↓ Skip to main content

PNAS

The spreading of misinformation online

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1329 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2353 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
The spreading of misinformation online
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, January 2016
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1517441113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michela Del Vicario, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Fabio Petroni, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, H. Eugene Stanley, Walter Quattrociocchi

Abstract

The wide availability of user-provided content in online social media facilitates the aggregation of people around common interests, worldviews, and narratives. However, the World Wide Web (WWW) also allows for the rapid dissemination of unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories that often elicit rapid, large, but naive social responses such as the recent case of Jade Helm 15--where a simple military exercise turned out to be perceived as the beginning of a new civil war in the United States. In this work, we address the determinants governing misinformation spreading through a thorough quantitative analysis. In particular, we focus on how Facebook users consume information related to two distinct narratives: scientific and conspiracy news. We find that, although consumers of scientific and conspiracy stories present similar consumption patterns with respect to content, cascade dynamics differ. Selective exposure to content is the primary driver of content diffusion and generates the formation of homogeneous clusters, i.e., "echo chambers." Indeed, homogeneity appears to be the primary driver for the diffusion of contents and each echo chamber has its own cascade dynamics. Finally, we introduce a data-driven percolation model mimicking rumor spreading and we show that homogeneity and polarization are the main determinants for predicting cascades' size.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 982 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,353 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 <1%
Germany 7 <1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Italy 5 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Slovenia 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Other 16 <1%
Unknown 2295 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 433 18%
Student > Master 346 15%
Student > Bachelor 293 12%
Researcher 240 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 118 5%
Other 435 18%
Unknown 488 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 506 22%
Computer Science 301 13%
Psychology 218 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 94 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 88 4%
Other 560 24%
Unknown 586 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1771. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#5,886
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#189
of 103,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48
of 401,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#3
of 839 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 401,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 839 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.