of exposure in online rumor propagation. In Proc. ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW Vol. 27, 466–477 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016); 10.1145/2818048.2819964 · DOI
  17. [26]Butts CT Revisiting the foundations of network analysis Science 2009 325 414 416 10.1126/science.1171022 19628855 · DOI
  18. [30]Saunois, M., Jackson, R. B., Bousquet, P., Poulter, B. & Canadell, J. G. The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change. Environ. Res. Lett.10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/120207 (2016). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bak-Coleman, J. B., Kennedy, I., Wack, M., Beers, A., Schafer, J. S., Spiro, E. S., Starbird, K., & West, J. D.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Bak-Coleman, Joseph B.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-06-23
Volume
6
Issue
10
Pages
1372-1380
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41562-022-01388-6
PMC
PMC9584817
OpenAlex
W4283325287
Cited by
145
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 1
FWCI
44.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
  • National Science Foundation (2027792)
  • Craig Newmark Philanthropies
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
viral misinformation, misinformation spread, intervention evaluation, combined intervention, epidemic modeling, Twitter, 2020 US presidential election, selective sharing
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Politics, Public Health, Vaccination, Social Media

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