- Volume 13 Number 1 ( Feb. 2023)
- Volume 13 Number 2 ( April. 2023)
- Volume 13 Number 3 (Jun. 2023)
- Volume 13 Number 4 (Aug. 2023)
- Volume 13 Number 5 ( Oct. 2023)
- Volume 13 Number 6 ( Dec. 2023)
- Volume 12 Number 1 ( Feb. 2022)
- Volume 12 Number 2 ( May. 2022)
- Volume 12 Number 3 (Aug. 2022)
- Volume 12 Number 4 ( Nov. 2022)
- Volume 11 Number 1 ( Feb. 2021)
- Volume 11 Number 2 ( May. 2021)
- Volume 11 Number 3 (Aug. 2021)
- Volume 11 Number 4 ( Nov. 2021)
- Volume 10 Number 1 ( Feb. 2020)
- Volume 10 Number 2 ( May. 2020)
- Volume 10 Number 3 (Aug. 2020)
- Volume 10 Number 4 ( Nov. 2020)
- Volume 9 Number 1 ( Feb. 2019)
- Volume 9 Number 2 ( May. 2019)
- Volume 9 Number 3 ( Aug. 2019)
- Volume 9 Number 4 ( Nov. 2019)
- Volume 8 Number 1 ( Jan. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 2 (Feb. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 3 (Mar. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 4 (Apr. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 5 (May. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 6 (Jun. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 7 (Jul. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 8 (Aug. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 9 (Sep. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 10 (Oct. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 11 (Nov. 2018)
- Volume 8 Number 12 (Dec. 2018)
- Volume 7 Number 1 (Jan. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 2 (Feb. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 3 (Mar. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 4 (April. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 5 (May. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 6 (Jun. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 7 (Jul. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 8 (Aug. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 9 (Sep. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 10 ( Oct. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 11 ( Nov. 2017)
- Volume 7 Number 12 ( Dec. 2017)
- Volume 6 Number 1 (Jan. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 2 (Feb. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 3 (Mar. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 4 (Apr. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 5 (May 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 6 (Jun. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 7 (Jul. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 8 (Aug. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 9 (Sep. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 10 (Oct. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 11 (Nov. 2016)
- Volume 6 Number 12 (Dec. 2016)
- Volume 5 Number 1 (Jan. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 2 (Feb. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 3 (Mar. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 4 (Apr. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 5 (May 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 6 (Jun. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 7 (Jul. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 8 (Aug. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 9 (Sep. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 10 (Oct. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 11 (Nov. 2015)
- Volume 5 Number 12 (Dec. 2015)
- Volume 4 Number 1 (Jan. 2014)
- Volume 4 Number 2 (Mar. 2014)
- Volume 4 Number 3 (May 2014)
- Volume 4 Number 4 (Jul. 2014)
- Volume 4 Number 5 (Sep. 2014)
- Volume 4 Number 6 (Nov. 2014)
- Volume 3 Number 1 (Jan. 2013)
- Volume 3 Number 2 (Mar. 2013)
- Volume 3 Number 3 (May 2013)
- Volume 3 Number 4 (Jul. 2013)
- Volume 3 Number 5 (Sep. 2013)
- Volume 3 Number 6 (Nov. 2013)
- Volume 2 Number 1 (Jan. 2012)
- Volume 2 Number 2 (Mar. 2012)
- Volume 2 Number 3 (May 2012)
- Volume 2 Number 4 (Jul. 2012)
- Volume 2 Number 5 (Sep. 2012)
- Volume 2 Number 6 (Nov. 2012)
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
- ISSN: 2010-3646 (Online)
- Abbreviated Title: Int. J. Social. Scienc. Humanit.
- Frequency: Bimonthly
- DOI: 10.18178/IJSSH
- Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Paul Sudnik
- Executive Editor: Ms. Yoyo Y. Zhou
- Abstracting/ Indexing: Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Crossref, Electronic Journals Library
- E-mail: ijssh.editorial.office@gmail.com
Home> Archive> 2023> Volume 13 Number 3 (Jun. 2023)
IJSSH 2023 Vol.13(3): 181-186
doi: 10.18178/ijssh.2023.V13.1141
doi: 10.18178/ijssh.2023.V13.1141
Investigation Into the Spread of Misinformation About UK Prime Ministers on Twitter
Junade Ali
Abstract—Misinformation presents threats to societal mental well-being, public health initiatives, as well as satisfaction in democracy. Those who spread misinformation can leverage cognitive biases to make others more likely to believe and share their misinformation unquestioningly. For example, by sharing misinformation whilst claiming to be someone from a highly respectable profession, a propagandist may seek to increase the effectiveness of their campaign using authority bias. Using retweet data from the spread of misinformation about two former UK Prime Ministers (Boris Johnson and Theresa May), we find that 3.1% of those who retweeted such misinformation claimed to be teachers or lecturers (20.7% of those who claimed to have a profession in their Twitter bio field in our sample), despite such professions representing under 1.15% of the UK population. Whilst polling data shows teachers and healthcare workers are amongst the most trusted professions in society, these were amongst the most popular professions that those in our sample claimed to have.
Index Terms—Misinformation, social media, cognitive bias
J. Ali is with the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. E-mail: mjsa2@cam.ac.uk (J.A.)
Index Terms—Misinformation, social media, cognitive bias
J. Ali is with the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. E-mail: mjsa2@cam.ac.uk (J.A.)
Cite: Junade Ali, "Investigation Into the Spread of Misinformation About UK Prime Ministers on Twitter," International Journal of Social Science and Humanity vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 181-186, 2023.
Copyright © 2023 by the authors. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).