Can We Stop the Spread of False Information on Vaccination? How Online Comments on Vaccination News Affect Readers’ Credibility Assessments and Sharing Behaviors

Abstract

This study used a 2 (type of news: fake vs. real) × 2 (presence of negative user comments: yes vs. no) × 2 (presence of positive user comments: yes vs. no) between-subjects experimental design to examine the differences in perceived news credibility and sharing intention between fake news and real news on vaccination. Fake news was found to generate a lower level of perceived credibility than real news, which subsequently decreased news sharing intention. Furthermore, negative user comments significantly lowered perceived news credibility, and this was especially true for real news. However, this adverse effect was found to be mitigated by the presence of positive user comments. The experimental results have important theoretical and practical implications for future research on fake news about health and science.

Keywords

fake news false information news commenting news sharing news credibility vaccination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albright

(2017). Welcome to the era of fake news. Media and Communication, 5(2), 87-89. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v5i2.977

Anderson

N. H.

(1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4), 394-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022280

Apuke

O. D.

Omar

(2020). Fake news and COVID-19: Modelling the predictors of fake news sharing among social media users. Telematics and Informatics, 56, Article 101475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101475

Bakir

McStay

(2018). Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 154-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645

Balmas

(2014). When fake news becomes real: Combined exposure to multiple news sources and political attitudes of inefficacy, alienation, and cynicism. Communication Research, 41(3), 430-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212453600

Baym

(2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600591006492

Betsch

(2017). Advocating for vaccination in a climate of science denial. Nature Microbiology, 2(7), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.106

Bobkowski

P. S.

(2015). Sharing the news: Effects of informational utility and opinion leadership on online news sharing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(2), 320-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015573194

Brandtzaeg

P. B.

Følstad

(2017). Trust and distrust in online fact-checking services. Communications of the ACM, 60(9), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1145/3122803

10.

Bucy

E. P.

(2003). Media credibility reconsidered: Synergy effects between on-air and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900308000202

11.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

12.

Calder

B. J.

(1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In Staw

B. M.

Salancik

G. R.

(Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 179-204). St. Clair Press.

13.

Callison-Burch

(2009). Fast, cheap, and creative: Evaluating translation quality using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In Koehn

Mihalcea

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 286-295). Association for Computational Linguistics.

14.

Carlston

D. E.

(1980). The recall and use of traits and events in social inference processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(4), 303-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90025-6

15.

Castillo

Mendoza

Poblete

(2011). Information credibility on Twitter. In Sadagopan

Ramamritham

Kumar

Ravindra

M. P.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 675-684). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963500

16.

Chiou

Tucker

(2018). Fake news and advertising on social media: A study of the anti-vaccination movement (Working Paper No. 25223). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25223

17.

Chmielewski

Kucker

S. C.

(2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149

18.

Constant

Kiesler

Sproull

(1994). What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400-421. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.5.4.400

19.

Dubé

Vivion

MacDonald

N. E.

(2015). Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implications. Expert Review of Vaccines, 14(1), 99-117. https://doi.org/10.1586/14760584.2015.964212

20.

Eisend

(2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.11.001

21.

Etgar

Goodwin

S. A.

(1982). One-sided versus two-sided comparative message appeals for new brand introductions. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4), 460-465. https://doi.org/10.1086/208888

22.

Ferrara

Zenzeri

Fabrizio

G. C.

Gatto

Pio

Gargiullo

Ianniello

Valentini

Ranno

(2015). Second-generation immigrant children: Health prevention for a new population in terms of vaccination coverage and health assessment. Minerva Pediatrica, 68(2), 121-126.

23.

Fiske

S. T.

(1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 889-906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889

24.

Gelfert

(2018). Fake news: A definition. Informal Logic, 38(1), 84-117. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i1.5068

25.

Golden

L. L.

Alpert

M. I.

(1987). Comparative analysis of the relative effectiveness of one-and two-sided communication for contrasting products. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 18-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1987.10673056

26.

Green

M. C.

Donahue

J. K.

(2018). Misinformation and mass audiences. In Southwell

B. G.

(Ed.). The effects of false information in news stories (pp. 109-124). University of Texas Press.

27.

Grinberg

Joseph

Friedland

Swire-Thompson

Lazer

(2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science, 363(6425), 374-378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706

28.

Guess

Nagler

Tucker

(2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586

29.

Hayes

A. F.

Preacher

K. J.

(2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028

30.

Hilbig

B. E.

(2009). Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 983-986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.012

31.

Horne

B. D.

Adali

(2017, May 15-18). This just in: Fake news packs a lot in title, uses simpler, repetitive content in text body, more similar to satire than real news [Conference session]. Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.

32.

Houston

J. B.

Hansen

G. J.

Nisbett

G. S.

(2011). Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News, 5(2), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243111407618

33.

Huber

Barnidge

Gil

Zuniga

Liu

(2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 759-777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097

34.

Jang

S. M.

Kim

J. K.

(2018). Third person effects of fake news: Fake news regulation and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 295-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.034

35.

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

Staples

D. S.

(2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: An exploratory study of determinants. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3), 129-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00042-1

36.

Y. G.

North

Liu

(2017). Staking reputation on stakeholders: How does stakeholders’ Facebook engagement help or ruin a company’s reputation? Public Relations Review, 43(1), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.12.004

37.

Kamins

M. A.

Marks

L. J.

(1987). Advertising puffery: The impact of using two-sided claims on product attitude and purchase intention. Journal of Advertising, 16(4), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1987.10673090

38.

Kelley

H. H.

Michela

J. L.

(1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457-501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325

39.

Kim

(2015). Exploring the effects of source credibility and others’ comments on online news evaluation. Electronic News, 9(3), 160-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243115593318

40.

Kitta

(2012). Vaccinations and public concern in history: Legend, rumor, and risk perception. Routledge.

41.

Larsson

A. O.

(2011). Interactive to me–interactive to you? A study of use and appreciation of interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites. New Media & Society, 13(7), 1180-1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811401254

42.

Lazer

D. M.

Baum

M. A.

Benkler

Berinsky

A. J.

Greenhill

K. M.

Menczer

Metzger

M. J.

Nyhan

Pennycook

Rothschild

Schudson

Sloman

S. A.

Sunstein

C. R.

Thorson

E. A.

Watts

D. J.

Zittrain

J. L.

Schudson

(2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998

43.

Lee

E. J.

(2012). That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x

44.

Lee

E. J.

Jang

Y. J.

(2010). What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37(6), 825-846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210376189

45.

Levy

(2017). The bad news about fake news. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 6(8), 20-36.

46.

Major

L. H.

(2009). Break it to me harshly: The effects of intersecting news frames in lung cancer and obesity coverage. Journal of Health Communication, 14(2), 174-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730802659939

47.

McGuire

W. J.

(1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey

Aronson

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233-346). Addison-Wesley.

48.

Neudert

Kollanyi

Howard

P. N.

(2017). Junk news and bots during the German parliamentary election: What are German voters sharing over twitter? COMPROP Data Memo 2017.7. Project on Computational Propaganda.

49.

Niven

(2001). Bias in the news: Partisanship and negativity in media coverage of presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6(3), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/108118001129172215

50.

Osmundsen

Bor

Vahlstrup

P. B.

Bechmann

Petersen

M. B.

(2020). Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind “fake news” sharing on Twitter. PsyArXiv.

51.

Painter

Hodges

(2010). Mocking the news: How the Daily Show with Jon Stewart holds traditional broadcast news accountable. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(4), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2010.512824

52.

Peer

Vosgerau

Acquisti

(2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023-1031. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y

53.

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

54.

Polleta

Callahan

(2019). Deep stories, nostalgia narratives, and fake news: Storytelling in the Trump era. In Mason

Alexander

J. C.

(Eds.), Politics of meaning/meaning of politics (pp. 55-73). Palgrave Macmillan.

55.

Potthast

Kiesel

Reinartz

Bevendorff

Stein

(2017). A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news. PsyArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05638

56.

Price

Cappella

J. N.

(2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The electronic dialogue project in campaign 2000. It & Society, 1(1), 303-329.

57.

Prochazka

Weber

Schweiger

(2018). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies, 19(1), 62-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497

58.

Rashkin

Choi

Jang

J. Y.

Volkova

Choi

(2017). Truth of varying shades: Analyzing language in fake news and political fact-checking. In Palmer

Hwa

Riedel

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 2931-2937). Association of Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1

59.

Reuter

Hartwig

Kirchner

Schlegel

(2019, February 24-27). Fake news perception in Germany: A representative study of people’s attitudes and approaches to counteract disinformation [Conference Session]. 14th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Siegen, Germany.

60.

Roozenbeek

van der Linden

(2019). The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, 22(5), 570-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491

61.

Rozin

Royzman

E. B.

(2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296-320. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2

62.

Scheufele

D. A.

Krause

N. M.

(2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 116(16), 7662-7669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115

63.

Schifferes

Newman

Thurman

Corney

Göker

Martin

(2014). Identifying and verifying news through social media: Developing a user-centered tool for professional journalists. Digital Journalism, 2(3), 406-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.892747

64.

Shao

Ciampaglia

G. L.

Varol

Flammini

Menczer

(2017). The spread of fake news by social bots. arXiv preprint.

65.

Smith

R. E.

Hunt

S. D.

(1978). Attributional processes and effects in promotional situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(3), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1086/208725

66.

Soroka

McAdams

(2015). News, politics and negativity. Political Communication, 32(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.881942

67.

Sundar

S. 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

68.

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. 73-100). MIT Press.

69.

Sundar

S. S.

Nass

(2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51(1), 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x

70.

Taddicken

Wolff

(2020). “Fake News” in science communication: Emotions and strategies of coping with dissonance online. Media and Communication, 8(1), 206-217. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i1.2495

71.

Talwar

Dhir

Kaur

Zafar

Alrasheedy

(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 Services, 51, 72-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026

72.

Tandoc

E. C.

Jr. Lim

Z. W.

Ling

(2018). Defining “fake news”: A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143

73.

Thomas

K. A.

Clifford

(2017). Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 184-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.038

74.

Tsipursky

Morford

(2018). Addressing behaviors that lead to sharing fake news. Behavior and Social Issues, 27(1), AA6-AA10. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v27i0.8186

75.

Von Sikorski

. (2016). The effects of reader comments on the perception of personalized scandals: Exploring the roles of comment valence and commenters’ social status. International Journal of Communication, 10(2016), 4480-4501.

76.

Von Sikorski

Hänelt

. (2016). Scandal 2.0: How valenced reader comments affect recipients’ perception of scandalized individuals and the journalistic quality of online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(3), 551-571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016628822

77.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2020). Correction as a solution for health misinformation on social media. American Journal of Public Health, 110(Suppl. 3), 278-280. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305916

78.

Waddell

T. F.

(2018). What does the crowd think? How online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance. New Media & Society, 20(8), 3068-3083. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817742905

79.

Waisbord

(2018). Truth is what happens to news: On journalism, fake news, and post-truth. Journalism Studies, 19(13), 1866-1878. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1492881

80.

Wilczek

(2019). Complexity, uncertainty and change in news organizations. International Journal on Media Management, 21(2), 88-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/14241277.2019.1590839

81.

Ziegele

Breiner

Quiring

(2014). What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news items. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1111-1138. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12123