oa Down to a r/science: Integrating Computational Approaches to the Study of Credibility on Reddit

References

1. Alexa(2019). The top 500 sites on the web. Retrieved from www.alexa.com/topsites
   [Google Scholar]
2. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P.(2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373-387. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009
   [Google Scholar]
3. Arya, D. J., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D.(2011). The effects of syntactic and lexical complexity on the comprehension of elementary science texts. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 107-125. Retrieved from https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/216
   [Google Scholar]
4. Barthel, M., Mitchell, A., & Holcomb, J. (2016a, December 15). Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion.Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.journalism.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/12/PJ_2016.12.15_fake-news_FINAL.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
5. Barthel, M., Stocking, G., Holcomb, J., & Mitchell, A. (2016b, February 25). Seven-in-ten Reddit users get their news on the site. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.journalism.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/05/PJ_2016.05.26_Reddit_Final_Update.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
6. Brin, S., & Page, L.(1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1-7), 107-117. doi:10.1016/S0169‑7552(98)00110‑X
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T.(2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In L. D.Bendixen & F. C.Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Brossard, D.(2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14096-14101. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bullock, O. M., Amill, D. C., Shulman, H. C., & Dixon, G. N.(2019). Jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: Evidence from metacognition. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 845-853. doi:10.1177/0963662519865687
   [Google Scholar]
10. Cenci, W. (2016, October 10). Why scientists should learn to love Reddit. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/oct/10/why-scientists-should-learn-to-love-reddit
    [Google Scholar]
11. Chaiken, S.(1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. doi:10.1037/0022‑3514.39.5.752
    [Google Scholar]
12. Cody, E. M., Reagan, A. J., Mitchell, L., Dodds, P. S., & Danforth, C. M.(2015). Climate change sentiment on Twitter: An unsolicited public opinion poll. PLoS ONE, 10(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136092
    [Google Scholar]
13. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L.(1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 379-394. doi:10.1007/BF01498976
    [Google Scholar]
14. Csárdi, G.(2019). The igraph package for complex network research (Version 1.2.4.1) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/igraph/
    [Google Scholar]
15. Eastin, M. S.(2006). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(4). doi:10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2001.tb00126.x
    [Google Scholar]
16. Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Qing, Q., & Wahl, S. T.(2007). The influence of computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication on student perceptions of instructors and attitudes toward learning course content. Communication Education, 56(3), 255-277. doi:10.1080/03634520701236866
    [Google Scholar]
17. Epstein, S.(1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 20(4), 408-437. doi:10.1177/016224399502000402
    [Google Scholar]
18. Eysenbach, G., & Köhler, C.(2003). What is the prevalence of health-related searches on the World Wide Web? Qualitative and quantitative analysis of search engine queries on the internet. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings Archive, 2003, 225-229.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Faraj, S., & Johnson, S. L.(2011). Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organization Science, 22(6), 1464-1480. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0600
    [Google Scholar]
20. Flesch, R.(1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221-233. doi:10.1037/h0057532
    [Google Scholar]
21. Fogg, B. J.(1999). Persuasive technologies. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 27-29. doi:10.1145/301353.301396
    [Google Scholar]
22. Freeman, L. C.(1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239. doi:10.1016/0378‑8733(78)90021‑7
    [Google Scholar]
23. Galegher, J., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S.(1998). Legitimacy, authority, and community in electronic support groups. Written Communication, 15(4), 493-530. doi:10.1177/0741088398015004003
    [Google Scholar]
24. Haard, J., Slater, M. D., & Long, M.(2004). Scientese and ambiguous citations in the selling of unproven medical treatments. Health Communication, 16(4), 411-426. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1604_2
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hartley, J., & Cabanac, G.(2016). Are two authors better than one? Can writing in pairs affect the readability of academic blogs?Scientometrics, 109(3), 2119-2112. doi:10.1007/s11192‑016‑2116‑x
    [Google Scholar]
26. Hayes, R. A., Carr, C. T., & Wohn, D. Y.(2016). One click, many meanings: Interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(1), 171-187.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. Y.(2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing Management, 44(4), 1467-1484. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001
    [Google Scholar]
28. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H.(1953). Communication and technology: Psychological studies on opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S.(1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. No. RBR-8-75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training Command, Research Branch.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A.-L., Brewer, D., … & van Alstyne, M.(2009). Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721-723. doi:10.1126/science.1167742
    [Google Scholar]
31. Leavitt, A., & Robinson, J. J.(2017). Upvote my news: The practices of peer information aggregation for breaking news on reddit. com. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(CSCW), 1-18.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L.(1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1), 13-22. doi:10.2307/2336267
    [Google Scholar]
33. Liang, X., Su, L. Y.-F., Yeo, S. K., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., … & Corley, E. A.(2014). Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772-791. doi:10.1177/1077699014550092
    [Google Scholar]
34. Jenson, J. D.(2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 347-369. doi:10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2008.00324.x
    [Google Scholar]
35. Mahmoodi, J., Leckelt, M., van Zalk, M. W. H., Geukes, K., & Back, M. D.(2017). Big data approaches in social and behavioral science: Four key trade-offs and a call for integration. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 57-62. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.07.001
    [Google Scholar]
36. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N.(2010). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 67-90. doi:10.1007/s11409‑009‑9048‑2
    [Google Scholar]
37. McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D.(1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 467-472. doi:10.1177/014616728063023
    [Google Scholar]
38. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J.(2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(B), 210-220. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
    [Google Scholar]
39. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B.(2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-439. doi:10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2010.01488.x
    [Google Scholar]
40. Michalke, M.(2018). koRpus: An R package for text analysis (Version 0.11-5) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/koRpus/
    [Google Scholar]
41. Mogull, S. A.(2017). Scientific and medical communication: A guide for effective practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S.(2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F. M.Jablin & L. L.Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S.(2003). Theories of Communication Networks. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Morrison, D., & Hayes, C.(2013). Here, have an upvote: Communication behavior and karma on Reddit. INFORMATIK 2013–Informatik angepasst an Mensch, Organisation und Umwelt.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Mou, Y., Miller, M., & Fu, H.(2015). Evaluating a target on social media: From the self-categorization perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 451-459. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.031
    [Google Scholar]
46. Oppenheimer, D. M.(2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139-156. doi:10.1002/acp.1178
    [Google Scholar]
47. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205. doi:10.1016/S0065‑2601(08)60214‑2
    [Google Scholar]
48. Pew Research Center (2019, June 12). Social media fact sheet. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/
    [Google Scholar]
49. Pornpitakpan, C.(2006). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades of evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281. doi:10.1111/j.1559‑1816.2004.tb02547.x
    [Google Scholar]
50. Reddit (n.d.). Science verified user program. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair
    [Google Scholar]
51. Ruths, D., & Pfeffer, J.(2014). Social media for large studies of behavior. Science, 346(6213), 1063-1064. doi:10.1126/science.346.6213.1063
    [Google Scholar]
52. Sattelberg, W. (2019, July 22). The demographics of Reddit: Who uses the site?TechJunkie. Retrieved from https://www.techjunkie.com/demographics-reddit/
    [Google Scholar]
53. See, Y. H. M., Petty, R. E., & Evans, L. M.(2009). The impact of perceived message complexity and need for cognition on information processing and attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 880-889. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.006
    [Google Scholar]
54. Sharma, R., Wigginton, B., Meurk, C., Ford, P., & Gartner, C. E.(2017). Motivations and limitations associated with vaping among people with mental illness: A qualitative analysis of Reddit discussions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(1). doi:10.3390/ijerph14010007
    [Google Scholar]
55. Shearer, E., & Gottfried, J. (2017, September 7). News use across social media platforms 2017. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/
    [Google Scholar]
56. Spartz, J. T., Su, L. Y.-F., Griffin, R., Brossard, D., & Dunwoody, S.(2017). YouTube, social norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environmental Communication, 11(1), 1-16. doi:10.1080/17524032.2015.1047887
    [Google Scholar]
57. Su, L. Y.-F., Akin, H., Brossard, D.Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M.(2015). Science news consumption patterns and their implications for the understanding of science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(3), 597-616. doi:10.1177/1077699015586415
    [Google Scholar]
58. Suran, M., & Kilgo, D. K.(2017). Freedom from the press? How anonymous gatekeepers on Reddit covered the Boston Marathon bombing. Journalism Studies, 18(8), 1035-1051. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2015.1111160
    [Google Scholar]
59. Sweitzer, M. D., & Shulman, H. C.(2018). The effects of metacognition in survey research: Experimental, cross-sectional, and content-analytic evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(4), 745-768. doi:10.1093/poq/nfy034
    [Google Scholar]
60. Thomm, E., & Bromme, R.(2011). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96(2), 187-211. doi:10.1002/sce.20480
    [Google Scholar]
61. Tolochko, P., & Boomgaarden, H. G.(2018). Analysis of linguistic complexity in professional and citizen media. Journalism Studies, 19(12), 1786-1803. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1305285
    [Google Scholar]
62. Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J.(2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing source credibility on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134-144. doi:10.1002/asi.10016
    [Google Scholar]
63. Weiner, J. L., & Mowen, J. C.(1985). Source credibility: On the independent effect of trust and expertise. In R. J.Lutz (Ed.), Association for Consumer Research (Vol. 13). Las Vegas, NV: Association for Consumer Research.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Wickham, H.(2019). stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations (Version 1.4.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/stringr/
    [Google Scholar]
65. Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C.(2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 80-96. doi:10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2012.01596.x
    [Google Scholar]
66. Zemla, J. C., Sloman, S., Bechlivanidis, C., & Lagnado, D. A.(2017). Evaluating everyday explanations. Psychonometric Bulletin & Review, 24(5), 1488-1500. doi:10.3758/s13423‑017‑1258‑z
    [Google Scholar]