This article focuses on message credibility and detection accuracy of fake and real news as represented on social media. We developed a deception detection paradigm for news headlines and conducted two online experiments to examine the extent to which people (1) perceive news headlines as credible, and (2) accurately distinguish fake and real news across three general topics (i.e., politics, science, and health). Both studies revealed that people often judged news headlines as fake, suggesting a deception-bias for news in social media. Across studies, we observed an average detection accuracy of approximately 51%, a level consistent with most research using this deception detection paradigm with equal lie-truth base-rates. Study 2 evaluated the effects of endorsement cues in social media (e.g., Facebook likes) on message credibility and detection accuracy. Results showed that headlines associated with a high number of Facebook likes increased credibility, thereby enhancing detection accuracy for real news but undermining accuracy for fake news. These studies introduce truth-default theory to the context of news credibility and advance our understanding of how biased processing of news information can impact detection accuracy with social media endorsement cues.
AllcottH.GentzkowM. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31, 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
2.
AllcottH.GentzkowM.YuC. (2019). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics, 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019848554
3.
AppelmanA.SundarS. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057
4.
BodeL.VragaE. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65, 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166
BondG. D.MalloyD. M.AriasE. A.NunnS. N.ThompsonL. A. (2005). Lie-biased decision making in prison. Communication Reports, 18, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210500084180
7.
BullockO. M.Colón AmillD.ShulmanH. C.DixonG. N. (2019). Jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: Evidence from metacognition. Public Understanding of Science, 28, 845–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519865687
8.
CarpiniM. X. D.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
9.
ClareD. D.LevineT. R. (2019). Documenting the truth-default: The low frequency of spontaneous unprompted veracity assessments in deception detection. Human Communication Research, 45, 286–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz001
10.
ClementsonD. E. (2018). Truth bias and partisan bias in political deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37, 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17744004
DixonG.ClarkeC. (2013). The effect of falsely balanced reporting of the autism–vaccine controversy on vaccine safety perceptions and behavioral intentions. Health Education Research, 28, 352–359. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cys110
13.
EkmanP. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (Revised ed.). W.W. Norton.
14.
FunkC. (2017). Mixed messages about public trust in science. Pew Research Center.
Giner-SorolilaR.ChaikenS. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297231009
18.
GrinbergN.JosephK.FriedlandL.Swire-ThompsonB.LazerD. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science, 363, 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706
19.
GuessA.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. European Research Council.
JucksR.ThonF. M. (2017). Better to have many opinions than one from an expert? Social validation by one trustworthy source versus the masses in online health forums. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.019
23.
KennedyB.FunkC. (2015). Science and health interest linked to Americans’ gender, age and personality. Pew Research Center Science & Society.
24.
LazerD. M. J.BaumM. A.BenklerY.BerinskyA. J.GreenhillK. M.MenczerF.. . . ZittrainJ. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359, 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
25.
LevineT. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14535916
LevineT. R.ParkH. S.McCornackS. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.”Communication Monographs, 66, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376468
28.
LevineT. R.SerotaK. B.ShulmanH.ClareD. D.ParkH. S.ShawA. S.. . . LeeJ. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01407.x
29.
LevineT. R.ShawA. S.ShulmanH. (2010). Assessing deception detection accuracy with dichotomous truth–lie judgments and continuous scaling: Are people really more accurate when honesty is scaled?Communication Research Reports, 27, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090903526638
30.
MakiA.CarricoA. R.VandenberghM. P. (2018). Doing the wrong things for the right reasons: How environmental misinformation affects environmental behavior. In SouthwellB. G.ThorsonE. A.ShebleL. (Eds.), Misinformation and mass audiences (pp. 177–191). University of Texas Press.
31.
MatsaK. E.ShearerE. (2018). News use across social media platforms 2018. Pew Research Center.
32.
McCornackS. A.LevineT. R. (1990). When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception. Communication Monographs, 57, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759009376197
33.
McCroskeyJ. C.RichmondV. P.DalyJ. A. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.x
34.
McGrewS.BreakstoneJ.OrtegaT.SmithM.WineburgS. (2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46, 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320
35.
MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41, 1042–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
36.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
37.
MillarM. G.MillarK. U. (1997). The effects of cognitive capacity and suspicion on truth bias. Communication Research, 24, 556–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024005005
38.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
39.
O’KeefeD. J. (2004). Trends and prospects in persuasion theory and research. In SeiterJ. S.GassR. H. (Eds.), Readings in persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 31–43). Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
40.
ParkH. S.LevineT. (2001). A probability model of accuracy in deception detection experiments. Communication Monographs, 68, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128059
41.
PennycookG.CannonT. D.RandD. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
42.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
43.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2020). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12476
44.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Message elaboration versus peripheral cues. In PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (Eds.), Communication and persuasion (pp. 141–172). Springer.
45.
ShenC.KasraM.PanW.BassettG. A.MallochY.O’BrienJ. F. (2019). Fake images: The effects of source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online. New Media & Society, 21, 438–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818799526
46.
ShulmanH. C.SweitzerM. D. (2018). Advancing framing theory: Designing an equivalency frame to improve political information processing. Human Communication Research, 44, 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx006
47.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205064
48.
SouthwellB. G.ThorsonE. A.ShebleL. (2018). Misinformation and mass audiences. University of Texas Press.
49.
SpartzJ. T.SuY.-F.GriffinR.BrossardD.DunwoodyS. (2017). YouTube, social norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environmental Communication, 11, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1047887
50.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72–100). MIT Press.
51.
SundarS. S.Knobloch-WesterwickS.HastallM. R. (2007). News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20511
52.
TsfatiY.CappellaJ. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust?: Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research, 30, 504–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253371
53.
TurcotteJ.YorkC.IrvingJ.SchollR. M.PingreeR. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127
XuQ. (2013). Social recommendation, source credibility, and recency: Effects of news cues in a social bookmarking website. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 757–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013503158
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
