This study is aimed at finding out the knowledge attitudes and practices of audiences, in this instance, tertiary education students about the phenomenon of information disorder. Research and strategies of combating Information Disorder have focused on how organisations are verifying the authenticity of news and stories and the public’s attitude to particular types of information disorder in a particular country as can be found in studies by Ahmed and Eldakar (2021); Pherson, Ranta and Cannon (2021). This study, however, tries to find answers to questions such as what selected audiences know about information disorder; will the audience be able to identify information disorder; does the audience have the capacity to independently verify whether a piece of information is authentic or not among others. This study is important because the individual or audiences who either create, share or consume mis/disinformation play a major role in the communication act that involves dis/misinformation. According to Edson et al. (2018) the “fakeness” or otherwise of a news or information was dependent on what the audiences did with the news or whether the audience perceives the fake as real. Without the audience perceiving the information as news, fake news remains a work of fiction. However, when the audiences mistake it as real the fake news is able to play with journalism’s legitimacy. The audience is even more important particularly in the context of social media where information is exchanged and meanings are negotiated. All these mean that even if someone created disinformation, it was only if this disinformation was shared by another person that it got into the public domain and became “fake news”. Without anyone sharing that information, there was no way the public would be deceived or misled by it.
This article compares preliminary responses about knowledge, attitudes and practices from both undergraduate and postgraduate students of the University of Cape Coast and the University of Education, Winneba, Ghana.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
- GENDER, INSTITUTION AND ACADEMIC LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS
Eight responses have been received so far out of an estimated 200. Out of the eight responses there are two males and six females. Five of the respondents were from the University of Cape Coast while the remaining three were from the University of Education, Winneba.. Seven out of the eight respondents were postgraduate students reading for a Master’s degree.
- KNOWLEDGE ABOUT INFORMATION DISORDER
Knowledge
The responses of respondents on questions about their level of knowledge on information disorder, revealed that majority, that is, 7 (87.5%) out of the 8 respondents have heard of information disorder, and only half of all the respondents (50%) have a high level of confidence in their ability to identify mis/disinformation. The remaining half (50%) were neutral in their assessment of their level of confidence in identifying mis/disinformation. This suggests half of the respondents cannot tell, if they would be able to identify mis/disinformation or not. This is illustrated in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1
Meaning/Definition of Information Disorder
Figure 2: Definition of Information Disorder
In order to ascertain their knowledge about what constituted information disorder, respondents were asked to select among various options about the definition of information disorder. As presented in Figure 2 above, six (75%) respondents identified information that is false, but which the person who disseminates it thinks it’s true, as what constituted information disorder and another six responses identified mis/disinformation to include photos, videos or quotes taken out of context. Information that is false and knowingly disseminated by an individual deliberately with the intention to deceive people, and information that contains claims without providing sources, were identified by 5 (62.5%) respondents each as what constitutes information disorder. Four (50%) respondents identified information that is referenced to ‘experts’ who lack valid credentials as information disorder and three (37.5%) respondents each identified information created to inspire emotions such as hate or fear with little evidence as what constituted information disorder. Three (37.5%) respondents also identified all the options as illustrations of information disorder. Lastly, two (25%) respondents each suggested that information designed to stun situations referred to in the stories, and information that is based on reality, but used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country as definitions of misinformation. There was no respondent who indicated that they did not have an idea about what the meaning of information disorder was.
Indicators of Information Disorder
Figure 3: Indicators of Information Disorder
Respondents were asked to identify the indicators of information disorder, after having stated their definitions of the phenomenon. It was found that six out of the eight (75%) respondents indicated that the source or website of the information is the number one indicator of whether a piece of news is credible or not. The account from which the information is shared ranked second with 4 (50%) respondents stating it as an indicator of information disorder. The number of times a post is shared and whether a post contains a picture or not were also selected by two (25%) respondents each as indicators of information disorder. One person indicated that the number of comments a story has could be an indicator of information disorder. Only one respondent stated that none of the options given could be an indicator of information disorder. The findings are illustrated in Figure 3.
Frequency of Disinformation
Figure 4: Frequency of Disinformation
Figure 4, providing results on frequency of disinformation shows that half (50%) of the respondents indicated that they encounter disinformation very frequently, while 3 (37.5%) encounter it frequently and only one rarely comes across it. This shows that disinformation is something that people have to deal with most of the time.
Major Sources, Platforms and Content of Disinformation
Figure 5
Politicians, Political parties and political parties (50%) have been identified as the major source of misinformation, followed by celebrities (25%), with journalists and religious personalities 12.5% each coming in third position. Figure 5, provides these results.
Most of the disinformation is encountered on Facebook (62.5%), while the rest were on Twitter, WhatsApp and other media platforms.
Figure 6
The major subject of disinformation that respondents came across (in Figure 7) was on politics (87.5) and messages that promised people gifts and free items (12.5%).
Figure 7
Knowledge About Fact-Checking Institutions and Criminality of sharing mis/disinformation
Five (62.5%) out of the 8 respondents indicated that they were aware of the fact that some institutions were working on combating misinformation.
In identifying the institutions or organisations that were combating misinformation three responses (50%) identified Factcheck Ghana, two (33.3%) each for Dubawa, FactCheck.org and AFP fact checking, and one (16.7%) each for Media Foundation for West Africa, and Multimedia Group Limited. One respondent also stated that none of the listed institutions was involved in any activities in combating information disorder. The details are contained in Figure 8.
Figure 8:Knowledge about Fact-Checking Institutions
With the exception of one respondent, almost all respondents (87.5%) indicated that they were aware that it was criminal to share information that was not credible. This is presented in Figure 9.
Figure 9
Manipulation of Photos and Videos
Figure 10
Figure 10 shows that three- fourth, that is, 75% of the respondents know that it is possible to check whether a video or photo has been manipulated, while two (25%) respondents do not know.
Respondents were asked to identify ways of checking a manipulated photo. This was a multiple response question which allowed respondents to select more than one answer. Findings, as presented in Figure 11, indicates that Four respondents (50%) were able to identify that checking if the information in the caption or article matches the photo, looking at the picture closely to see if there is anything odd about it (e.g. warped, blurred), running a reverse image search and checking the metadata of the picture all constituted ways of checking for manipulation of pictures. Similarly, four (50%) of respondents identified looking at the picture closely to see if there is anything odd about it (e.g. warped, blurred) as a way of scheming for manipulation. Checking if the information in the caption or article matches the photo and running a reverse image search both received 3 (37.5%) responses each and checking the metadata of the picture was selected by two (25%) respondents as the way of verifying if a picture was manipulated. Only one respondent indicated that none of the procedures mentioned could be used to check a picture’s authenticity.
Figure 11
Similarly, as can be seen in Figure 12, respondents identified ways of checking if a video was manipulated. Similar to the responses on manipulation of photos, half (50%) of respondents identified that all the options, that is, using specialist software such as InVID, reverse image search of a screenshot from the video using Google or TinEye, by checking the location of the video by using Google Earth or Wikimapia, checking out the video’s metadata using tools such as ExifTool, and checking the time the video was filmed using Suncalc are all ways of verifying if a video was manipulated. Three respondents each stated that reverse image search of a screenshot from the video using Google or TinEye, by checking the location of the video by using Google Earth or Wikimapia, and checking the time the video was filmed using Suncalc constitute ways of authenticating videos. Using specialist software such as InVID, and checking out the video’s metadata using tools such as ExifTool were mentioned twice (25%) as the ways of verifying the authenticity of videos. Only two respondents indicated that they had no idea about the tools used to check if a video is manipulated.
Figure 12: Ways of Checking Manipulated Videos
- ATTITUDE TOWARDS INFORMATION DISORDER
Minimization of Information Disorder
With respect to the attitudes of respondents towards information disorder, respondents were asked to state whether they thought information disorder can be minimised or not. Figure 13 shows that the majority (75%) indicated that it could be minimised while two (25%) respondents indicated that it is likely that it could be minimised.
Figure 13
Verification of Information Before Sharing
Figure 14
As to whether respondents verify or authenticate their information photos and videos before sharing, it was found that the majority (75%) do not always verify but only do so sometimes. Only 2 (25%) indicate that they consistently verify the information, photos and videos they share. Figure 14 provides these findings
Sharing of Misinformation
All the respondents (100%) have stated that they would not share information, videos or photos that are manipulated. This is a good indication that people are willing to deal positively with misinformation when they recognize it. The details can be seen in Figure 15.
Figure 15
PRACTICES OF INFORMATION DISORDER
Dealing with False Information
Figure 16
As can be seen in Figure 16, a large number of respondents (n=5, 62.5%) stated that they would ignore any information that they suspect not to be credible while the remaining 37.5% (n=3) stated that they would proceed to verify the authenticity of any information they suspect not to be credible.
Use of Tools and Techniques to Verify Photos and Videos
Figure 17 shows that half of the respondents (n=4, 50%) are neutral about their ability to use tools and techniques to verify the authenticity of information, photographs and videos, while 25% each of the respondents indicated that they would agree and disagree respectively that they will be able to use tools and techniques to verify the authenticity of videos and photos.
Figure 17
Action on False Information or Disinformation
Figure 18: Action on Disinformation
From Figure 18, seven out of the eight respondents (87.5%) stated that when they verify a suspicious information to be false, they would desist from sharing such information, while six respondents out of the eight (75%) stated that they would desist from sharing, but also alert their friends and those sharing the information that it was false. Three respondents (37.5%) say they would just alert their friends and people sharing the information that it is false while one respondent indicates that s/he would counter the misinformation with evidence that it is false.
Use of Social Media Tools to Report Misinformation
Figure 19
Over one third (n=3, 37.5%) of the respondents stated that they used social media tools on social network sites to report misinformation as shown in Figure 19. Another 37.5% stated that they do not use the social media tools to report misinformation while the remaining 25% (n=2) were not aware of any social media tools.
Following of Fact-Checking Pages on Social Networking Sites
Results from Figure 19 show that close to two thirds (62.5%) of the 8 respondents have indicated that in order to prevent dissemination of mis/disinformation, they follow fact-checking credible news sources on social media while 37.5% stated that they do no such thing.
Figure 20
CONCLUSION
The preliminary findings about the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices from respondents on Information Disorder show that people have knowledge about the phenomenon and generally have a positive attitude towards fighting it. Their practices have also shown that they are and will be willing to contribute to efforts aimed at eradicating or minimizing it. Considering the fact that the respondents are few, no major conclusions can be drawn from the findings so far.
The findings from the full study would bring to bear various dimensions such as how knowledge, attitudes and practices differ among genders and give a clearer understanding of the issues related to the phenomenon of Information Disorder.
REFERENCES
Ahmed Shehata & Metwaly Eldakar (2021): An Exploration of Egyptian Facebook Users’ Perceptions and Behavior of COVID-19 Misinformation, Science & Technology Libraries, DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2021.1925203
Randolph H. Pherson, Penelope Mort Ranta & Casey Cannon (2021) Strategies for Combating the Scourge of Digital Disinformation, International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 34:2, 316-341, DOI: 10.1080/08850607.2020.1789425
