Detecting misinformation through Framing Theory: the Frame Element-based Model

With the rise of social media, the ease with which information can be distributed and consumed has increased, allowing misinformation also to increase [1]. Traditional rule-based misinformation detection for fact-checking and fake news focused on detecting misinformation by focusing on who provided the information or what the content of the information was. Manual fact-checking relied on the author’s reputation and/or the source to determine the veracity of the information [14]. Similarly, to detect fake news on social media, the social contexts, such as explicit and implicit features of user’s profiles, are evaluated to determine the credibility of the information [15]. In addition to social contexts, fake news detection focuses on the content of the text by extracting linguistic features in order to detect sensational headlines that are frequent in fake news [15]. Moreover, identifying negation keywords, such as ‘no,’ ‘not,’ or ‘never,’ played a significant role in enhancing the classification of rumors [16]. Traditional rule-based approaches relied on information specific to the topic to correctly identify misinformation, therefore, these approaches experienced limitations when detecting misinformation about a new topic [17]. These shortcomings were addressed with the introduction of semi-supervised and unsupervised methods [18].

Many researchers have explored the use of deep learning techniques to automate misinformation detection, such as tensor and transformer-based models and convolutional and recurrent neural networks [1, 19, 20, 21, 22]. Latent patterns and spatial context were extracted from tensor-based models to construct k-nearest-neighbour graphs and belief propagation for semi-supervised misinformation detection [19]. A hybrid of convolutional neural networks (CNN) and recurrent neural networks (RNN) leverages the strengths of CNN in extracting local features and of RNN in capturing long-term dependencies to detect fake news [20]. Another RNN model found that combining sentiment, emotional, irony and hate analysis with bagging, boosting, stacking and voting means, produced a higher accuracy than without the various analyses [22]. An evaluation of transformer-based models Large Language Models, namely, BERT variants to be used as baselines for misinformation detection, can achieve comparable or better performance than more complex state-of-the-art methods [21]. More recently, a transformer-based model, MisRoBÆRTa, utilized RoBERTa and BART to outperform single transformer misinformation detection models [23]. Finally, a hybrid deep learning model integrating features-based models and universal sentence encoding revealed promising results on the PHEME dataset [24].

While these techniques are able to accurately detect misinformation without considering the narrative or frame, their challenge lies in dealing with misinformation stemming from factual events that are skewed to convey a different implication. Furthermore, they also face difficulties handling lengthy news articles that potentially contain both truthful and misleading information.

The frame of a piece of text can increase the salience of specific parts of information, i.e., to make information more meaningful, noticeable, or memorable [7]. An example by Entman showed that a frame can influence how a large portion of readers notice, understand, remember, evaluate, or act upon information presented to them [7]. According to Entman, the problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation are the four identifiable elements of a frame [7]. Multiple methods have been developed to detect frames using different approaches. Liu et al. detected frames from news based on the article headlines by fine-tuning a Large Language Model, i.e., BERT [25]. Alternatively, Walter and Ophir leveraged computational tools to develop a novel method, the Analysis of Topic Model Networks, for the inductive identification and categorization of frames [11]. Although both misinformation, frame, and framing element detection are possible, the impact of frames on misinformation detection requires further research. Our proposed FEM explores this impact by incorporating the framing theory presented by Entman to solve the earlier challenge of detecting misinformation stemming from accurate facts that are skewed to be misleading potentially [7]. Additionally, FEM discerns the respective contributions of the four framing elements to the overall accuracy of misinformation detection.

Definition 1: Narrative generally refers to a way of sharing stories or information, whether it is spoken, written, or shared online. In the current context, the narrative indicates the news stories and articles that are being disseminated online. Let $\mathcal{N}=\{n_{1},n_{2},\ldots,n_{n}\}$ denote the set of narratives, a narrative can be information or misinformation in online social networks, where $n_{i}$ represents a single narrative.

Definition 2: Information refers to the presentation of facts in a way that aims to convey these facts accurately. The narrative of the information is constructed to reflect its true nature and implications without distorting or omitting key elements. Let $\mathcal{I}\in\mathcal{A}$ refer to the information set:

where $fa\in\mathcal{FA}$ refers to a specific fact in a fact set, $n\in\mathcal{N}$ refers to a narrative of a narrative set for information.

Definition 3: Misinformation, converse to information, involves using the same facts but framing them within a narrative that is designed to mislead, deceive, or manipulate the audiences. The key aspect of misinformation in this work is not the distorted facts, but how they are presented in a misleading narrative. Let $\mathcal{M}\in\mathcal{A}$ represent a set of misinformation which is composed of the content and the specific narrative:

where $fa\in\mathcal{FA}$ refers to the same fact in a fact set as information, $n\in\mathcal{N}$ refers to the narrative of a narrative set for misinformation.

Definition 4: Frame suggests how information is structured and presented in a story, including the perspective from which it is told. It suggests how information is presented in a narrative - the story that communicates the facts in a meaningful way - can influence an individual’s perception and interpretation of that information and is recognized as an important concept in the communication and social science fields. Mathematically, $f$ represents a frame, and the set of frames is $\mathcal{FR}=\{fr_{1},fr_{2},\ldots,fr_{m}\}$. The relationship between a frame and a narrative of one article can be represented by $\mathcal{R}:\mathcal{N}\rightarrow\mathcal{FR}$, where $R(n_{i})=fr_{i}$, and $\mathcal{R}$ represents the element extractor.

Definition 5: Frame Elements are the specific components used to construct a frame in articles. A frame is generally composed of four elements, and they constitute how information should be displayed in front of the readers and how the readers would perceive the content. Each article has four elements: “problem definition”, “causal interpretation”, “moral evaluation”, and “treatment recommendations”. Let $e$ represent one of the elements of a frame in an article and $\mathcal{E}_{i}=\{\text{e}_{1},\text{e}_{2},\text{e}_{3},\text{e}_{4}\}$ represents the element set of the article $a_{i}$ where $e_{1}$ represents the “problem definition”, $e_{2}$ represents the “causal interpretation”, $e_{3}$ represents the “moral evaluation”, and $e_{4}$ represents the “treatment recommendations”.

The Misinformation Detection problem is defined as the process of classifying articles to identify misinformation stemming from portrayed facts under different narratives thus misleading the audiences. To achieve that, we adopt the Frame Element-based Model (FEM) incorporating the elements of framing theory extracted from the articles. The FEM is trained to understand the semantics and narratives of articles. Having a set of articles $\mathcal{A}=\{a_{i},a_{2},\ldots,a_{n}\}$, given an article $a_{i}\in A$, the model first extracts the frame elements $E_{i}=\{e_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4}\}$ of the article, and then encode them to get the hidden state $h_{i}$ of it which is later used to calculate the probability to predict if the article is misinformation or not.

where $P(h_{i})$ is the probability that an article $a_{i}$ contains misinformation, and $h_{i}$ represents the last hidden state of the given article $a_{i}$ or corresponding element set $E_{i}$, .

The object of the last step of predicting is defined as minimizing the loss function $\mathcal{L}$:

where $w^{*}$ and $b^{*}$ are the target optimal weights, and the loss function $\mathcal{L}$ which is the cross entropy loss function is defined as:

where $N$ is the number of samples, and $y_{i}$ is the actual label of the article $a_{i}$.

To ensure an efficient training process, we conduct our experiments on the Paperspace ¹¹1https://www.paperspace.com/ platform utilizing the following tailored computational and training settings to the unique demands of each dataset:

• •

  GPU Configuration: The model is trained over a span of 100 epochs utilizing NVIDIA’s A6000 48GB GPU and 45 GB 8 CPU.

• •

  Dropout: To mitigate the risk of overfitting, a dropout rate of $0.3$ was applied during training.

• •

  Learning Rate: The training uses an initial learning rate of $1\times 10^{-5}$ and it is modulated following a cosine schedule with a warm-up phase. The warm-up steps vary in accordance with the specificities of each dataset.

• •

  Batch Size: The batch size is determined based on the particular requirements and characteristics of each dataset.

• •

  Frame Element Extractor: ChatGPT, as a powerful generative AI model, is used as the element extractor. Different extractors can be applied for the same purpose.

In this section, we introduce 4 datasets used to evaluate our model. To assess the generalization capability of the model, we used three single-topic datasets which are the Three Waters Reform dataset, Covid-19 dataset, Nuclear Pollution dataset, and a mixed-topic dataset which is the Kaggle Fake News dataset. The statistics of these datasets are displayed in Table 1.

• •

  Three Waters Reform dataset is collected from The Knowledge Basket²²2https://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/. We only capture the news focus on the “Three Waters Reform" in New Zealand, a topic of substantial political discourse and interest spanning from 2017 to June 2023. This dataset accumulates a total of 1,841 articles. Following the application of our labeling process yields 3,262 articles labeled in concordance with their identified frames and frame elements.

• •

  Covid-19 is collected using Newsapi ³³3https://newsapi.org/ which is an API service that allows developers to retrieve news articles from various sources on a worldwide scale. We use “Covid-19" as keywords to retrieve news articles in the period from 01/12/2019 to 20/08/2023. These articles reflect the in-time attitude to the Covid-19 pandemic. This dataset includes 13,386 articles after the pre-processing.

• •

  Nuclear Pollution dataset is collected using the Newsapi as well and with the keywords “nuclear pollution" over the last 5 years. This dataset provides a comprehensive view of the discourse surrounding nuclear pollution offering a diverse range of perspectives and information. After the data pre-processing, there are 2,431 articles with an average token length of 482.

• •

  Kaggle Fake News Dataset ⁴⁴4https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/stevenpeutz/misinformation-fake-news-text-dataset-79k contains news articles from multiple sources such as Reuters and so on. For the purpose of our study, we confine our selection to the “TRUE" set and randomly select 3k articles. To augment the dataset to fulfill the research objectives, we produce another set of data by varying the frame of existing news, ultimately resulting in 5,915 labeled samples following the implementation of our augmentation process.

Our proposed methodology commences with the collection of datasets comprised of news articles from reliable sources. These articles constitute our ground truth, representing information opposite to misinformation. Accordingly, we synthesize misinformation based on the framing theory by altering the frames of our collected news articles. This process augments our datasets in a generative method at the document level and unfolds in three structured phases [26].

• •

  Frame Identification and Element Extraction: Utilizing the capabilities of ChatGPT, we first process the collected news articles to identify their frames and extract four elements of framing theory. These extracted framing elements reflect the news articles’ original and unaltered state. They are annotated with the label “1", signifying their category as information. The frames we harness in this work are selected and proved by domain experts in communication.

• •

  Frame Alteration: The second stage involves the alteration of the frame, utilizing ChatGPT to manipulate the article narrative while maintaining the original factual information. This step simulates the process of creating misinformation through narrative manipulation, a common way that preserves factual information but skews the frame to mislead readers. 20% of the altered narratives are verified by the domain experts.

• •

  Element Extraction: In the final step, we process the narrative-manipulated articles through ChatGPT to extract the corresponding four elements of framing theory, labeled “0" along with the manipulated articles, signifying their category as misinformation. This eventually establishes the basis for comparison with the information.

This pre-processing procedure is designed to construct binary-category datasets that are comprised of information and misinformation with elements of framing theory, thereby enabling the nuanced training of our model. Through this process, we not only aim to create datasets that serve as the foundation of misinformation detection but also enhance the understanding of how narrative (framing theory in this work) can be utilized to generate misinformation.

To evaluate the performance of our proposed model (FEM), we utilize the Confusion Matrix as our primary evaluation measurement. The Confusion Matrix provides a comprehensive visualization of the performance by categorizing predictions into four different classifications [27]:

• •

  True Positives (TP): when predicted misinformation is actually labeled as misinformation;

• •

  True Negatives (TN): when predicted information is actually labeled as information;

• •

  False Positives (FP): when predicted information is actually labeled as misinformation;

• •

  False Negatives (FN): when predicted misinformation is actually labeled as information.

As our baselines, we perform the fine-tuning of several highly utilized pre-trained transformer-based language models followed by a feed-forward layer as a classifier for misinformation detection. These baselines include:

• •

  BERT [28] is a groundbreaking transformer-based model in the field of natural language processing (NLP). It is known for its deep bidirectional training, meaning it considers the context from both the left and right sides in all layers. This leads to a more nuanced understanding of language context and semantics. BERT has been highly influential in improving the performance of a wide range of NLP tasks.

• •

  RoBERTa [29] is built upon BERT by modifying key hyperparameters, training with more data, and longer training times. These changes help RoBERTa outperform BERT on several benchmark NLP tasks. It is known for its improved robustness and efficiency.

• •

  ALBERT [30] is a version of BERT optimized for lower memory consumption and increased speed. It introduces two major modifications: factorized embedding parameterization and cross-layer parameter sharing. These changes reduce the model’s size without significantly affecting its performance, making it more scalable and efficient.

• •

  XLNet [31] is an extension of the Transformer model. Instead of the standard transformer, XLNet uses transformer-XL [32]. It combines the best of both autoregressive (AR) and autoencoding (AE) models. Unlike BERT, XLNet learns to predict a word at a position in a sequence considering all permutations of the sequence.

• •

  LongFormer [33] is designed to handle longer texts. It is an extension of the standard transformer-based model, like BERT, but optimized for lengthy documents. Its key innovation is the introduction of an attention mechanism that scales linearly with sequence length.

In this experiment, we compare the performance of our model with other baseline models on four datasets introduced in Section 5. The results are displayed in Table 2 ,3, 4 and 5 respectively. The results on each dataset consistently show that our model (FEM) incorporating frame elements with the original news article significantly outperforms other models with only articles, presenting the importance of frame elements.

From these results, we can observe that frame elements play a crucial role in understanding and interpreting information. We also demonstrate the results of our model with only frame elements and only texts as input respectively. Compared to the baselines, the results with only frame elements as input are also beyond them.

By analyzing the performance of our model with only frame elements compared to the other baselines, we can observe the significance of these elements. Frame elements contribute to the deeper semantic understanding of the content by narrowing it down to the core theme reducing the distracting noise. This enables the model to grasp not just the explicit meaning but also the implicit intentions and nuances thus increasing the probability of precisely detecting misinformation.

Experiment results in Table 5 on the Mixed-topic dataset demonstrate that frame elements can also provide a more general representation of information, making the model more adaptable and robust to variations of information.

In this experiment, we conduct a comparative analysis to explore the contribution of each element to misinformation detection. The experimental framework analyzes the composite efficacy of the model equipped with the four elements, i.e., Problem Definition, Causal Interpretation, Moral Evaluation and Treatment Recommendation. Within the area of misinformation detection with frame elements, exploring the individual contribution of distinct frame elements is vital to help us understand how frame elements influence the model’s capability to grasp the veracity of information.

The model with all 4 elements serves as the benchmark for optimal performance, showing a high degree of accuracy, precision, recall and F1-score. This provides a holistic frame element-based analysis of information, thus enhancing the probability of identification of misinformation.

Then, we remove each frame element from all four elements keeping the other three elements remaining. Figure 2 displays all performance metrics while Figure 3 demonstrates the trend of F1-Scores during the training process.

We can observe from all these figures that when the element of Problem Definition is removed from the model, a pronounced decrement in all measurements is demonstrated. This suggests that the recognition of Problem Definitions is instrumental in the precise detection of misinformation, potentially due to its role in pinpointing the core theme within the narrative that may be manipulated. Without the incorporation of the element of Problem Definition, the capability of the model to differentiate between true and misleading content is significantly compromised.

Meanwhile, the absence of the frame of Moral Evaluation also results in a noticeable decline in all performance metrics. It appears to be an important factor in the framing of information indicating that it is often manipulated in misinformation in order to obtain emotional biases or ethical stances.

The model lacking the frame of Problem Definition or Moral Evaluation demonstrates a noticeable drop in Precision and Accuracy indicating a higher rate of false positives. This implies that while the model may still identify genuine instances of misinformation, it is also more likely to incorrectly classify accurate information as misinformation.

On the contrary, a lack of the frame of Causal Interpretation or Treatment Recommendation does not show a substantial decline in performance metrics compared to the benchmark. This observation implies that while they have a role in the misinformation detection process, however, their absence does not critically influence the capability of the model to identify misinformation.

One noticeable difference in the results demonstrated in Figure 1(c) and Figure 2(c) on the Nuclear Pollution dataset is the lack of the frame of Treatment Recommendation. Removing the Treatment Recommendation element also results in a lower performance across all metrics indicating that in the context of nuclear pollution, the treatment recommendation is likely to be a key indicator of the news articles. A lack of this element in this area could also allow misinformation proposing ineffective or misleading responses to harness the readers. The decrement in performance of missing the frame of treatment recommendation also implies that the contribution of each element can vary depending on the subject.

In this experiment, we analyze the relationship between the similarity between information and misinformation under different conditions relating to the presence or absence of specific frame elements within our model. This experiment represents how closely misinformation mirrors authentic information in terms of framing. The cosine function is used to calculate their similarities:

where $h_{i}$ and $h_{j}$ represent the final hidden states of two articles or elements from two articles.

Table 6 shows the similarities of one randomly selected article from the Three Waters Reform dataset and the overall performance (F1-score) of the model on this dataset. The similarity between the information article and the misinformation article is used as the benchmark for further analysis. The similarity of 0.86 shows that, without any specialized modification, misinformation is quite successful at resembling a genuine news article.

From Table 6 we can observe that the similarity between the information article and misinformation article is the highest at 0.85, however, the F1 score of the model with only text on this dataset is 0.8474 which is lower than for other conditions especially when utilizing only all 4 elements which holds the lowest similarity 0.61 and highest F1-score 0.9478.

This experiment indicates the alignment of similarity with the model performance as an inverse relationship. The lower the similarity, the higher the performance is in detecting misinformation. This underscores the importance of elements of framing theory in the detection process and points out their potential impact on improving detection accuracy.

We also calculate the average similarity scores between information and misinformation across four distinct datasets under different conditions. Results are displayed in Table 7. The pattern of similarity scores is relatively consistent across different topics, indicating that the manipulation of framing in misinformation follows a similar pattern. However, on the nuclear dataset, when omitting the frame of treatment recommendation, the similarity still remains at a high level, indicating the importance of treatment recommendation in this dataset.

Overall, by comparing the average similarities across all datasets, we can observe the alignment of similarities with omitting distinct elements except the impact when omitting the frame of treatment recommendation on the nuclear dataset. This indicates a unique pattern in the context of a specific topic showing that different elements of framing theory have varying levels of impact depending on the topic. This also underlines the importance of topic-sensitive approaches in misinformation detection.

In this experiment, we conduct a case study to analyze the similarities between two articles written about the same topic where each article has a different frame and frame elements. The articles focus on the government’s proposed water reforms.

The first article has a political frame:

"There’s a lot of change being proposed by the government… Fundamentally, they’re considering shifting responsibility for our three waters: water supply, wastewater, and stormwater, from local government into four large entities… The government now believes that costs of between $120 billion and $185b will be required: between $4 and $6b per year on average… The proposed three waters reform program harks back to the Havelock North water contamination event in 2016… It’s on this basis that the government has concluded that four entities, aggregating all the water services across the country, offer the best and quickest opportunity to achieve the desired improvements to the three-waters networks… It’s too early to ask the community…"

While the second article has a semantic frame to show their satire:

"Oh, boy! The government is proposing some exciting changes, folks. Brace yourselves because they’re considering taking control of our beloved three waters. You know, the precious water supply, wastewater, and stormwater that our local government has been responsible for?… The government estimates that we’ll need a mind-boggling $120 billion to $185 billion over the next 30 years… Well, now they want to hand it over to these big entities called Water Supply Entities. What a brilliant idea, right?… And get this – the government thinks it would be cheaper if larger entities took over the water services. Apparently, they can borrow more, with the government’s backing, of course. I mean, who needs small, local councils when you can have these big entities making all the decisions for you?…"

The similarities calculated in Table 6 of 0.86 indicate that the articles are highly similar as they both share details about the reform. However, once the frame elements are considered, the article similarity decreases to 0.61.

The political frame is informative and objective, presenting a detailed overview using formal language, and statistics to support its claims, while the semantic frame is emotional and opinionated using colloquial language and employing vivid imagery to engage readers emotionally which may risk oversimplification and bias.

To determine the classification without frame elements, our model only encodes the news article. In comparison, for classifying with the frame elements, the elements and news articles are encoded independently with their embeddings concatenated into one vector prior to classification. The inclusion of these extra features enhances the model’s performance.

For example, given the problem definition for the political frame:

“The proposed shift of responsibility for three waters from local government to four large entities known as water supply entities.”

As well as the problem definition for the semantic frame:

“The proposed government takeover of three waters”

The problem definition of each article highlights their differences in framing, the politically framed article’s problem definition is detailed with a neutral tone, while the semantic frame’s problem definition is short with a negative perspective.

Both articles are classified as information without frame elements, however, once the frame elements are considered, the semantic frame is correctly classified as misinformation. This suggests that including the frame elements in our model contributes to the successful classification of misinformation by reinforcing the differences between the two semantically similar articles.

We proposed a Frame Element-based Model (FEM) to distinguish misinformation from information. Several experiments are conducted providing crucial insights into the importance of elements of framing theory in misinformation detection. Results are evaluated by comparing them with baseline models. Furthermore, we analyzed the contribution of each element demonstrating the different roles of the elements. By comparing the article similarities and element similarities, we obtained insights into how the elements improve the performance of detecting misinformation. Based on the experimental results, we have the following insights observed:

• •

  The results of Experiment 1 on all datasets consistently proved that incorporating the elements of framing theory while detecting misinformation stemming from portrayed facts under different narratives can help improve the performance.

• •

  The parameter analysis experiment revealed that the absence of certain framing elements, particularly Problem Definition and Moral Evaluation, leads to a significant decrease in the model’s accuracy and precision. This underscores the critical role these elements play in the accurate detection of misinformation.

• •

  Experiment 2 also demonstrates a finding that the specific element plays a different role on different topics highlighting the potential impact of elements and underscoring the necessity for topic-sensitive approaches in misinformation detection, as different elements of framing theory have varying levels of impact depending on the topic.

• •

  The similarity comparison experiment further illustrated how misinformation closely mirrors authentic information in terms of framing. The results indicated an inverse relationship between similarity and model performance: lower similarity between the information and misinformation articles led to higher performance in detecting misinformation.

• •

  The case study shows that not applying the framing theory to the articles can lead to the result of the article with a semantic frame incorrectly classified as information increasing the potential for misleading interpretations. It also shows that while articles may be semantically similar, the choice of framing can greatly impact the narrative of content being misleading or misinterpreted.