skip to main content
10.1145/2441776.2441841acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Microblog credibility perceptions: comparing the USA and China

Published:23 February 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Microblogs have become an increasingly important source of information, both in the U.S. (Twitter) and in China (Weibo). However, the brevity of microblog updates, combined with increasing access of microblog content through search rather than through direct network connections, makes it challenging to assess the credibility of news relayed in this manner [34]. This paper reports on experimental and survey data that compare the impact of several features of microblog updates (author's gender, name style, profile image, location, and degree of network overlap with the reader) on credibility perceptions among U.S. and Chinese audiences. We reveal the complex mechanism of credibility perceptions, identify several key differences in how users from each country critically consume microblog content, and discuss how to incorporate these findings into the design of improved user interfaces for accessing microblogs in different cultural settings.

References

  1. Barabás, A. L., Jeonga, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., and Vicsek, T., Evolution of the socialnetwork of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 311, 3-4 (2002), 590--614.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernstein, M., Suh, B., Hong, L., Chen, J., Kairam, S., and Chi, E. H. Eddi: Interactive topic-based browsing of social status streams. in Proc. 23rd ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST), ACM (2010), 303--312. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bishop, J. A., Luo, F., and Wang, F., Economic transition, gender bias, and the distribution of earnings in China. Economics of Transition 13, 2 (2005), 211--420.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., and Poblete, B. Information credibility on twitter. in Proc. WWW, ACM (2011), 675--684. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chen, G. M., Differences in Self-disclosure Patterns among Americans versus Chinese: A Comparative Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 26, 1 (1995), 84--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Corcoran, M., Death by Cliff Plunge, With a Push From Twitter, in The New York Times. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Darley, W. K. and Smith, R. E., Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response. Journal of Advertising 24, 1 (1995), 41--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Dollinger, M. J., Confucian ethics and Japanese management practices. Journal of Business Ethics 7, (1988), 575--584.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Flanagin, A. J. and Metzger, M. J., Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77, 3 (2000), 515--540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Flanagin, A. J. and Metzger, M. J., The perceived credibility of personal Web page information as influenced by the sex of the source. Computers in Human Behavior 19, 6 (2003), 683--701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., and Trauber, E. R. How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. in Proc. the Conference on Designing for User Experiences, (2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Google. Official Google Blog. An Update to Google Social Search. February 17, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gould, P. and White, R., Mental Maps. 1986: Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenfield, P. M., Maynard, A. E., and Childs, C. P., Historical change, cultural learning, and cognitive representation in Zinacantec Maya children. Cognitive Development 18, (2003), 455--487.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Grover, R., Ad.ly: The Art of Advertising on Twitter. Businessweek January 6 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta, M. D. and Shuzhuo, L., Gender Bias in China, South Korea and India 1920-1990: Effects of War, Famine and Fertility Decline. Development and Change 30, 3 (1999), 619--652.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, E. T., Beyond Culture. 1976: Anchor Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall, E. T., Understanding Cultural Differences, Germans, French and Americans. 1990, Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hargittai, E., Fullerton, L., Menchen-Trevino, E., and Thomas, K. Y., Trust Online: Young Adults' Evaluation of Web Content. Int'l. Journal of Communication 4, (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hecht, B., Hong, L., Suh, B., and Chi, E. H. Tweets from Justin Bieber's heart: the dynamics of the location field in user profiles. in Proc. CHI, ACM (2011), 237--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Hofstede, G. http://www.clearlycultural.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. http://companies.caixin.com/2012-05-18/100391626.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, J. M., Mississippi Rates as the Most Conservative U.S. State. Gallup Politics (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanalley, C., Facebook Shutting Down Rumor Goes Viral: Site Said to be Ending March 15, 2011. The Huffington Post January 9 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kayan, S., Fussell, S. R., and Setlock, L. D., Cultural differences in the use of instant messaging in Asia and North America, in Proc. CSCW, 2006, ACM: Banff, Alberta, Canada. p. 525--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M., and Uskul, A. K., A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., and Moon, S. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? in Proc. WWW, ACM (2010), 591--600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Lazar, J., Meiselwitz, G., and Feng, J., Understanding Web Credibility: A Synthesis of the Research Literature. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 1, 2 (2007), 139--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Lloyd, G. E. R., Science in antiquity: The Greek and Chinese cases and their relevance to the problems of culture and cognition, in Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition, D. R. Olson and N. Torrance, Editors. 1996, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Markus, H. R. and Kitayama, S., Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98, (1991), 224--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Massey, A. P., Hung, Y.-T. C., Montoya-Weiss, M., and Ramesh, V., When culture and style aren't about clothes: perceptions of task-technology "fit" in global virtual teams, in Proc.GROUP. 2001, ACM: Boulder, Colorado, USA. p. 207--213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., and Castillo, C. Twitter under crisis: can we trust what we RT? in Proc. Workshop on Social Media Analytics, ACM (2010), 71--79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Metzger, M. J., Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, 13 (2007), 2078 - 2091. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Morris, M. R., Counts, S., Roseway, A., Hoff, A., and Schwarz, J. Tweeting is Believing? Understanding Microblog Credibility Perceptions. in Proc. CSCW, ACM (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Mustafaraj, E. and Metaxas, P., From Obscurity to Prominence in Minutes: Political Speech and Real-Time Search. Web Science (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., and Norenzayan, A., Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review 108, (2001), 291--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Owens, S., How Celebrity Imposters Hurt Twitter's Credibility. Mediashift February 20 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Pal, A. and Counts, S. Identifying Topical Authorities in Microblogs. in Proc. WSDM, (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Pal, A. and Counts, S. What's in a @name? How Name Value Biases Judgment of Microblog Authors. in Proc. ICWSM, AAAI (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Pye, L. W., Asian power and politics: The cultural dimensions of authority. 1985, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Qazvinian, V., Rosengren, E., Radev, D. R., and Mei, Q. Rumor has it: identifying misinformation in microblogs. in Proc. the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (2011), 1589--1599. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., and Kai-Cheng, Y., The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies (2007), 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramage, D., Dumais, S., and Liebling, D. Characterizing Microblogs with Topic Models. in Proc. ICWSM, (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M., Goncalves, B., Patil, S., Flammini, A., and Menczer, F. Truthy: Mapping the Spread of Astroturf in Microblog Streams. in Proc. WWW, ACM (2011), 249--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Schmierbach, M. and Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., A little bird told me, so I didn't believe it: Twitter, credibility, and issue perceptions. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication August 4, (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwartz, B., Bing Adds Twitter Smart Answers. Search Engine Land (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwarz, J. and Morris, M. R. Augmenting Web Pages and Search Results to Support Credibility Assessment. in Proc. CHI, (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Setlock, L. D. and Fussell, S. R. What's it worth to you?: the costs and affordances of CMC tools to asian and american users. in Proc. CHI, ACM (2010).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Siegler, M. G., At 1.6 Billion Queries Per Day, Twitter Finally Aims To Make Search Personally Relevant, in TechCrunch. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Sullivan, D., Twitter's Real Time Spam Problem. Search Engine Land June 6 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Teevan, J., Ramage, D., and Morris, M. R. #TwitterSearch: a comparison of microblog search and web search. in Proc. ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (2011), 35--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Triandis, H. C., The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review 3, (1989), 506--520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Tumbridge, J., Twitter: who's really there? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 5, 2 (2010), 116--118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Twitter. http://blog.twitter.com/2012/03/twitter-turns-six.html March 21, 2012. March 14, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Twitter. One Hundred Million Voices. http://blog.twitter.com/2011/09/one-hundred-million-voices.html September 8, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Varnum, M. E. W., Grossmann, I., Kitayama, S., and Nisbett, R. E., The Origin of Cultural Differences in Cognition: The Social Orientation Hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10, 1 (2010), 9--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Verbaa, S., Burnsa, N., and Schlozmana, K. L., Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement. The Journal of Politics 59 (1997), 1051--1072.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Vieweg, S., Hughes, A. L., Starbird, K., and Palen, L. Microblogging during two natural hazards events: what twitter may contribute to situational awareness. in Proc. CHI, ACM (2010), 1079--1088. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Williamson, T., Sprawl, Spatial Location, and Politics: How Ideological Identification Tracks the Built Environment. American Politics Research 36, 903--933.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Yamamoto, Y. and Tanaka, K. Enhancing Credibility Judgment of Web Search Results. in Proc. CHI ACM (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Yang, J., Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., Adamic, L. A., and Ackerman, M. S. Culture Matters: A Survey Study of Social Question and Answer Behavior. in Proc. ICWSM, IAAA (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Yang, J., Wei, X., Adamic, L., and Ackerman, M. Activity Lifespan: An Analysis of User Survival Patterns in Online Knowledge Sharing Communities. in Proc. ICWSM, IAAA (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Yang, J., Wen, Z., Adamic, L., and Ackerman, M. Collaborating Globally: Culture and Organizational Computer-Mediated Communication. in Proc. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhao, C. and Jiang, G. Cultural Differences on Visual Self-Presentation through Social Networking Site Profile Images. in Proc. CHI, ACM (2011), 1129--1132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Microblog credibility perceptions: comparing the USA and China

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '13: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work
      February 2013
      1594 pages
      ISBN:9781450313315
      DOI:10.1145/2441776

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 February 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader