CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Misinformation and Its ImpactsPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionSpam and Phishing Detection

Building Personalized Trust: Discovering What Makes One Trust and Act on Facebook Posts

Zhou, Michelle X., Yang, Huahai, Mark, Gloria, Hu, Mengdie, Mahumd, Jalal, Pal, Aditya·2021·ACM Transactions on Social Computing
DOI 10.1145/3468977
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

What makes one trust or distrust a post on Facebook? What makes one willing to take an action on the post, such as sharing it with friends, following its advice, or even making a donation for its cause? We hypothesize that personal factors in addition to the characteristics of a post would be associated with one's trust and willingness to take actions on the post. To test our hypothesis, we have examined the relationships between a wide variety of personal factors and how users perceived the credibility of a post on Facebook and their associated behavior—willingness to act on the post with the acceptance of potential risks. Our results from a study involving 400 participants reveal several new findings. Notably, beyond message properties, we have discovered that personal factors are significantly associated with how users perceived the credibility of Facebook posts. Not only do our findings extend prior work on studying the relationships between information properties and users' trust in Facebook posts, but they also indicate the potential of tailoring intended messages to an audience based on their personal factors for establishing desired trust. Moreover, we have found that a combination of personal factors is associated more with users' willingness to act on a post than their perceptions of credibility alone. This finding deepens the understanding of users' behavior on Facebook beyond learning their subjective perceptions. It also informs how to potentially tailor intended messages to an audience based on the audience's personal factors so that the audience can act on the messages beyond just perceiving the credibility of the messages. We also discuss the implications of our findings for building personalized trust between message authors and readers on Facebook and beyond.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3468977

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Gender was not a significant antecedent of trust in information, trust in online social media groups, or trust in social media platforms.

    “In general, our results show that gender was not a signifcant antecedent of trust in information [95,122], trust in online social media groups [69], nor trust in social media platforms [27].”

    From What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [122]

  • Prior experiences with and attitudes towards the trustee are essential antecedents of trust in information found on social media.

    “People's prior experiences with and attitudes towards the trustee infuence their perceptions of that trustee and have been shown to be essential antecedents of trust in information found on social media [5,31,32,40,122].”

    From What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [122]

  • Trust in information on social media and trust in the platforms themselves positively influence people's intention to share information, news, and opinions on social media.

    “All the studies in our corpus suggest that trust in the information on social media [10,56,65,68] and trust in the platforms themselves [30,59,66,70] positively infuence people's intention to share information, news, and opinions on social media [122].”

    From What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [122]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zhou, M. X., Yang, H., Mark, G., Hu, M., Mahumd, J., & Pal, A.
Affiliations
  • Juji, Inc., Saratoga, CA, USA
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Meta (United States) (US)
  • IBM, San Jose, CA, USA
  • Apple (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
ACM Transactions on Social Computing
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2021-09-30
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
1-28
ISSN
  • 2469-7818 (ISSN-L)
  • 2469-7826
DOI
10.1145/3468977
OpenAlex
W3206125745
Cited by
2
References
52
Citations by year
2023: 2
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
ACM Transactions on Social Computing (publishedVersion)
Funders
Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-15-C-0032)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
Facebook posts, trust in online information, perceived credibility, willingness to act, personal factors, audience tailoring, message sharing, risk acceptance, social media behavior

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