key: cord-0966378-a3lq0jlx
authors: Wang, Xiangyu; Zhang, Min; Fan, Weiguo; Zhao, Kang
title: Understanding the spread of COVID‐19 misinformation on social media: The effects of topics and a political leader's nudge
date: 2021-09-27
journal: J Assoc Inf Sci Technol
DOI: 10.1002/asi.24576
sha: 0e83eba74b81cd2bb8d9e5f1e8eee5838cd9a202
doc_id: 966378
cord_uid: a3lq0jlx

The spread of misinformation on social media has become a major societal issue during recent years. In this work, we used the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic as a case study to systematically investigate factors associated with the spread of multi‐topic misinformation related to one event on social media based on the heuristic‐systematic model. Among factors related to systematic processing of information, we discovered that the topics of a misinformation story matter, with conspiracy theories being the most likely to be retweeted. As for factors related to heuristic processing of information, such as when citizens look up to their leaders during such a crisis, our results demonstrated that behaviors of a political leader, former US President Donald J. Trump, may have nudged people's sharing of COVID‐19 misinformation. Outcomes of this study help social media platform and users better understand and prevent the spread of misinformation on social media.

Social media has changed the way people receive and share information. According to the Pew Research Center, the influence of social media has outpaced traditional news outlets with 68% of US adults using social media as their primary sources of news (Elisa, 2018; Elisa & Katerina Eva, 2018) . The ubiquity of social media has made them a major channel for political, business, philanthropic, or health campaigns (Courtney, 2013; Gainous & Wagner, 2013) . In particular, the value of social media has been highlighted during emergencies or crises such as mass shooting, wildfires, and terrorist attacks (Vosoughi et al., 2018) .

Due to the popularity of social media, political leaders have strategically used them for campaigning, advocacy, and fund raising (Hemsley, 2019; Kreis, 2017; Petrova et al., 2020) . Some political leaders become influential on social media, with millions of followers who actively seek the up-to-date information these leaders share (Parmelee & Bichard, 2011) . Thus, they have strong power to disproportionately impact the spread of information and influence their followers' behaviors (Parmelee & Bichard, 2011) , even to divert their attention from mainstream media (Lewandowsky et al., 2020) .

At the same time, social media have also become a hotbed for misinformation-information that is false or inaccurate (Scheufele & Krause, 2019; Wang et al., 2019) and sometimes referred to as fake news (Cummings & Kong, 2019; Lazer et al., 2018) . Misinformation has been circulated widely on social media (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017) . Such widespread of misinformation on social media has had great impact on various aspects of our society, including public elections, financial markets, environment protection, violent uprising, and so on (Kim et al., 2019; Lazer et al., 2018) . Therefore, it becomes urgent for us to understand the dynamics of misinformation on social media, so that we can better promote accurate information, deter the spread of misinformation, and mitigate its negative effects on our society.

Since early 2020, the world has been shocked by the COVID-19 pandemic and witnessed the surge of related misinformation on social media. In panic, people rushed online to find and share information about COVID-19, especially when their physical mobility became limited due to lockdown measures. During March and April 2020, COVID-19-related searches on Google exceeded those for other news and weather by a large margin (GoogleTrends, 2020) and the number of tweets about COVID-19 reached more than 500 million during the same period. 1 Unfortunately, a large amount of misinformation emerged as well, with about 50% of Americans having encountered fabricated information about COVID-19 online (Amy & Baxter, 2020) and many falling victim to such misinformation (Whelan et al., 2019) .

However, when people look up to their political leaders during the crisis, some leaders have been criticized for fueling the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 on social media. One such example is former US President Donald J. Trump, an avid Twitter user with more than 88 million followers. After being accused of sharing misinformation about the 2020 US presidential election, a large portion of his tweets about the election were labeled as misleading by Twitter in November 2020. 2 Although his account was later suspended by Twitter for incitement of violence, 3 it remains a question if and how he was involved in spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

This study analyzed large-scale data on how COVID-19 stories from misinformation sources spread on Twitter, one of the most popular social media platforms. Based on the heuristic-systematic model (HSM) and the nudge theory, our regression model not only examined factors associated with the content and sources of these stories, but also revealed Trump's subtle yet significant role in the process. The contributions of this work are twofold. First, our study represents the first one to systematically investigate the spread of multi-topic misinformation about COVID-19 on social media. We hope our results can provide a clear picture on how such a diverse group of misinformation spreads on social media. Second, we showed that certain political leaders' behaviors on social media could have an effect, albeit indirectly, on the spread of misinformation. Findings of our study can help social media operators better identify misinformation posts that are likely to spread. Our outcomes also suggest that both operators and users of social media should be alert of political leaders who are implicitly promoting the spread of misinformation.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: we review related work in Section 2. This is followed by descriptions of our datasets and models in Section 3. After demonstrating and discussing results in Section 4, this article concludes with implications of our findings and future research directions.

Previous studies on misinformation have focused on two tasks: misinformation detection (Kumar & Geethakumari, 2014; Shu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018) and misinformation diffusion (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Fung et al., 2016; Garrett, 2019; Grinberg et al., 2019; Mosleh et al., 2020; Wood, 2018) .

Misinformation detection is usually a binary classification task (misinformation/true) or a multi-class classification task (true/mostly true/half true/mostly false/false) (Sharma et al., 2019) . Most existing studies have leveraged the content or context of information (Wu et al., 2019; Zhou & Zafarani, 2018) . (a) Content-based methods mainly include knowledge-based and style-based detections. Knowledgebased detections evaluate the reliability of content, such as evaluating whether the knowledge from text content is false via manual fact-checking (e.g., expert-based, or crowdsourced fact-checking) (Grinberg et al., 2019) or automatic fact-checking through Natural Language Processing. Stylebased detections focus on writing styles. For instance, misinformation usually includes shocking images, skeptical headlines, and exaggerated language to attract people's attention (Baptista & Gradim, 2020) . (b) Context-based detections mainly investigate information propagation patterns and the credibility of its sources. Propagation-based approach focuses on how misinformation spreads. Epidemic models, cascade models, and generative models have been adopted to characterize misinformation patterns and reduce the process of spreading (Bak-Coleman et al., 2021; Cinelli et al., 2020; Tambuscio et al., 2015) . Researchers have revealed that misinformation spreads faster, deeper, and broader than trusted information (Del Vicario et al., 2016; Vosoughi et al., 2018) . Credibility-based detections examine the credibility of news sources by assessing those who create and spread the news (e.g., social media accounts) (Shu et al., 2017) .

The spread of misinformation can be attributed to the lack of "third-party filtering, fact-checking, or editorial judgement" on the internet (Ali & Zain-ul-abdin, 2021; Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Ennals et al., 2010) , including on social media. People believe in and share misinformation for individual and social reasons (Nahon & Hemsley, 2013; Sharma et al., 2019) . At the individual level, many people lack the ability to recognize misinformation, especially citizens with lower levels of education (Allen et al., 2020; Bessi et al., 2015; Georgiou et al., 2020; Grinberg et al., 2019; Guess et al., 2019) . On the contrary, people with higher education and spend more time on media are more likely to discern misinformation (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017) .

At the social level, social networking and interactions enabled by social media platform make it easier for a piece of information to "go viral" (Nahon & Hemsley, 2013; Galuba et al., 2010) . During the diffusion process on social media, a group of "influencers" can have the potential power to influence a disproportionately large group of people (Weimann, 1994) . Many studies have attempted to identify such influential users on social media and quantify their influence via retweets, follower count, network centralities, or sentiment dynamics (Cha et al., 2010; Dubois & Gaffney, 2014; Kwak et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2014) . Nevertheless, for the spread of political information, having more followers does not necessarily mean a higher level of influence (Hemsley, 2019) .

The COVID-19 pandemic became a major event, for which misinformation was prevalent. One reason is that people are more likely to share misinformation during crises (e.g., natural disasters, wars, terrorist attacks, virus breakouts) (Mosleh et al., 2020; Van Prooijen & Douglas, 2017; Vosoughi et al., 2018) . Other reasons include lower trust in science (Plohl & Musil, 2020; Roozenbeek et al., 2020) , a lack of analytical thinking (Roozenbeek et al., 2020) , and the emergence of purposely designed misinformation articles (Cinelli et al., 2020; Ordun et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2020) . Existing studies of misinformation about COVID-19 focused on descriptive analysis, such as the sentiment, topics, and geographical distribution (Li et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020) . Roozenbeek et al. (2020) characterized individual predictors of people's susceptibility to COVID-19 misinformation using survey data, but the sample size is limited in scale. Therefore, this study represents the first effort to investigate the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 with a large-scale dataset.

However, the literature on misinformation spread has mainly studied misinformation about a much more specific topic, such as candidates of political elections (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Garrett, 2019; Grinberg et al., 2019; Hemsley, 2019) or alternative treatments of diseases (Fung et al., 2016) . In contrast, misinformation about COVID-19 covers a broader spectrum of topics, including politics (e.g., lock down measures), public health (e.g., 5G causing the virus), medicine (e.g., the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19), vaccine (e.g., conspiracy stories against Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci), and so on (Singh et al., 2020) . The spread of such multi-topic misinformation about COVID-19 has posed threats to people and our society in several ways. First, it undermines the credibility of scientific news and individual capacity (Hopf et al., 2019) . Second, it has created confusion and misguided people's behaviors in the fight against the virus (e.g., discouraging people from adopting precautions or wearing masks) (Roozenbeek et al., 2020; Tasnim et al., 2020) . Third, it also leads to hatred, discrimination, and social unrests (Yusof et al., 2020) . However, it remains unknown which COVID-19 topics are more likely to spread on social media. In addition, key influencers, including political leaders (Hahl et al., 2018) , contributed heavily to the spread of misinformation (Wood, 2018; Zollo & Quattrociocchi, 2018) . One such example is former US President Donald J. Trump, who has been criticized for using his tweeting "deflection" strategy to frame himself as the only reliable source of truth and erode the public trust on mainstream media outlets throughout the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Ross & Rivers, 2018) . Despite their importance in sharing information with the public and people's trust in them to provide accurate information during a crisis, political leaders' effects on the spread of misinformation have not been studied with empirical data.

Sharing information (e.g., retweeting) is a key feature provided by social media sites such as Twitter (Cha et al., 2010; Suh et al., 2010) . People need to process information before sharing it (Engelmann et al., 2019) . Therefore, we based our analysis of sharing misinformation on the HSM, which states that people process information using two modes-heuristic processing and systematic processing (Chaiken, 1980; Chen & Chaiken, 1999) . The systematic processing mode mainly focuses on the content of a message and involves considerable cognitive effort to scrutinize, comprehend, and evaluate the validity of information (i.e., fully processing the content of the message). In contrast, heuristic processing requires less cognitive processing-people make quick decisions to adopt information based on mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that have been stored in their memory and can be reprocessed in a given situation, such as the readability and familiarity of information content (e.g., the ease to get and comprehend information), the credibility of information sources (e.g., relying on statements from experts and leaders they trust), or the crowd behaviors (e.g., supporting decisions endorsed by a large number of people) (Bargh, 1989; Bohner et al., 1995; Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994; Chen et al., 1996; Chen & Chaiken, 1999; Lin et al., 2016; Wathen & Burkell, 2002) .

Beyond processing information, empirical studies using the HSM found that both systematic processing and heuristic processing influence individual's sharing of information (Xiao et al., 2018) . Specifically in the context of information sharing in social media, systematic processing assesses a tweet's content itself, while heuristic processing has been operationalized to focus on a tweet's sources, others' endorsement of the tweet, and its communication styles (Engelmann et al., 2019; Firdaus et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2012) .

Another phenomenon related to heuristic processing is "nudge"-the indirect yet deliberate move to alter people's choices or make people more subject to heuristic processing (Saghai, 2013; Schmidt, 2017; Thaler & Sunstein, 2009 ). Even though nudges usually occur in subtle and often unnoticeable ways, they have been effective in promoting individual behaviors such as those in taxation (Holz et al., 2020) , education (Benhassine et al., 2015) , healthcare (Blumenthal-Barby & Burroughs, 2012), and marketing (Tan et al., 2018) . Specifically, nudges can influence people's behaviors through two types of heuristics: familiarity heuristics and consensus heuristics. Familiarity heuristics indicate that individuals are more likely to make familiar decisions based on previous experiences (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) . For example, social media users are more likely to endorse information from repeated exposure to certain information (Ali & Zain-ul-abdin, 2021; Garcia-Marques & Mackie, 2001) . In fact, even a single prior encounter can increase the believability of information . In contrast, consensus heuristics suggest that an individual's behavior is an extension of other people's behaviors (Chaiken, 1987; Kelley, 1967) . For instance, people tend to conform to the judgment of a large number of people or even if the judgment is incorrect (Bond & Smith, 1996) . Specifically, while directly sharing a piece of misinformation on social media would certainly help its spread, we would like to investigate whether influential individuals, such as political leaders, are also effective in nudging people's sharing of misinformation with indirect approaches.

Specifically for COVID-19, it is difficult for citizens to evaluate the validity of information about COVID-19 during the pandemic, because of limited knowledge about this new virus, information overload, or anxiety (Li et al., 2020; Rathore & Farooq, 2020; Van Bavel et al., 2020) . Such situations can increase people's reliance on the heuristic mode (Eastin, 2001; Lang, 2000; Ratneshwar & Chaiken, 1991; Zuckerman & Chaiken, 1998) when they process and share information related to COVID-19.

As a result, many people turn to their political leaders during such a crisis and "rally around the flag" (Baekgaard et al., 2020; Hetherington & Nelson, 2003; Mueller, 1970) , because they are confident in their leaders' ability to handle challenges (Zhu et al., 2012) . Studies suggested that some political leaders' tweets about COVID-19 quickly became viral (Rufai & Bunce, 2020) and have influenced people's judgment of the pandemic (Van Bavel et al., 2020) .

Therefore, based on large-scale data of COVID-19 misinformation and the behaviors of Donald J. Trump on Twitter, this study attempts to address two specific research questions with the HSM framework.

. What are the effects of different topics of COVID-19 misinformation on the spread of such stories on social media?

RQ2. What roles did Donald J. Trump play in the spread of COVID-19 misinformation on Twitter?

3 | METHODS

This study fused datasets from different sources collected between February 24, 2020, when the US CDC first responded to the COVID-19 pandemic publicly, 4 and July 14, 2020. First, we started with a list of 895 misinformation websites for COVID-19, including 237 sites identified by NewsGuard 5 and 672 sites by Allcott et al. (2019) . Note that 14 websites appear on both lists. From these websites, we extracted 895 news stories related to COVID-19. Among them, we kept a pool of 855 unique focal news stories that were written in English for further analysis.

Then we retrieved tweets about COVID-19 through Twitter's Search API. Among a total of 39,026,205 tweets with keywords about the pandemic, 59,270 original tweets contain URLs pointing to 619 out of the 855 focal news stories from misinformation websites. These tweets are referred to as "focal tweets" in the remainder of this article. For these focal tweets, we further collected their content and retweet counts till the end of our data collection period, as well as their authors' information.

In addition, we also retrieved all the 1,097 tweets published by former President Donald J. Trump's official Twitter account during the same period. It is worth noting that Trump did not include any of the focal news stories in his tweets. That motivated us to further investigate his roles in the spread of these stories on Twitter. As a comparison, we also retrieved 568 tweets published by a mainstream news outlet-National Public Radio (NPR) News-during the same period. We chose NPR News because it is considered as a source of news by several third parties that rate media bias 6,7,8

The unit of analysis in our study is each individual focal tweet (i.e., original tweets that include URLs to COVID-19 stories from misinformation websites).

Our model includes a dependent variable, independent variables, and control variables. Table 2 lists all these variables in our model. The dependent variable-NumRetweets-is the number of retweets of focal tweets. A highly retweeted focal tweet would mean a higher level of spread of COVID-19 misinformation on Twitter.

Independent variables capture two aspects of COVID-19 misinformation spread. The first aspect focuses one important area of the systematic processing in HSM-the topics of misinformation stories. We applied Latent Direchlet Allocation (LDA), a generative probabilistic topic modeling method for content analysis (Blei et al., 2003) , to extract latent topics from misinformation stories. Inputs to the LDA model include title and body text of the 855 misinformation stories about COVID-19. Because most of them have keywords such as "coronavirus," "virus," and "Covid," we removed such keywords from the corpus. To find the number of topics (K) for this corpus, we varied K from 2 to 10 and chose its value using corpus-based coherence scores: Coherence value (CV) and UCI. Topic coherence is a measure of topic quality; UCI and CV are measured by pairwise semantic similarity of word co-occurrence frequencies in a sliding time window over a reference corpus (e.g., the Wikipedia). The difference is that UCI is based on all word pairs of the top-ranked topic words (Newman et al., 2010) , while CV considers the context of topic top words by segmenting them into subsets (Röder et al., 2015) . Outputs of the LDA model include two types of probability distributions: The first distribution associates each word with a topic. In other words, a topic is represented by a distribution over words and such a distribution helps us understand what each topic is about; the second distribution represents the overall content of a tweet by representing a tweet with a distribution over latent topics. Thus, the second distribution serves as a good indicator for a tweet's text content, and has been used as a key indicator for systematic processing of information based on HSM (Son et al., 2020) .

The second aspect is about heuristic processing and measures Trump's behaviors on Twitter. Because Trump did not directly share any of the story in our pool of COVID-19 misinformation, we tried to capture how his "nudge" may have been part of people's heuristic processing of information, where heuristics are assumed to be stored in memory and can be retrieved by individuals when in a relevant situation (Engelmann et al., 2019) . For instance, what Trump talked about before a misinformation story may have been stored in some Twitter users' memories, and became heuristic cues for them to process and share the misinformation story later. Specifically, for each focal tweet, we measured how similar it was with Trump's earlier tweets. Tweets were represented with embedding vectors (size = 200) based on pre-trained Global Vectors (GloVe) for Twitter (Pennington et al., 2014) . We then calculated the cosine similarity between the embedding of a focal tweet and the embedding of each of Trump's tweets published 24 hr before the focal tweet. We used 24 hr because the life cycle of the most information on social media is within the 1 day after the original post (Bakshy et al., 2012; Kwak et al., 2010) . Because Trump's tweets covered a variety of topics, some of which are not related to COVID-19 (e.g., elections), we picked the maximum similarity (Max-SimTrumpTweets) to represent the similarity between Trump's earlier tweets and each focal misinformation tweet. In addition to the maximum similarity between Trump's tweets and a focal tweet, we also calculated the number of retweets from this most similar Trump's tweet.

We controlled other factors related to heuristic processing: (a) the number of days a creator has been on Twitter (Seniority) (Son et al., 2020) ; (b) how active the creator has been, measured by the number of tweets per day (TweetPerDay) (Son et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2014) . Note that we did not include the variables number of followers and number of friends in our model because they are highly correlated with TweetPerDay (Pearson correlation >0.6); (c) the popularity of the misinformation site where the piece of story came from. DomainRanking is based on Alexa ranking scores-a website with a higher score attracts more traffic; (d) the overall attention people were paying to the pandemic (Fu & Sim, 2011) , measured by the number of tweets with COVID-19-related keywords during the 24 hrs before a focal tweet was posted ; (e) the maximum similarity between the focal tweet and tweets from NPR News published 24 hrs before the focal tweet (MaxSimNPRTweets).

We used negative binominal (NB) regression to model the effects of various factors related to the spread of misinformation. NB distribution can account for overdispersion of the dependent variable, and thus has also been widely used to model the levels of user engagement on social media (e.g., the number of likes, comments, and shares) (Bakhshi et al., 2014; Hu et al., 2020) . 9 Our NB regression model can be represented as follows:

where α is the estimate of the dispersion parameter;

is the fitted mean of count response (i.e., NumRetweets), and μ > 0.

We formulate the likelihood function following (Hilbe, 2011) and use the log-likelihood function to estimate the coefficients:

where y is the dependent variable NumRetweets and Γ Á ð Þ is a gamma function with α as the scale parameter.

We set the number of topics K = 5, which is the elbow of two curves shown in Figure 1 . Table 1 identifies the top 30 most representative words of each of the five topics, along with our interpretations of these topics.

We excluded the variable, NumSimTrumpReTweets, because the high Pearson correlation (0.855) between MaxSimTrumpTweets and log NumSimTrumpReTweets ð Þ could lead to multicollinearity in our model. Similarly, including all five topics' probabilities, which sum to one, would also cause multicollinearity problems. Thus, we removed Topic 1 from our model because it has the highest correlations (up to À0.42) with other topics and the spread of political misinformation has been well studied before. Table 2 lists descriptive statistics of variables in our model. Pearson correlations among variables are reported in Table 3 . We also checked variance inflation factors (VIFs) and VIF scores are all lower than 2, suggesting low multicollinearity. Table 4 summarizes the estimation results of the NB regression model defined in Equation (1). Model 1, which serves as the baseline, only includes control variables. Model 2 adds independent variables of topic of stories and Model 3 further incorporates Trump's behaviors on Twitter. The Akaike Information Criterion gets better as we added more variables to the models. Note that α is the dispersion parameter of NB regression, if α equals zero, the model reduces to simple Poisson model. A higher α represents greater spreads of the dependent variable, meaning data are over dispersed and are better estimated by a NB model than a Poisson model.

Results from our models reveal three main findings. First, topics of misinformation stories do matter for their spread in Twitter. Compared to political misinformation about COVID-19 (Topic 1), conspiracies (Topic 5) are more likely to be retweeted, followed by pandemic stories in the United States (Topic 3). Meanwhile, misinformation about pandemic in the world (Topic 2) is less popular. Second, Trump's behaviors on Twitter were related to the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. The positive and significant effect of MaxSimTrumpTweets suggests that misinformation that is more similar to Trump's own tweets tended to get more attention on Twitter. As shown in Model 3, an increase of 1 SD in the maximum similarity between a focal tweet and the Trump's tweet (β 10 ¼ 0:2002, exp 0:2002 ð Þ¼1:222) is associated with 22% more retweets of the focal tweet. Third, control variables have expected effects on misinformation spread: misinformation shared by more senior (i.e., higher Seniority) and more active (i.e., higher TweetPerDay) users received more retweets; when users were more active in talking about COVID-19 in general (i.e., higher NumCOVID-19tweets), misinformation also got more attention. The ranking of websites where misinformation came has significant and negative effect on misinformation spread, suggesting that a story from a more popular misinformation site was more likely to spread. The impact of MaxSimNPRTweets is negatively and significantly associated with the spread of misinformation. In other words, when a misinformation tweet is more similar to what NPR News posted, it is less likely to spread, which is opposite to Trump's tweets. Topic Interpretations  Top keywords  Titles of example stories   1  Politics about the  pandemic   People , state, say, China, Trump, new, health, case, time, president, Dr, patient, mask, hospital, pandemic, world, get, country, report, also, medicine, day, death, even, spread, public, go, infect, need "An Obama Holdover in an Obscure Government Arm Helped Cause the Country's Coronavirus Crisis." 2 Pandemic in the world Say, case, state, report, people, health, government, positive, ministry, test, country, India, also, official, number, March, new, day, patient, spread, Friday, death, hospital, Delhi, outbreak, total, include, take, confirm 

The highest similarity score between Trump's tweets (posted before 24 hrs) and the focal tweet 0.73 0.31 (À0. 083, 1) and the popularity of the misinformation source, can influence how the misinformation spreads. The role of Trump's tweets in the spread of COVID-19 misinformation is also interesting. From the HSM perspective, Trump's status as a political leader can potentially influence people's behaviors of adopting and sharing information via the heuristic processing route. The fact that Trump did not share or retweet any of the stories in our pool of focal misinformation stories seems to suggest that he was not involved in the spread of these stories.

Nevertheless, upon further investigations, our analyses revealed the subtle effect from Trump. Specifically, if a misinformation tweet was more similar to one of Trump's recent tweets, that tweet was more likely to spread. Although our regression model cannot establish the causal relationship between what Trump did and the spread of COVID-19 misinformation, one possible explanation is that Trump's behaviors "nudged" Twitter users to adopt and share misinformation stories, even though he did not directly share these stories. Note: SEs are in parentheses. ***p < .001. **p < .01.

Based on the HSM, this study systematically investigated factors associated with the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 on social media. On the systematic processing side, this work is the first to examine how the topics of stories affected the spread of misinformation that covers multiple topics for an event. For example, we found that misinformation about conspiracies related to COVID-19 is most likely to spread. As for heuristic processing side, our analysis not only confirmed the effects of misinformation source but also revealed subtle effects from a political leader who was very active on social media. We hope our findings of COVID-19 misinformation based on the framework of HSM can help us better understand the dynamic of misinformation in general.

Outcomes of this study have implications for managing misinformation on social media. For example, while misinformation of all topics can be detrimental to our society, social media platforms may want to pay special attention to stories about conspiracy theories because such misinformation is more likely to spread than other topics about COVID-19. In addition, when misinformation becomes prevalent during crises, both social media platforms and users should be alerted to behaviors of influential users, especially political leaders, because they have great impact on the spread of misinformation. Even when they are not directly sharing misinformation, their behaviors may still implicitly influence or nudge people's adoption and sharing of misinformation.

This research is not without limitations. First, we measured the spread of misinformation only based on the number of retweets. While retweet count is an important measure of a tweet's impact, future work could explore other measures such as the depth of spread (i.e., how far a tweet spreads in a social network) and the reach of a tweet (e.g., a retweet by a user with many followers could reach more users). Second, as we mentioned earlier in this article, our explanatory models only reveal correlations between independent variables and the spread of misinformation. Causal inference could further help to design better interventions to prevent the spread of misinformation. Third, the study focused on the spread of multi-topic misinformation about one major event. It would be interesting to compare the results with other events that also feature misinformation with various topics. In fact, topics of misinformation about COVID-19 have also evolved over time (e.g., those about vaccines emerged in 2021). Fourth, although many people turn to their leaders during a crisis, Donald Trump is a special and controversial political leader. More studies are needed to see whether our findings about Trump's role in the spread of COVID-19 misinformation apply to other political leaders. Last, but not least, this article only examines the effect of tweets published before a misinformation tweet. It would also be interesting to investigate if political leaders' tweets posted after a misinformation tweet would also affect the spread of the misinformation tweet. 

Post-truth propaganda: Heuristic processing of political fake news on Facebook during the 2016 US presidential election

Social media and fake news in the 2016 election

Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media

Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem

Americans immersed in COVID-19 news; most think media are doing fairly well covering it

Rallying around the flag in times of COVID-19: Societal lockdown and trust in democratic institutions

Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation

Faces engage us: Photos with faces attract more likes and comments on instagram

The role of social networks in information diffusion

Understanding fake news consumption: A review

Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition

Turning a shove into a nudge? A" labeled cash transfer" for education

Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation

Latent dirichlet allocation

Seeking better health care outcomes: the ethics of using the "nudge

The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information

Culture and conformity: A metaanalysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task

Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy

Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion

The heuristic model of persuasion

Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment

The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context

Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy-versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing

The covid-19 social media infodemic

The use of social media in healthcare: Organizational, clinical, and patient perspectives. Enabling Health and Healthcare through ICT: Available, Tailored and Closer

Breaking down "fake news": Differences between misinformation, disinformation, rumors, and propaganda. Resilience and Hybrid Threats: Security and Integrity for the Digital World

The spreading of misinformation online

The multiple facets of influence: Identifying political influentials and opinion leaders on Twitter

Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content

Social media outpaces print newspapers in the U.S. as a news source

News use across social media platforms

Visibility through information sharing: The role of tweet authors and communication styles in retweeting political information on Twitter

at the Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Information Credibility

Retweet: A popular information diffusion mechanism-a survey paper

Aggregate bandwagon effect on online videos' viewership: Value uncertainty, popularity cues, and heuristics

Social media's initial reaction to information and misinformation on Ebola

Tweeting to power: The social media revolution in American politics

Outtweeting the twitterers-predicting information cascades in microblogs

The feeling of familiarity as a regulator of persuasive processing

Social media's contribution to political misperceptions in US presidential elections

COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs and their relationship with perceived stress and pre-existing conspiracy beliefs

Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election

Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook

The authentic appeal of the lying demagogue: Proclaiming the deeper truth about political illegitimacy

Followers Retweet! The influence of middlelevel gatekeepers on the spread of political information on Twitter

Anatomy of a rally effect: George W. Bush and the war on terrorism

Negative binomial regression

The $100 million nudge: Increasing tax compliance of businesses and the self-employed using a natural field experiment

Fake science and the knowledge crisis: Ignorance can be fatal

Public preferences regarding police facebook posts: A macro-level analysis

Attribution theory in social psychology

Combating fake news on social media with source ratings: The effects of user and expert reputation ratings

The "tweet politics" of president trump

Detecting misinformation in online social networks using cognitive psychology

What is Twitter

The limited capacity model of mediated message processing

The science of fake news

Using the president's tweets to understand political diversion in the age of social media

Constructing and communicating COVID-19 stigma on Twitter: A content analysis of tweets during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak

Social media and credibility indicators: The effect of influence cues

Determinants of information retweeting in microblogging

Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on Twitter

Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson

Going viral

Automatic evaluation of topic coherence. Paper presented at the Human Language Technologies

Exploratory analysis of covid-19 tweets using topic modeling, umap, and digraphs

Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public

GloVe: Global vectors for word representation

Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news

Social media and political contributions: The impact of new technology on political competition

Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: The critical role of trust in science

Information overload and Infodemic in the COVID-19 pandemic

Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues

Exploring the space of topic coherence measures

Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world

Discursive deflection: Accusation of "fake news" and the spread of mis-and disinformation in the tweets of president trump

World leaders' usage of Twitter in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A content analysis

Salvaging the concept of nudge

Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news

The power to nudge

Combating fake news: A survey on identification and mitigation techniques

Covid-19 on social media: Analyzing misinformation in Twitter conversations

Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective

A first look at COVID-19 information and misinformation sharing on Twitter

Using a heuristic-systematic model to assess the Twitter user profile's impact on disaster tweet credibility

Want to be retweeted? large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing

Factchecking effect on viral hoaxes: A model of misinformation spread in social networks

Evaluation nudge: Effect of evaluation mode of online customer reviews on consumers' preferences

Impact of rumors or misinformation on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in social media

Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness

Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases

Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response

Conspiracy theories as part of history: The role of societal crisis situations

The spread of true and false news online

Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media

Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the web

The influentials: People who influence people

Is boredom proneness related to social media overload and fatigue? A stress-strain-outcome approach

Propagating and debunking conspiracy theories on Twitter during the 2015-2016 Zika virus outbreak

Misinformation in social media: Definition, manipulation, and detection

Factors affecting YouTube influencer marketing credibility: A heuristicsystematic model

Sharing information on COVID-19: The ethical challenges in the Malaysian setting

A structured response to misinformation: Defining and annotating credibility indicators in news articles

Content or context: Which matters more in information processing on microblogging sites

Finding influential users of online health communities: A new metric based on sentiment influence

Fake news: A survey of research, detection methods, and opportunities

The impact of ethical political leadership on the public: The mediating role of confidence in political leaders

Misinformation spreading on Facebook

A heuristic-systematic processing analysis of the effectiveness of product warning labels

Understanding the spread of COVID-19 misinformation on social media: The effects of topics and a political leader's nudge