This study investigates whether and how analytical thinking, overclaiming, and social approval are associated with the intention of sharing fake news on social media. To randomize each respondent to a group and treatment and to test of several hypotheses simultaneously, two by two factorial design was used. An online survey (N = 1160) on Iranian social media revealed that overclaiming and social approval are positively related to sharing fake news on social media. Surprisingly, analytical thinking yielded no significance. We believe that in order to show more knowledge users tend to share information with high social approval irrespective of their credibility. Although CRT proved no relation with sharing, significant differences among male and female users were found. The proven relation between sharing more and overclaiming more reveals a marketing opportunity. Gamification of communication which provides a vehicle for users to overclaim their knowledge to their peers on social media might be a suitable strategy on social media to spread the message.
AhlersD. (2006). News consumption and the new electronic media. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(1), 29–52.
2.
AllcottH., & GentzkowM. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.
3.
AndrewsD., PreeceJ., & TuroffM. (2002). A conceptual framework for demographic groups resistant to on-line community interaction. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 9–24.
4.
ArecharA. A., Kraft-ToddG. T., & RandD. G. (2017). Turking overtime: How participant characteristics and behavior vary over time and day on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 3(1), 1–11.
5.
BaronJ., ScottS., FincherK., & MetzS. E. (2015). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)?Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 265–284.
6.
BarrN., PennycookG., StolzJ. A., & FugelsangJ. A. (2015). The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 473–480.
7.
BrennanB., & SchaferL. (2010). Branded!: How retailers engage consumers with social media and mobility. John Wiley & Sons.
8.
BrowningR. (1962). [Review of the book Procopius: Secret history, translated by R. Atwater]. The Classical Review, 12(3), 309–310.
9.
ConstantinidesE. (2009). Social media/Web 2.0 as marketing parameter: An introduction. In Proceedings of 8th International Congress Marketing Trends (pp. 15–17). https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/social-media-web-20-as-marketing-parameter-an-introduction
10.
DechêneA., StahlC., HansenJ., & WänkeM. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257.
11.
De NeysW. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28–38.
12.
EvansJ. S. B. T., & StanovichK. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.
13.
FallisD. (2015). What is disinformation?Library Trends, 63(3), 401–426.
FazioL. K., BrashierN. M., PayneB. K., & MarshE. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993.
16.
FerraraE., VarolO., DavisC., MenczerF., & FlamminiA. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96–104.
17.
Fernández-LuqueL., & BauT. (2015). Health and social media: Perfect storm of information. Healthcare Informatics Research, 21(2), 67.
18.
FinnemanT., & ThomasR. J. (2018). A family of falsehoods: Deception, media hoaxes and fake news. Newspaper Research Journal, 39(3), 350–361.
19.
FiskeS. T., & TaylorS. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. SAGE Publications.
20.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
21.
GabielkovM., RamachandranA., ChaintreauA., & LegoutA. (2016, June). Social clicks: What and who gets read on Twitter? In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM sigmetrics international conference on measurement and modeling of computer science (pp. 179–192). Association for Computing Machinery.
22.
GoyanesM. (2014). An empirical study of factors that influence the willingness to pay for online news. Journalism Practice, 8(6), 742–757.
23.
GoswamiM. P., AnjaliR., RajA., PuthiyakathH. H., & ThanviJ. (2022). Media during pandemic crisis in India: An analysis of people’s perception during the first wave of COVID-19. Journal of Creative Communications. 10.1177/09732586221090750
24.
GuL., KropotovV., & YarochkinF. (2017). The fake news machine: How propagandists abuse the internet and manipulate the public. Trend Micro, 5, 1–85.
25.
GuptaA., LambaH., KumaraguruP., & JoshiA. (2013, May). Faking Sandy: Characterizing and identifying fake images on Twitter during Hurricane Sandy. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 729–736). Association for Computing Machinery.
26.
HasherL., GoldsteinD., & ToppinoT. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 107–112.
27.
HongC., ChenZ. F., & LiC. (2017). ‘Liking’ and being ‘liked’: How are personality traits and demographics associated with giving and receiving ‘likes’ on Facebook?Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 292–299.
28.
KahanD. M., PetersE., DawsonE. C., & SlovicP. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54–86.
29.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
30.
KaplanA. M., & HaenleinM. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
31.
LaiL. S., & TurbanE. (2008). Groups formation and operations in the Web 2.0 environment and social networks. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(5), 387–402.
32.
LaiG., & WongO. (2002). The tie effect on information dissemination: The spread of a commercial rumor in Hong Kong. Social Networks, 24(1), 49–75.
33.
LawM., LauT., & WongY. H. (2003). From customer relationship management to customer-managed relationship: Unraveling the paradox with a co-creative perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21(1), 51–60.
34.
LeederC. (2019). How college students evaluate and share ‘fake news’ stories. Library & Information Science Research, 41(3). 10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100967
35.
Lee-WonR. J., ShimM., JooY. K., & ParkS. G. (2014). Who puts the best ‘face’ forward on Facebook? Positive self-presentation in online social networking and the role of self-consciousness, actual-to-total Friends ratio, and culture. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 413–423.
36.
LeonardiP. M., HuysmanM., & SteinfieldC.2013, Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1–19.
37.
LewandowskyS., EckerU. K., SeifertC. M., SchwarzN., & CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.
38.
MarwickA., & LewisR. (2017). Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data & Society Research Institute.
39.
MayfieldA. (2008). What is social media. National Defense University Press.
40.
MeyerP. (2004). Saving journalism. Columbia Journalism Review, 43(4), 55.
41.
MolinaM. D., SundarS. S., LeT., & LeeD. (2019). ‘Fake news’ is not simply false information: A concept explication and taxonomy of online content. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(10). 10.1177/0002764219878224
42.
MudgalV. (2019). A vital report on trends in media freedom and its link with the future of democracy. Journal of Creative Communications, 14(2), 160–170. 10.1177/0973258619852004
43.
NewmanN., FletcherR., KalogeropoulosA., LevyD A. L., & NielsenR. K. (2017). Reuters Institute digital news report. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3026082
44.
PaxtonJ. M., UngarL., & GreeneJ. D. (2012). Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 163–177.
45.
PaulhusD. L., HarmsP. D., BruceM. N., & LysyD. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 890.
46.
PaulhusD. L., WestlakeB. G., CalvezS. S., & HarmsP. D. (2013). Self-presentation style in job interviews: The role of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(10), 2042–2059.
47.
PennycookG., FugelsangJ. A., & KoehlerD. J. (2015). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72.
48.
PennycookG., & RandD. G. (2020). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 185–200.
49.
PennycookG., RossR. M., KoehlerD. J., & FugelsangJ. A. (2017). Dunning–Kruger effects in reasoning: Theoretical implications of the failure to recognize incompetence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(6), 1774–1784.
50.
PennycookG., CannonT. D., & RandD. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865.
51.
PhillipsD. L., & ClancyK. J. (1972). Some effects of ‘social desirability’ in survey studies. American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921–940.
52.
RandallD. M., & FernandesM. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805–817.
53.
RochlinN. (2017). Fake news: Belief in post-truth. Library Hi Tech, 35(3).
54.
RidingsC. M., & GefenD. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 10(1), JCMC10110.
55.
RidingsC. M., GefenD., & ArinzeB. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3–4), 271–295.
56.
RoyzmanE. B., LandyJ. F., & LeemanR. F. (2015). Are thoughtful people more utilitarian? CRT as a unique predictor of moral minimalism in the dilemmatic context. Cognitive Science, 39(2), 325–352.
57.
SegevR., ShohamA., & RuvioA. (2013). Gift-giving among adolescents: Exploring motives, the effects of givers’ personal characteristics and the use of impression management tactics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(9).
58.
ShaoC., CiampagliaG. L., VarolO., YangK. C., FlamminiA., & MenczerF. (2018). The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1–9.
59.
ShenC., & GongH. (2019). Personal ties, group ties and latent ties: Connecting network size to diversity and trust in the mobile social network WeChat. Asian Journal of Communication, 29(1), 18–34.
60.
ShuK., SlivaA., WangS., TangJ., & LiuH. (2017). Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 19(1), 22–36.
61.
ShtulmanA., & McCallumK. (2014). Cognitive reflection predicts science understanding. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society (Vol. 36, No. 36). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4t79p8pj#author
62.
SilvermanC. (2016). This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. BuzzFeed News.
63.
SkågebyJ. (2009). Exploring qualitative sharing practices of social metadata: Expanding the attention economy. The Information Society, 25(1), 60–72.
64.
SkågebyJ. (2010). Gift-giving as a conceptual framework: Framing social behavior in online networks. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 170–177.
65.
StanovichK. E., & CunninghamA. E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20(1), 51–68.
66.
StanovichK. E., & WestR. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.
67.
StewartD. W., & PavlouP. A. (2002). From consumer response to active consumer: Measuring the effectiveness of interactive media. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 376–396.
68.
SubramanianS. (2017). Inside the Macedonian fake-news complex. Wired Magazine, 15.
69.
Tandoc JrE. C., LimZ. W., & LingR. (2018). Defining ‘fake news;: A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137–153.
70.
ToplakM. E., & StanovichK. E. (2002). The domain specificity and generality of disjunctive reasoning: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 197.
71.
TsengS., & FoggB. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39–44.
72.
WangY., LiY., & TangJ. (2015, April). Dwelling and fleeting encounters: Exploring why people use WeChat-A mobile instant messenger. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM Conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1543–1548). Association for Computing Machinery.
WardleC., & DerakhshanH. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe Report, 27, 1–107.
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.
