ArticleHuman factors2024
Duped by Bots: Why Some are Better than Others at Detecting Fake Social Media Personas.
Article in Human factors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of source expertise on the persuasiveness and sharing of health information on social media: A systematic review.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Pooled it
- Quantifying Bot Impact: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Complexity and Uncertainty in Online Political Communication Dynamics.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A global comparison of social media bot and human characteristics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ensemble techniques for detecting profile cloning attacks in online social networks.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- Improving Social Bot Detection Through Aid and Training.Human factors · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe examine individuals' ability to detect social bots among Twitter personas, along with participant and persona features associated with that ability.
backgroundSocial media users need to distinguish bots from human users. We develop and demonstrate a methodology for assessing those abilities, with a simulated social media task.
methodWe analyze performance from a signal detection theory perspective, using a task that asked lay participants whether each of 50 Twitter personas was a human or social bot. We used the agreement of two machine learning models to estimate the probability of each persona being a bot. We estimated the probability of participants indicating that a persona was a bot with a generalized linear mixed-effects model using participant characteristics (social media experience, analytical reasoning, and political views) and stimulus characteristics (bot indicator score and political tone) as regressors.
resultsOn average, participants had modest sensitivity (d') and a criterion that favored responding "human." Exploratory analyses found greater sensitivity for participants (a) with less self-reported social media experience, (b) greater analytical reasoning ability, and (c) who were evaluating personas with opposing political views. Some patterns varied with participants' political identity.
conclusionsIndividuals have limited ability to detect social bots, with greater aversion to mistaking bots for humans than vice versa. Greater social media experience and myside bias appeared to reduce performance, as did less analytical reasoning ability. APPLICATION: These patterns suggest the need for interventions, especially when users feel most familiar with social media.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.