Identifying key rumor refuters on social media

被引:12
作者
Gao, Yichang [1 ,2 ]
Sun, Yingping [1 ]
Zhang, Lidi [3 ]
Liu, Fengming [1 ]
Gao, Lei [2 ]
机构
[1] Shandong Normal Univ, Business Sch, Jinan 250014, Peoples R China
[2] CSIRO, Waite Campus, Urrbrae, SA 5064, Australia
[3] Tianjin Univ, Coll Intelligence & Comp, Tianjin 300350, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Key rumor refuters; Echo chamber; Social media; Complex network; Weibo; User behaviors; DENYING RUMORS; MISINFORMATION; COMMUNICATION; TRANSMISSION; COMMUNITY; DYNAMICS; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120603
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
As one of the most intuitive and efficient rumor combating approaches, rumor rebuttal has been widely studied by the scientific community. However, existing studies on rumor refutation often ignore the relationship between communication network structures and user interaction behaviors. During the dissemination of rumor refutation information, some users of social media play a key role in influencing the behaviors of other users and leading the direction of public opinion. Identifying these key rumor refuters is therefore critical to the spread of rumor refutation information. Therefore, based on Sina Weibo rumor refuter data and combined with the echo chamber effect, we construct a multilayer network from three dimensions of users, events, and echo chambers, and develop a key rumor refuter identification model. Then, ten key indicators for user interaction behaviors are extracted based on group theory, and the identified key rumor refuters are comprehensively evaluated based on text and emotion analyses. We find that the positive echo chamber members are significantly more involved in the dissemination of rumor refutation information than negative members. Finally, according to the findings of this study, we suggest using differentiated management measures to effectively spread rumor refutation information by inserting positive users and isolating negative users with different emotions in the dissemination routes of rumor refutation information. This study offers a new method for rumor control and rumor refutation information dissemination.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 71 条
  • [1] On the Internet no one knows I'm an introvert: Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction
    Amichai-Hamburger, Y
    Wainapel, G
    Fox, S
    [J]. CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR, 2002, 5 (02): : 125 - 128
  • [3] Soft rumor control in social networks: Modeling and analysis
    Askarizadeh, Mojgan
    Ladani, Behrouz Tork
    [J]. ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2021, 100
  • [4] Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?
    Barbera, Pablo
    Jost, John T.
    Nagler, Jonathan
    Tucker, Joshua A.
    Bonneau, Richard
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2015, 26 (10) : 1531 - 1542
  • [5] Modeling Echo Chambers and Polarization Dynamics in Social Networks
    Baumann, Fabian
    Lorenz-Spreen, Philipp
    Sokolov, Igor M.
    Starnini, Michele
    [J]. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 2020, 124 (04)
  • [6] Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation
    Bessi, Alessandro
    Coletto, Mauro
    Davidescu, George Alexandru
    Scala, Antonio
    Caldarelli, Guido
    Quattrociocchi, Walter
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (02):
  • [7] Latent Dirichlet allocation
    Blei, DM
    Ng, AY
    Jordan, MI
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH, 2003, 3 (4-5) : 993 - 1022
  • [8] Map equation centrality: community-aware centrality based on the map equation
    Blocker, Christopher
    Nieves, Juan Carlos
    Rosvall, Martin
    [J]. APPLIED NETWORK SCIENCE, 2022, 7 (01)
  • [9] The characteristics of rumor spreaders on Twitter: A quantitative analysis on real data
    Bodaghi, Amirhosein
    Oliveira, Jonice
    [J]. COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS, 2020, 160 : 674 - 687
  • [10] Source characteristics in denying rumors of organizational closure: Honesty is the best policy
    Bordia, P
    DiFonzo, N
    Schulz, CA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 30 (11) : 2309 - 2321