Motivated Fake News Perception: The Impact of News Sources and Policy Support on Audiences’ Assessment of News Fakeness

Abstract

An online experiment (N = 280) exposed participants in Hong Kong to an anti-police WhatsApp news message during the extradition bill controversy. Although source verification is commonly recommended as a strategy to avoid being deceived by fake news, the findings did not reveal that the news source (legacy news outlet vs. online forum vs. no source) impacted the perceived fakeness of the news message. Nonetheless, participants holding opposing stances were found to perceive the same news message to be fake to significantly varying degrees, providing evidence that motivated reasoning plays in the spread of fake news.

Keywords

disinformation fake news motivated reasoning sources

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allcott

Gentzkow

(2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31, 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211

Arpan

L. M.

Raney

A. A.

(2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the hostile media effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900308000203

Bakir

McStay

(2018). Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 154–175.

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.

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

Cook

F. L.

(2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.

Brummette

DiStaso

Vafeiadis

Messner

(2018). Read all about it: The politicization of “fake news” on Twitter. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 497–517.

Campbell

M. C.

(1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_02

Carson

(2017, November 20). What is fake news? Its origins and how it grew in 2016. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/fake-news-exactly-has-really-had-influence/

Chan

(2017). Media use and the social identity model of collective action: Examining the roles of online alternative news and social media news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 663–681.

10.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

Chaiken

(1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 424–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.424

11.

Edgerly

Mourão

R. R.

Thorson

Tham

S. M.

(2020). When do audiences verify? How perceptions about message and source influence audience verification of news headlines. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019864680

12.

Egelhofer

J. L.

Lecheler

(2019). Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: A framework and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1602782

13.

Ejelöv

Luke

T. J.

(2020). “Rarely safe to assume”: Evaluating the use and interpretation of manipulation checks in experimental social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87, 103937.

14.

Funt

Gourarie

Murtha

(2016, June). The New Yorker, BuzzFeed, and the push for digital credibility. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/special_report/newyorker_buzzfeed_trust.php

15.

Gonzalez

(2009). Data analysis for experimental design. Guilford Press.

16.

Google Trends. (2019, September 28). Fake news (topic). https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=HK&q=%2Fg%2F1210rwkh

17.

Gunther

A. C.

Christen

C. T.

Liebhart

J. L.

Chia

S. C. Y.

(2001). Congenial public, contrary press and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1086/322846

18.

Andreu-Perez

Ray

(2019). Mapping recent development in scholarship on fake news and misinformation, 2008 to 2017: Disciplinary contribution, topics, and impact. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869402

19.

Hauser

D. J.

Ellsworth

P. C.

Gonzalez

(2018). Are manipulation checks necessary? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 998.

20.

Ireton

Posetti

(2018). Journalism, fake news & disinformation: Handbook for journalism education and training. UNESCO Publishing.

21.

Kahan

D. M.

(2017). Misconceptions, misinformation, and the logic of identity-protective cognition. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973067

22.

Kang

Bae

Zhang

Sundar

S. S.

(2011). Source cues in online news: Is the proximate source more powerful than distal sources? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(4), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901108800403

23.

Kidd

R. F.

(1976). Manipulation checks: Advantage or disadvantage? Representative Research in Social Psychology, 7(2), 160–165.

24.

Kiely

Robertson

(2016, November 18). How to spot fake news. Factcheck.org. https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/

25.

Klein

Wueller

(2017). Fake news: A legal perspective. Journal of Internet Law. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2958790

26.

Kunda

(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

27.

McGonagle

(2017). “Fake news” False fears or real concerns? Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 35(4), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051917738685

28.

Newman

Fletcher

Kalogeropoulos

Levy

D. A.

Nielsen

R. K.

(2019). Reuters institute digital news report 2019. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

29.

Nielsen

R. K.

Graves

(2017). “News you don’t believe”: Audience perspectives on fake news [Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Report]. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/Nielsen&Graves_factsheet_1710v3_FINAL_download.pdf

30.

O’Keefe

D. J.

(2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251–274.

31.

Pennycook

Bear

Collins

E. T.

Rand

D. G.

(2020). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478

32.

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.

33.

Purbrick

(2019). A Report of the 2019 Hong Kong Protests. Asian Affairs, 50(4), 465–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2019.1672397

34.

Qayyum

Williamson

(2014). The online information experiences of news-seeking young adults. Information Research, 19(2), 45–56.

35.

Reid

S. A.

(2012). A self-categorization explanation for the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01647.x

36.

Ross

A. S.

Rivers

D. J.

(2018). Discursive deflection: Accusation of “fake news” and the spread of mis-and disinformation in the Tweets of President Trump. Social Media & Society, 4(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118776010

37.

Siu

Lum

Low

(2019, September 1). Chaos on Hong Kong’s MTR network as police chase protesters into station and arrest 63. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3025241/chaos-hong-kongs-mtr-network-police-chase-protesters

38.

Tandoc

E. C.

Jr. Zheng

W. L.

Ling

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

39.

Thiessen

Ingenhoff

(2011). Safeguarding reputation through strategic, integrated and situational crisis communication management: Development of the integrative model of crisis communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(1), 8–26. http://doi.org/10.1108/13563281111100944

40.

Tsang

S. J.

(2018). Empathy and the hostile media phenomenon. Journal of Communication, 68(4), 809–829.

41.

Tsang

S. J.

(2020). Issue stance and perceived journalistic motives explain divergent audience perceptions of fake news. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920926002

42.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2018). I do not believe you: How providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1337–1353.

43.

Wardle

(2017, February 17). “Fake news.” It’s complicated. First Draft. https://medium.com/1st-draft/fake-news-its-complicated-d0f773766c79

44.

Winter

Krämer

N. C.

(2014). A question of credibility–Effects of source cues and recommendations on information selection on news sites and blogs. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 39(4), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0020

45.

York

Ponder

J. D.

Humphries

Goodall

Beam

Winters

(2019). Effects of fact-checking political misinformation on perceptual accuracy and epistemic political efficacy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019890119