This study investigates the socio-demographic predictors for misinformation sharing and authenticating behavior among Malaysian young adults, based on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic through a self-reporting survey. A total of 833 Malaysians aged between 18 and 35 years old were recruited. Results indicate that 64.5% (n = 537) of the respondents authenticated suspicious news, 16% (n = 133) shared misinformation knowingly, while 30% (n = 250) did so unknowingly. Frequency of sharing news (β = 0.229, p < 0.001), frequency of social media use (β = 0.135, p = 0.03), frequency of access to online news portals (β = - 0.141, p = 0.007) and the ability to identify misinformation (β = -0.161, p < 0.001) significantly predicted misinformation sharing. Conversely, only frequency of sharing news (β = -0.425; p < 0.001) and importance of reading real news (β = 0.873; p < 0.001) predicted authentication behavior. Findings suggest that the majority of the misinformation sharing behavior is accidental instead of intentional, and proposes several strategies that can be adopted to mitigate the wide spread of misinformation including seminars and trainings to improve an individual's social media literacy, critical thinking and analytical skill and also one's social responsibility as a good citizen.
AllcottHGentzkowM (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives31: 211–236.
2.
ApukeODOmarB (2021) User motivation in fake news sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic: An application of the uses and gratification theory. Online Information Review45(1): 220–239.
3.
BakirVMcStayA (2018) “Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism6(2): 154–175.
4.
BalakrishnanV (2015) Cyberbullying among young adults in Malaysia: The roles of gender, age and internet frequency. Computers in Human Behavior46: 149–157.
5.
BalakrishnanV (2017) Unraveling the underlying factors SCulPT-ing cyberbullying behaviours among Malaysian young adults. Computers in Human Behavior75: 194–205.
6.
BalakrishnanVNgKSRahimHA (2021) To share or not to share - The underlying motives of sharing fake news amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia. Technology in Society66: 101676.
7.
BrennerPSDeLamaterJ (2016) Lies, Damned Lies, and survey self-reports? Identity as a cause of measurement bias. Social Psychology Quarterly79: 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272516628298.
8.
ChenXSinSCJThengYL, et al. (2015) Why students share mis- information on social media: Motivation, gender, and study-level differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship41: 583–592.
9.
ChengYChenZF (2020) Encountering misinformation online: Antecedents of trust and distrust and their impact on the intensity of Facebook use. Online Information Review45(2): 372–388.
10.
DattaRYadavAKSinghA, et al. (2020) The infodemics of COVID-19 amongst healthcare professionals in India. Medical Journal Armed Forces India76: 276–283.
11.
DaudMZulhudaS (2020) Regulating the spread of false content online in Malaysia: Issues, challenges and the way forward. International Journal of Business and Society21: 32–48.
12.
EckerUKHLewandowskySChangEP, et al. (2014) The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied20(4): 323–335.
HeadAJWihbeyJMetaxasPT, et al. (2018) “How students engage with news: Five takeaways for educators, journalists, and librarians.” Project Information Literacy Research Institute. Available athttps://www.projectinfolit.org/news_study.html, (March 2, 2021).
19.
Herrero-DizPConde-JiménezJTapia-FradeA, et al. (2019) The credibility of online news: An evaluation of the information by university students. Cultura y Educación31(2): 407–435.
20.
HuangYFChenPH (2020) Fake news detection using an ensemble learning model based on self-adaptive harmony search algorithms. Expert Systems with Applications159: 113584.
21.
IslamAKMLaatoSTalukderS, et al. (2020) Misinformation sharing and social media fatigue during COVID-19: An affordance and cognitive load perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change159: 120201.
22.
JangSMGengTLiJ-YQ, et al. (2018) A computational approach for examining the roots and spreading patterns of fake news: Evolution tree analysis. Computers in Human Behavior84: 103–113.
23.
KatzEBlumlerJGGurevitchM (1973) Uses and gratification research. Publ. Opin. Q37: 509–523.
24.
KleinDWuellerJR (2017) Fake news: A legal perspective. Journal of Internet Law20(10): 6–13.
25.
LaatoSIslamAKMNIslamMN, et al. (2020) What drives unverified in- formation sharing and cyberchondria during the COVID-19 pandemic?European Journal of Information Systems29(3): 288–305.
McDougallJZezulkováMvan DrielB, et al. (2018) “Teaching media Literacy in Europe: Evidence of Effective School Practices in Primary and Secondary Education”. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
28.
PennycookGMcPhetresJZhangY, et al. (2020) Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention. Psychological Science31(7): 770–780.
29.
PetryNM (2002) A comparison of young, middle-aged, and older adult treatment-seeking pathological gamblers. The Gerontologist42(1): 92–99.
30.
PulidoCMVillarejo-CarballidoBRedondo-SamaG, et al. (2020) COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for science-based information on coronavirus than for false information. International Sociology35(4): 377–392.
31.
RampersadGAlthiyabiTWarner-SøderholmG, et al. (2019) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Computers in Human Behavior9(1): 1–9.
32.
ReisJCSCorreiaAMuraiF, et al. (2019) Supervised learning for fake news detection. IEEE Intelligent Systems34(2): 76–81.
33.
ResendeGMeloPSousaH, et al. (2019) (Mis)Information dissemination in WhatsApp: Gathering, analyzing and countermeasures”, In The World Wide Web Conference (pp. 818–828). ACM.
34.
RobertBAnitaCRobertM (2001) Overreporting voting: Why it happens and why it matters. Public Opinion Quarterly65: 22–44.
35.
RyanRMDeciEL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychology55: 68–78.
36.
ShinJThorsonK (2017) Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact- checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication67(2): 233–255.
37.
SilvaRMSantosRLSAlmeidaTA, et al. (2020) Towards automatically filtering fake news in Portuguese. Expert Systems with Applications146: 113199.
TalwarSDhirAKaurP, et al. (2019) Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services51: 72–82.
41.
TandocECLimZWLingR (2018) Defining fake news. Digital Journalism6(2): 137–153.
42.
ValeroPPOliveiraL (2018) Fake news: a systematic review of the literature. Observatorio12(5): 54–78.
43.
WardleCDerakhshanH (2017) Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making”. Report to the Council of Europe.
44.
WatanabeK (2017) Measuring news bias: Russia’s official news agency itar-tass’coverage of the Ukraine crisis. European Journal of Communication32(3): 224–241.
YatidMM (2020) Truth tampering through social Media: Malaysia’s approach in fighting disinformation and misinformation. The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies2(2): 203–230.
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.
