Cited by 645Misinformation and Its ImpactsComplex Network Analysis TechniquesSocial Media and Politics

Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation

Open access
Bessi, Alessandro, Coletto, Mauro, Davidescu, George Alexandru, Scala, Antonio, Caldarelli, Guido, Quattrociocchi, Walter·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The large availability of user provided contents on online social media facilitates people aggregation around shared beliefs, interests, worldviews and narratives. In spite of the enthusiastic rhetoric about the so called collective intelligence unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories-e.g., chemtrails, reptilians or the Illuminati-are pervasive in online social networks (OSN). In this work we study, on a sample of 1.2 million of individuals, how information related to very distinct narratives-i.e. main stream scientific and conspiracy news-are consumed and shape communities on Facebook. Our results show that polarized communities emerge around distinct types of contents and usual consumers of conspiracy news result to be more focused and self-contained on their specific contents. To test potential biases induced by the continued exposure to unsubstantiated rumors on users' content selection, we conclude our analysis measuring how users respond to 4,709 troll information-i.e. parodistic and sarcastic imitation of conspiracy theories. We find that 77.92% of likes and 80.86% of comments are from users usually interacting with conspiracy stories.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0118093

Cites

71 of 71 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

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?

  • Selective exposure and confirmation bias may explain the emergence of echo chambers on social media.

    “Selective exposure (19) and confirmation bias (20) (i.e., the tendency to seek information adhering to preexisting opinions) may explain the emergence of echo chambers on social media (1, 17, 21, 22).”

    From The echo chamber effect on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [22]

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [7]McKelvey K, Menczer F (2013) Truthy: Enabling the study of online social networks. In: Proc. CSCW’13. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4565. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bessi, A., Coletto, M., Davidescu, G. A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W.
Affiliations
IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca (IT)
Corresponding author
Quattrociocchi, Walter
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-02-23
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
e0118093
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2035654630
Cited by
645
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 83 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 5
FWCI
174.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IMT Institutional Repository (IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • ISTI Open Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
  • ARCA (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
European Commission (317532, 610704)
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
conspiracy theories, misinformation, social networking sites, Facebook, collective intelligence, polarization, user engagement, information consumption, chemtrails, Illuminati
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Science, Narration, Social Networking, 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