Credibility Perceptions and Detection Accuracy of Fake News Headlines on Social Media: Effects of Truth-Bias and Endorsement Cues

Abstract

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.

Keywords

fake news deception detection online credibility social media truth-default theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allcott

Gentzkow

(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

Allcott

Gentzkow

(2019). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics, 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019848554

Appelman

Sundar

S. 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

Bode

Vraga

E. 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

Bond

C. F.

DePaulo

B. M.

(2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2

Bond

G. D.

Malloy

D. M.

Arias

E. A.

Nunn

S. N.

Thompson

L. A.

(2005). Lie-biased decision making in prison. Communication Reports, 18, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210500084180

Bullock

O. M.

Colón Amill

Shulman

H. C.

Dixon

G. 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

Carpini

M. X. D.

Keeter

(1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.

Clare

D. D.

Levine

T. 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.

Clementson

D. 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

11.

DeAndrea

D. C.

(2014). Advancing warranting theory. Communication Theory, 24, 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12033

12.

Dixon

Clarke

(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.

Ekman

(2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (Revised ed.). W.W. Norton.

14.

Funk

(2017). Mixed messages about public trust in science. Pew Research Center.

15.

Garrett

R. K.

(2011). Troubling consequences of online political rumoring. Human Communication Research, 37, 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01401.x

16.

Gilbert

D. T.

(1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.107

17.

Giner-Sorolila

Chaiken

(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.

Grinberg

Joseph

Friedland

Swire-Thompson

Lazer

(2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science, 363, 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706

19.

Guess

Nyhan

Reifler

(2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. European Research Council.

20.

Holan

A. D.

(2015, December). All politicians lie: Some lie more than others. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html

21.

Jones

M. J.

(2018, June). Americans: Much misinformation, bias, inaccuracy in news. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/235796/americans-misinformation-bias-inaccuracy-news.aspx

22.

Jucks

Thon

F. 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.

Kennedy

Funk

(2015). Science and health interest linked to Americans’ gender, age and personality. Pew Research Center Science & Society.

24.

Lazer

D. M. J.

Baum

M. A.

Benkler

Berinsky

A. J.

Greenhill

K. M.

Menczer

. . . Zittrain

J. L.

(2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359, 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998

25.

Levine

T. 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

26.

Levine

T. R.

(2018). Ecological validity and deception detection research design. Communication Methods and Measures, 12, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1411471

27.

Levine

T. R.

Park

H. S.

McCornack

S. A.

(1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.” Communication Monographs, 66, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376468

28.

Levine

T. R.

Serota

K. B.

Shulman

Clare

D. D.

Park

H. S.

Shaw

A. S.

. . . Lee

J. 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.

Levine

T. R.

Shaw

A. S.

Shulman

(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.

Maki

Carrico

A. R.

Vandenbergh

M. P.

(2018). Doing the wrong things for the right reasons: How environmental misinformation affects environmental behavior. In Southwell

B. G.

Thorson

E. A.

Sheble

(Eds.), Misinformation and mass audiences (pp. 177–191). University of Texas Press.

31.

Matsa

K. E.

Shearer

(2018). News use across social media platforms 2018. Pew Research Center.

32.

McCornack

S. A.

Levine

T. 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.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

Daly

J. 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.

McGrew

Breakstone

Ortega

Smith

Wineburg

(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.

Messing

Westwood

S. 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.

Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

Medders

R. 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.

Millar

M. G.

Millar

K. U.

(1997). The effects of cognitive capacity and suspicion on truth bias. Communication Research, 24, 556–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024005005

38.

Nyhan

Reifler

(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’Keefe

D. J.

(2004). Trends and prospects in persuasion theory and research. In Seiter

J. S.

Gass

R. H.

(Eds.), Readings in persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 31–43). Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

40.

Park

H. S.

Levine

(2001). A probability model of accuracy in deception detection experiments. Communication Monographs, 68, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128059

41.

Pennycook

Cannon

T. D.

Rand

D. 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.

Pennycook

Rand

D. 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.

Pennycook

Rand

D. 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.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). Message elaboration versus peripheral cues. In Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(Eds.), Communication and persuasion (pp. 141–172). Springer.

45.

Shen

Kasra

Pan

Bassett

G. A.

Malloch

O’Brien

J. 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.

Shulman

H. C.

Sweitzer

M. 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.

Siegrist

Cvetkovich

(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.

Southwell

B. G.

Thorson

E. A.

Sheble

(2018). Misinformation and mass audiences. University of Texas Press.

49.

Spartz

J. T.

Y.-F.

Griffin

Brossard

Dunwoody

(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.

Sundar

S. S.

(2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

(Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72–100). MIT Press.

51.

Sundar

S. S.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Hastall

M. 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.

Tsfati

Cappella

J. 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.

Turcotte

York

Irving

Scholl

R. M.

Pingree

R. 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

54.

Vosoughi

Roy

Aral

(2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

55.

Vrij

(2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). John Wiley.

56.

Walther

J. B.

Jang

(2012). Communication processes in participatory websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x

57.

(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.

0.00 MB

0.28 MB