This study examined the effect of visual multimedia instructions (guided by literacy concepts) as an intervention strategy for improving fake news knowledge, detection skills and curtailing the tendency to share fake news. We used the inoculation theory, message interpretation process (MIP) theory and cognitive theory of multimedia learning to provide a useful explanation for the interventions of literacy concept. Our study made use of 470 participants divided into two groups, comprising the control group, n= 235 and the treatment group, n= 235. After the experiment, we found that participants in the visual multimedia experimental group demonstrated a higher knowledge of fake news, better ability to detect fake news and shared more accurate news articles, compared to their counterparts who were instructed in a non-multimedia setting. We focused only on university students from one institution in Nigeria. Thus, we encourage future studies to extend beyond the student population.
AkinosoO (2018) Effect of the use of multimedia on students performance in Secondary School Mathematics. Global Media Journal16(30): 1–8.
2.
AllcottHGentzkowM (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives31(2): 211–236.
3.
Aoun BarakatKDabbousATarhiniA (2021) An empirical approach to understanding users’ fake news identification on social media. Online Information Review45: 1080–1096.
4.
AppelGGrewalLHadiR, et al (2020) The future of social media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science48(1): 79–95.
5.
ApukeDOOmarB (2020) Fake news proliferation in Nigeria: Consequences, motivations, and Prevention through Awareness Strategies. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews8(2): 318–327.
6.
AustinEW (2007) The message interpretation process model. In: ArnettJJ (ed.) Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
BamideleGSIbrahimKS (2019) Teachers’ perception of the impact of English language skills of students on media and information literacy. Ianna Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies1(1): 95–102.
8.
BermesA (2021) Information overload and fake news sharing: A transactional stress perspective exploring the mitigating role of consumers’ resilience during COVID-19. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services61(October 2020): 102555.
9.
BondielliAMarcelloniF (2019) A survey on fake news and rumour detection techniques. Information Sciences497: 38–55.
10.
BurkhardtJM (2017) History of fake news. Library Technology Reports53(8): 5–9.
11.
CarrPRCuervo SanchezSLDarosMA (2020) Citizen engagement in the contemporary era of fake news: Hegemonic distraction or control of the social media context?Postdigital Science and Education2(1): 39–60.
12.
ClarkRCMayerRE (2003) E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. Hoboken, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer Edition.
13.
ClarkRCMayerRE (2008) Learning by viewing versus learning by doing: Evidence-based guidelines for principled learning environments. Performance Improvement47(9): 5–13.
14.
ClarkRE (ed.) (2001) Learning From Media: Arguments, Analysis, and Evidence. Information Age Publishing.
15.
ClaytonKBlairSBusamJA, et al (2020) Real Solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behavior42: 1073–1095.
16.
CourtneyI (2018) In an era of fake news, Information Literacy has a role to play in journalism education in Ireland. Irish Communications Review16(1): 14–23. DOI: 10.21427/D73X6Q
17.
De KeersmaeckerJRoetsA (2017) ‘fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions. Intelligence65: 107–110.
18.
DumitruE-A (2020) Testing Children and adolescents’ ability to identify fake news: A combined design of quasi-experiment and group discussions. Societies10(3): 71.
19.
El RayessMCheblCMhannaJ, et al (2018) Fake news judgement: The case of undergraduate students at Notre Dame University-Louaize, Lebanon. Reference Services Review46(1): 146–149.
20.
GilakjaniAP (2012) A study on the impact of using multimedia to improve the quality of English language teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research3(6): 1208–1215.
21.
GuessAMLernerMLyonsB, et al (2020) A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America117(27): 15536–15545.
22.
HalpernDValenzuelaSKatzJ, et al (2019) From belief in conspiracy theories to trust in others: Which factors influence exposure, believing and sharing fake news. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp.217–232. Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-21902-4_16
23.
Herrero-DizPConde-JiménezJTapia-FradeA, et al (2019) The credibility of online news: an evaluation of the information by university students / La credibilidad de las noticias en Internet: una evaluación de la información por estudiantes universitarios. Cultura y Educación31(2): 407–435.
24.
Ikechukwu-IlomuanyaABAnselmU AOdohNS, et al (2021) Effect of visual multimedia as a counseling intervention for improving classroom concentration among young students in Northern Nigeria who survived kidnapping. Journal of Asian and African Studies. 002190962110450. DOI: 10.1177/00219096211045097
25.
IkusikaBA (2021) Predictive influence of ICT utilization on homework completion of secondary school students in Nsukka, Enugu, Nigeria. Ianna Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies3(1): 1–15.
26.
JeongSHChoHHwangY (2012) Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication62: 454–472.
27.
Jones-JangSMMortensenTLiuJ (2021) Does Media Literacy help identification of fake news? Information Literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist65(2): 371–388.
28.
KahneJBowyerB (2017) Educating for democracy in a partisan age. American Educational Research Journal54(1): 3–34.
29.
KhanMLIdrisIK (2019) Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: A reasoned action and information literacy perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology38(12): 1194–1212.
30.
Knobloch-WesterwickSCarpentierFDBlumhoffA, et al (2005) Selective exposure effects for positive and negative news: Testing the robustness of the informational utility model. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly82(1): 181–195.
31.
KupersmidtJBScullTMBensonJW (2012) Improving media message interpretation processing skills to promote healthy decision making about substance use: The effects of the middle school media ready curriculum. Journal of Health Communication17: 546–563.
32.
LaatoSIslamAKMNIslamMN, et al (2020) What drives unverified information sharing and cyberchondria during the COVID-19 pandemic?European Journal of Information Systems29(3): 288–305.
33.
LazerDMJBaumMABenklerY, et al (2018) The science of fake news. Science359(6380): 1094–1096.
34.
LeeNM (2018) Fake news, phishing, and fraud: A call for research on digital media literacy education beyond the classroom. Communication Education67(4): 460–466.
35.
LeeSHaTLeeD, et al (2018) Understanding the majority opinion formation process in online environments: An exploratory approach to Facebook. Information Processing & Management54(6): 1115–1128.
36.
LewandowskySEckerUKHCookJ (2017) Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “Post-Truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition6(4): 353–369.
37.
LimSSTanKR (2020) Front liners fighting fake news: global perspectives on mobilising young people as media literacy advocates. Journal of Children and Media14(4): 529–535.
38.
LutzkeLDrummondCSlovicP, et al (2019) Priming critical thinking: Simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Global Environmental Change58(8): 101964.
39.
MarwickAEBoydD (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society13(1): 114–133.
40.
MakslACraftSAshleyS, et al (2017) The usefulness of a news media literacy measure in evaluating a news literacy curriculum. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator72(2): 228–241.
41.
McGuireWJ (1964) Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 1. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 192–230.
MirzaeiMSZhangQNishidaT, et al (2019) Social Computing and social media. Design, human behavior and analytics. CEUR Workshop Proceedings2041(February): 72–82.
44.
MorrisDSMorrisJSFranciaPL (2020) A fake news inoculation? Fact checkers, partisan identification, and the power of misinformation. Politics Groups and Identities8(5): 986–1005.
45.
NaeemM (2021) Do social media platforms develop consumer panic buying during the fear of Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services58: 102226.
46.
NeyaziTAKalogeropoulosANielsenRK (2021) Misinformation concerns and online news participation among internet users in India. Social Media + Society7(2): 205630512110090.
47.
PenneyCG (1989) Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition17(4): 398–422.
48.
PennycookGRandDG (2019) Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition188(June 2018): 39–50.
49.
PrestonSAndersonARobertsonDJ, et al (2021) Correction: Detecting fake news on Facebook: The role of emotional intelligence. PLoS One16(10): e0258719–NaN13.
50.
PundirVDeviEBNathV (2021) Arresting fake news sharing on social media: A theory of planned behavior approach. Management Research Review44: 1108–1138. DOI: 10.1108/mrr-05-2020-0286
51.
RoozenbeekJvan der LindenS (2019) The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research22(5): 570–580.
52.
ShahIKhanM (2015) Impact of multimedia-aided teaching on students’ academic achievement and attitude at elementary level. US-China Education Review A5(5): 349–360.
53.
ShuKWangSLiuH (2019) Beyond news contents: The role of social context for fake news detection. WSDM 2019 – Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 15:312–320. DOI: 10.1145/3289600.3290994
54.
SullivanMC (2019a) Leveraging library trust to combat misinformation on social media. Library & Information Science Research41(1): 2–10.
55.
SullivanMC (2019b) Why librarians can’t fight fake news. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science51(4): 1146–1156.
56.
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(September): 72–82.
57.
TalwarSDhirASinghD, et al (2020) Sharing of fake news on social media: Application of the honeycomb framework and the third-person effect hypothesis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services57: 102197.
58.
TandocECLimDLingR (2020) Diffusion of disinformation: How social media users respond to fake news and why. Journalism21(3): 381–398.
59.
TorresRRGerhartNNegahbanA (2018) Epistemology in the era of fake news: An exploration of information verification behaviors among social networking site users. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems49(3): 78–97.
60.
Ugwulor-OnyinyechiCCTuncaEAAnselmAU, et al (2021) Impact of Visual Multimedia as a counselling strategy for reducing school dropout propensity among school children who are survivors of abductions in Northern Nigeria. Journal of Asian and African Studies. DOI: 10.1177/00219096211058891
VragaEKTullyM (2021) News literacy, social media behaviors, and skepticism toward information on social media. Information Communication & Society24(2): 150–166.
63.
ZhaoZZhaoJSanoY, et al (2020) Fake news propagates differently from real news even at early stages of spreading. EPJ Data Science9: 1–14. http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03443
64.
ZumbachJKumpfDKochS (2004) Using multimedia to enhance problem-based learning in elementary school. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual2004(1): 25–37.
