↓ Skip to main content

Debunking in a world of tribes

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, July 2017
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)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
190 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Debunking in a world of tribes
Published in
PLoS ONE, July 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0181821
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabiana Zollo, Alessandro Bessi, Michela Del Vicario, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, Louis Shekhtman, Shlomo Havlin, Walter Quattrociocchi

Abstract

Social media aggregate people around common interests eliciting collective framing of narratives and worldviews. However, in such a disintermediated environment misinformation is pervasive and attempts to debunk are often undertaken to contrast this trend. In this work, we examine the effectiveness of debunking on Facebook through a quantitative analysis of 54 million users over a time span of five years (Jan 2010, Dec 2014). In particular, we compare how users usually consuming proven (scientific) and unsubstantiated (conspiracy-like) information on Facebook US interact with specific debunking posts. Our findings confirm the existence of echo chambers where users interact primarily with either conspiracy-like or scientific pages. However, both groups interact similarly with the information within their echo chamber. Then, we measure how users from both echo chambers interacted with 50,220 debunking posts accounting for both users consumption patterns and the sentiment expressed in their comments. Sentiment analysis reveals a dominant negativity in the comments to debunking posts. Furthermore, such posts remain mainly confined to the scientific echo chamber. Only few conspiracy users engage with corrections and their liking and commenting rates on conspiracy posts increases after the interaction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 190 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Italy 2 1%
Unknown 140 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 23%
Researcher 27 18%
Student > Master 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 11 8%
Other 35 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 34 23%
Computer Science 25 17%
Unspecified 21 14%
Psychology 16 11%
Physics and Astronomy 9 6%
Other 41 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 258. 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 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#44,546
of 12,984,175 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#971
of 140,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,326
of 264,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#28
of 3,242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,984,175 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 140,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. 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 264,463 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 3,242 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.