Do social media users read, comment, and share false news more than real news? Does it matter if the story is written by a bot and whether it is endorsed by many others? We conducted a selective-exposure experiment (N = 171) to answer these questions. Results showed that real articles were more likely to receive “likes” whereas false articles were more likely to receive comments. Users commented more on a bot-written article when it received fewer likes. We explored the psychological mechanisms underlying these findings in Study 2 (N = 284). Data indicate that users’ engagement with online news is largely driven by emotions elicited by news content and heuristics triggered by interface cues, such that curiosity increases consumption of real news, whereas uneasiness triggered by a high number of “likes” encourages comments on fake news.
AldousK. K.AnJ.JansenB. J. (2019). View, like, comment, post: Analyzing user engagement by topic at 4 levels across 5 social media platforms for 53 news organizations. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 13(1), 47–57. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/3208
2.
AllcottH.GentzkowM. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
BurkeM.KrautR. E. (2016). The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(4), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12162
5.
ButtliereB.BuderJ. (2017). Reading more vs. writing back: Situation affordances drive reactions to conflicting information on the internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.041
6.
Center for Information Technology & Society. (2020). How is fake news spread? Bots, people like you, trolls, and microtargeting. https://www.cits.ucsb.edu/fake-news/spread
7.
Del VicarioM.BessiA.ZolloF.PetroniF.ScalaA.CaldarelliG.StanleyH. E.QuattrociocchiW. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt, Brace, & Janovich.
10.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.) Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
11.
GabielkovM.RamachandranA.ChaintreauA.LegoutA. (2016, June). Social clicks: What and who gets read on Twitter? [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Science, Antibes Juan-les-Pins, France.
12.
GerbaudoP.MarognaF.AlzettaC. (2019). When “positive posting” attracts voters: User engagement and emotions in the 2017 UK election campaign on Facebook. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119881695
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
15.
JanétK.RichardsO.LandrumA. R. (2020). Headline format influences evaluation of, but not engagement with, environmental news. Journalism Practice, 16, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1805794
16.
Janoff-BulmanR.SheikhS.BaldacciK. G. (2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.11.003
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2011). Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01543.x
19.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.SharmaN.HansenD. L.AlterS. (2005). Impact of popularity indications on readers’ selective exposure to online news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4903_3
20.
KormelinkT. G.MeijerI. C. (2018). What clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices. Journalism, 19(5), 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916688290
21.
LiuB.WeiL. (2018). Reading machine-written news: Effect of machine heuristic and novelty on hostile media perception [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
LuoM.HancockJ. T.MarkowitzD. M. (2020). Credibility perceptions and detection accuracy of fake news headlines on social media: Effects of truth-bias and endorsement cues. Communication Research. 1–15. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921321
24.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
25.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MenaP.JiangS.WilsonC. (2021). From dark to light: The many shades of sharing misinformation online. Media and Communication, 9, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3409
26.
MolinaM. D.SundarS. S.LeT.LeeD. (2021a). “Fake news” is not simply false information: A concept explication and taxonomy of online content. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 180–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878224
27.
MolinaM. D.SundarS. S.RonyM. M. U.HassanN.LeT.LeeD. (2021b, May). Does clickbait actually attract more clicks? Three clickbait studies you must read [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’21), Yokohama, Japan.
28.
Oeldorf-HirschA.SundarS. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024
29.
OhJ.BellurS.SundarS. S. (2018). Clicking, assessing, immersing, and sharing: An empirical model of user engagement with interactive media. Communication Research, 45(5), 737–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215600493
30.
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
ShaoC.CiampagliaG. L.VarolO.YangK.-C.FlamminiA.MenczerF. (2018). The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communications, 9(1), 4787. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
36.
SouthwellB. G.ThorsonE. A.ShebleL. (2017). The persistence and peril of misinformation. American Scientist, 105(6), 372–375. https://doi.org/10.1511/2017.105.6.372
37.
SundarS. S. (1999). Exploring receivers’ criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909907600213
38.
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). The MIT Press.
39.
TenenboimO.CohenA. A. (2015). What prompts users to click and comment: A longitudinal study of online news. Journalism, 16(2), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913513996
40.
VaccariC.ValerianiA.BarberaP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A. (2016). Of echo chambers and contrarian clubs: Exposure to political disagreement among German and Italian users of Twitter. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664221
41.
WaddellT. F. (2018). A robot wrote this? How perceived machine authorship affects news credibility. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 236–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1384319
42.
WeeksB. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164
43.
WinterS.KrämerN. C. (2014). A question of credibility – Effects of source cues and recommendations on information selection on news sites and blogs. Communications, 39(4), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0020
44.
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
45.
XuW. W.SangY.KimC. (2020). What drives hyper-partisan news sharing: Exploring the role of source, style, and content. Digital Journalism, 8(4), 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1761264
46.
YangJ. (2016). Effects of popularity-based news recommendations (“most-viewed”) on users’ exposure to online news. Media Psychology, 19, 243–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1006333
47.
ZellA. L.MoellerL. (2018). Are you happy for me . . . on Facebook? The potential importance of “likes” and comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.050
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.
