CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

‘Do your own research': affordance activation and disinformation spread

Tripodi, Francesca B., Garcia, Lauren C., Marwick, Alice E.·2024·Information, Communication & Society
DOI 10.1080/1369118x.2023.2245869
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Affordances are the perception of what a technical artifact can do. They bridge a technically-determinist perspective with social constructivist theory, acknowledging the material aspects of technology while allowing for user agency. Yet most affordance theory separates out the engagement process into producers and consumers. On one hand, this lens is essential because it considers how an end user interprets, engages, and utilizes technology through their social structure. It highlights how engagement is both constrained and enabled by the creator, but also documents how such engagement might differ from a creator’s intention(s) completely. On the other hand, this framework doesn’t consider the interactional dimensions of affordances theory. This paper fills this gap, relying on sociotechnical theory to analyze three case studies across three different platforms (Twitter, Google Scholar, and Yandex). In doing so, we explain how pundits, propagandists, and conspiracy theorists ‘activate affordances’ to validate their claims. When audiences are primed to ‘do their own research,’ disinformation becomes a more entangled, participatory process.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2023.2245869

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. 10.13110/humanbiology.93.1.01 · DOI
  2. Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life (D. Couling, Trans.). Duke University Press.
  3. 10.1093/ct/qtaa008 · DOI
  4. Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age. Polity Press.
  5. Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press.
  6. Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Connors, P., Ortega, T., Kerr, D., & Wineburg, S. (2021). Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
  7. 10.1186/s41235-021-00291-4 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/1461444812440159 · DOI
  9. 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086 · DOI
  10. Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 233–253). SAGE Publications Ltd. · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1162/daed_a_01852 · DOI
  12. Cantril, H. (1940). The invasion from Mars; a study in the psychology of panic. Princeton University Press.
  13. 10.1093/joc/jqy003 · DOI
  14. Chen, E., Chang, H., Rao, A., Lerman, K., Cowan, G., & Ferrara, E. (2021). COVID-19 misinformation and the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
  15. 10.1177/1461444809105345 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/1536504218766547 · DOI
  17. 10.1177/08969205211073669 · DOI
  18. Ellison, N. B., & Vitak, J. (2015). Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (1st ed., pp. 203–227). Wiley. · DOI
  19. 10.1080/10584609.2020.1723755 · DOI
  20. Garcia, L. C. (2020). From the margins to the center: Legitimation strategies from an alt-right case study. Virginia Commonwealth University.
  21. Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Reaching Through Technology - CHI ‘91, 79–84.
  22. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Erlbaum.
  23. Gilbert, B. (2019, September 28). A US soldier working at Mar-a-Lago uploaded photos of an underage girl to a Russian website—a closer look at the site reveals a horrific underworld. Business Insider.
  24. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. University of California Press.
  25. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row.
  26. Golebiewski, M., & boyd, D. (2019). Data voids: Where missing data can easily be exploited. Data & Society Research Institute.
  27. Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2019). Invisible search and online search engines: The ubiquity of search in everyday life (1st ed.). Routledge. · DOI
  28. Hawley, G. (2017). Making sense of the alt-right (p. 232). Columbia University Press. · DOI
  29. Hemmer, N. (2016). Messengers of the right: Conservative media and the transformation of American politics. University of Pennsylvania Press. · DOI
  30. 10.1080/01972240050133634 · DOI
  31. Jack, C. (2017). Lexicon of lies: Terms for problematic information (p. 22). Data & Society Research Institute.
  32. 10.1007/s42438-019-00069-4 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/01596300500200169 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/10714839.2007.11722307 · DOI
  35. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Lee, C., Yang, T., Inchoco, G. D., Jones, G. M., & Satyanarayan, A. (2021). Viral visualizations: How coronavirus skeptics use orthodox data practices to promote unorthodox science online. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–18.
  37. Lewis, R. (2018). Alternative influence: Broadcasting the reactionary right on YouTube (p. 61). Data & Society Research Institute.
  38. Luker, K. (2010). Salsa dancing into the social sciences: Research in an age of info-glut. Harvard University Press. · DOI
  39. Lyons, M. N. (2017). Ctrl-Alt-Delete: An antifascist report on the alternative right. In K. Kersplebedeb (Ed.), Ctrl-Alt-Delete: An antifascist report on the alternative right. Kersplebedeb Publishing.
  40. Mak, A. (2022, March 15). The DuckDuckGo users furious at its response to the war in Ukraine. Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/duckduckgo-russian-disinformation-downranking.html
  41. Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media manipulation and disinformation online (p. 106). Data & Society Research Institute.
  42. Marwick, A. E. (2018). Why do people share fake news? A sociotechnical model of media effects. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 2(2), 474–512.
  43. Marwick, A. E., & Partin, W. C. (2022). Constructing alternative facts: Populist expertise and the QAnon conspiracy. New Media & Society, 14614448221090200.
  44. 10.23860/JMLE-2018-10-2-1 · DOI
  45. 10.1111/bjep.12279 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.28968/cftt.v7i2.37645 · DOI
  47. 10.1177/2056305115603385 · DOI
  48. Nisbet, E. C., Mortenson, C., & Li, Q. (2021). The presumed influence of election misinformation on others reduces our own satisfaction with democracy. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
  49. Norman, D. A. (2014). The design of everyday things, revised and expanded edition. MIT Press.
  50. 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Ognyanova, K., Lazer, D., Robertson, R. E., & Wilson, C. (2020). Misinformation in action: Fake news exposureis linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. · DOI · Paper page
  52. Orwell G. (2021). Nineteen eighty–four. Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1949).
  53. Phillips, W., & Milner, R. (2021). You are here: A field guide for navigating poliarized speech, conspiracy theories, and our polluted media landscape. The MIT Press. · DOI
  54. PRRI Staff. (2022). The persistence of QAnon in the post-Trump era: An analysis of who believes the conspiracies (p. 14). Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).
  55. Rainie, L., Keeter, S., & Perrin, A. (2022). Trust and distrust in America. Pew Research Center. 2019.
  56. Roberts, S. T. (2019). Behind the screen: Content moderation in the shadows of social media. Yale University Press.
  57. Saini, A. (2019). Superior: The return of race science. Beacon Press.
  58. 10.1177/1466138108099586 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1145/3359229 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Tannenbaum, M. (2013). “But I didn't mean it!” Why it's so hard to prioritize impacts over intents. Scientific American – Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
  61. Tripodi, F. (2018). Searching for alternative facts: Analyzing scriptural inference in conservative news practices. Data & Society Research Institute.
  62. 10.1080/1369118X.2021.2020873 · DOI
  63. Tripodi, F. B. (2021). ReOpen demands as public health threat: A sociotechnical framework for understanding the stickiness of misinformation. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 28(4), 321–334. · DOI
  64. Tripodi, F. B. (2022). The propagandists’ playbook: How conservative elites manipulate search and threaten democracy. Yale University Press.
  65. 10.1177/001872675100400101 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Tufecki, Z. (2018). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
  67. 10.1177/20563051221104749 · DOI
  68. Yin, L., Roscher, F., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2018). Your friendly neighborhood troll: The internet research agency’s use of local and fake news in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign [Data Report]. NYU Center for Social Media and Politics.
  69. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth edition.). SAGE.
  70. 10.54501/jots.v1i4.72 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E.
Affiliations
  • School of Information and Library Science, Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life, University of North Carolina System, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
  • Department of Sociology, University of Virgina, Charlottesville, VA, USA
  • Department of Communication and Principal, Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life, University of North Carolina System, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
ORCID
Tripodi, Francesca B.
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-08-30
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
1212-1228
ISSN
  • 1369-118X
  • 1468-4462
DOI
10.1080/1369118x.2023.2245869
Cited by
31
References
6
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • Center for Information Technology and Public Life, Technology, and Public Life and its philanthropic supporters
  • John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
  • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • Carnegie Corporation of New York

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