Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChiu, Ming Ming
dc.contributor.authorPark, Chong Hyun
dc.contributor.authorLee, Hyelim
dc.contributor.authorOh, Yu Won
dc.contributor.authorKim, Jeong-Nam
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-05T20:01:44Z
dc.date.available2022-05-05T20:01:44Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citation"Election Fraud and Misinformation on Twitter: Author, Cluster, and Message Antecedents." Cogitatio. 10.2 (2022): 66-80. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5168 https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i2.5168en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11244/335542
dc.description.abstractThis study determined the antecedents of diffusion scope (total audience), speed (number of adopters/time), and shape (broadcast vs. person-to-person transmission) for true vs. fake news about a falsely claimed stolen 2020 US Presidential election across clusters of users that responded to one another’s tweets (“user clusters”). We examined 31,128 tweets with links to fake vs. true news by 20,179 users to identify 1,069 user clusters via clustering analysis. We tested whether attributes of authors (experience, followers, following, total tweets), time (date), or tweets (link to fake [vs. true] news, retweets) affected diffusion scope, speed, or shape, across user clusters via multilevel diffusion analysis. These tweets showed no overall diffusion pattern; instead, specific explanatory variables determined their scope, speed, and shape. Compared to true news tweets, fake news tweets started earlier and showed greater broadcast influence (greater diffusion speed), scope, and person-to-person influence. Authors with more experience and smaller user clusters both showed greater speed but less scope and less person-to-person influence. Likewise, later tweets showed slightly more broadcast influence, less scope, and more person-to-person influence. By contrast, users with more followers showed less broadcast influence but greater scope and slightly more person-to-person influence. These results highlight the earlier instances of fake news and the greater diffusion speed of fake news in smaller user clusters and by users with fewer followers, so they suggest that monitors can detect fake news earlier by focusing on earlier tweets, smaller user clusters, and users with fewer followers.en_US
dc.languageen_USen_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectdiffusionen_US
dc.subjectelectionsen_US
dc.subjectfake newsen_US
dc.subjectsituational theory of problem-solvingen_US
dc.subjectsocial networksen_US
dc.titleElection Fraud and Misinformation on Twitter: Author, Cluster, and Message Antecedentsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.peerreviewYesen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.17645/mac.v10i2.5168en_US
ou.groupGaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communicationen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International