Information overload in online environments leads individuals to be more likely to rely on heuristic cues to make decisions about (mis)information sharing. Drawing on dual-process models of information processing, namely the heuristic–systematic model and the elaboration likelihood model, we conducted a meta-analysis of 31 individual studies to examine the combined effects of five major heuristic cues on misinformation sharing. The results revealed that the affective heuristic of anxiety exerted the strongest impact on misinformation sharing (r = .343), followed by three cognitive heuristics: the self-confirmation heuristic (r = .249), endorsement heuristic (r = .125), and fact-checking heuristic (r = -.115)—but not the authority heuristic. The endorsement misinformation receives, consistency between misinformation and individuals’ prior attitudes or beliefs, anxiety people feel, and absence of fact-checking labels all make people more likely to share misinformation. Moderation analyses also highlight the importance of considering contextual and cultural factors in future research.
*AhmedS. (2023). Navigating the maze: Deepfakes, cognitive ability, and social media news skepticism. New Media & Society, 25(5), 1108–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211019198
2.
AliI. K. (2019). The fake news phenomenon: Impact of heuristic cues on perceived credibility and sharing on social media [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Miami.
3.
AllportG. W.PostmanL. (1947). The psychology of rumor. Rinehart & Winston.
*Ardévol-AbreuA.DelpontiP.Rodríguez-WangüemertC. (2020). Intentional or inadvertent fake news sharing? Fact-checking warnings and users’ interaction with social media content. Profesional de la Informacion, 29(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.sep.07
6.
AvramM.MicallefN.PatilS.MenczerF. (2020). Exposure to social engagement metrics increases vulnerability to misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-033
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
9.
*BuchananT. (2020). Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLOS ONE, 15(10), Article e0239666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666
10.
BuchananT.BensonV. (2019). Spreading disinformation on Facebook: Do trust in message source, risk propensity, or personality affect the organic reach of “fake news”?Social Media and Society, 5(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119888654
11.
ChadwickA.VaccariC. (2019). News sharing on UK social media: Misinformation, disinformation, and correction. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/37720
12.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic and systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
13.
ChaikenS.LedgerwoodA. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In Van LangeP.KruglanskiA.HigginsE. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 246–266). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215
14.
ChenS.XiaoL.KumarA. (2023). Spread of misinformation on social media: What contributes to it and how to combat it. Computers in Human Behavior, 141, Article 107643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107643
15.
*ChungM.KimN. (2021). When I learn the news is false: How fact-checking information stems the spread of fake news via third-person perception. Human Communication Research, 47(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa010
ClaytonK.BlairS.BusamJ. A.ForstnerS.GlanceJ.GreenG.KawataA.KovvuriA.MartinJ.MorganE.SandhuM.SangR.Scholz-BrightR.WelchA. T.WolffA. G.ZhouA.NyhanB. (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 Behavior, 42(4), 1073–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0
18.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
19.
DillardJ. P.PeckE. (2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research, 27(4), 461–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027004003
20.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
21.
EffronD. A.RajM. (2020). Misinformation and morality: Encountering fake-news headlines makes them seem less unethical to publish and share. Psychological Science, 31(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619887896
22.
EggerM.Davey SmithG.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
23.
FinucaneM. L.AlhakamiA.SlovicP.JohnsonS. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S
24.
FlanaginA. J.WinterS.MetzgerM. J. (2020). Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: The role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information Communication and Society, 23(7), 1038–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1547411
25.
FlynnD. J.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38(S1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394
26.
*FreilingI.KrauseN. M.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD. (2023). Believing and sharing misinformation, fact-checks, and accurate information on social media: The role of anxiety during COVID-19. New Media and Society, 25(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211011451
27.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
30.
JacksonD.TurnerR. (2017). Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(3), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1240
31.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2015). Reasons to believe: Influence of credibility on motivations for using social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.002
32.
*KimA.MoravecP. L.DennisA. R. (2019). Combating fake news on social media with source ratings: The effects of user and expert reputation ratings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 931–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1628921
33.
*KimJ. (2020). How do people process and share fake news on social media?: In the context of dual-process of credibility with partisanship, cognitive appraisal to threat, and corrective action [Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I.
34.
*KochT. K.FrischlichL.LermerE. (2023). Effects of fact-checking warning labels and social endorsement cues on climate change fake news credibility and engagement on social media. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 53(6), 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12959
LazarusR. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press on Demand.
37.
*LeeH.KimJ. (2023). Norm perceptions about rumor sharing on genetically modified foods: The interaction between Facebook likes and a refuting comment. Health Communication, 38(7), 1467–1476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.2012956
38.
LuoM.HancockJ. T.MarkowitzD. M. (2022). Credibility Perceptions and detection accuracy of fake news headlines on social media: Effects of truth-bias and endorsement cues. Communication Research, 49(2), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921321
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
42.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
43.
*MolinaM. D.WangJ.SundarS. S.LeT.DiRussoC. (2023). Reading, commenting and sharing of fake news: How online bandwagons and bots dictate user engagement. Communication Research, 50(6), 667–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211073398
44.
*MoravecP. L.KimA.DennisA. R. (2020). Appealing to sense and sensibility: System 1 and system 2 interventions for fake news on social media. Information Systems Research, 31(3), 987–1006. https://doi.org/10.1287/ISRE.2020.0927
45.
MoravecP. L.MinasR.DennisA. R. (2019). Fake news on social media: People believe what they want to believe when it makes no sense at all. MIS Quarterly, 43, 13430–11360. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/15505
46.
MoslehM.PennycookG.RandD. G. (2020). Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on Twitter. PLOS ONE, 15(2), Article e0228882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228882
47.
NirL. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 504–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq076
48.
OhO.KwonK. H.RaoR. H. (2010). An exploration of social media in extreme events: Rumor theory and Twitter during the Haiti earthquake 2010. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Information System. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2010_submissions/231
49.
OrjiR. (2016). Persuasion and culture: Individualism-collectivism and susceptibility to influence Strategies. Workshop on Personalization in Persuasive Technology. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1582/16Orji.pdf
50.
OuM.HoS. S. (2022). A meta-analysis of factors related to health information seeking: An integration from six theoretical frameworks. Communication Research, 49(4), 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211043024
51.
PaulB.SalwenM. B.DupagneM. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 57–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0301_04
52.
PennycookG.BearA.CollinsE. T.RandD. G. (2020). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944–4957. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478
53.
*PennycookG.CannonT. D.RandD. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
54.
PennycookG.RandD. 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
55.
PetrovaP. K.CialdiniR. B.SillsS. J. (2007). Consistency-based compliance across cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.002
56.
PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model: Three decades of research. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 224–245). Sage.
57.
PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2015). Emotion and persuasion: Cognitive and meta-cognitive processes impact attitudes. Cognition and Emotion, 29(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.967183
58.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Wm. C. Brown.
59.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.
60.
PornpitakpanC. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
61.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Sage.
ScharrerL.PapeV.StadtlerM. (2022). Watch out: Fake! How warning labels affect laypeople’s evaluation of simplified scientific misinformation. Discourse Processes, 59(8), 575–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2096364
64.
SchwarzN.BlessH.BohnerG. (1991). Mood and persuasion: Affective states influence the processing of persuasive communications. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 161–201). Academic Press.
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
67.
SpielbergerC. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (Form Y). Consulting Psychological Press.
68.
StefanoneM. A.VollmerM.CovertJ. M. (2019). In news we trust?: Examining credibility and sharing behaviors of fake news. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 136–147). https://doi.org/10.1145/3328529.3328554
69.
*SunZ.ChengX.ZhangR.YangB. (2020). Factors influencing rumour re-spreading in a public health crisis by the middle-aged and elderly populations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), Article 6542. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186542
70.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). The MIT Press.
TaylorS. E.FiskeS. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the Head phenomena. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 249–288). Academic Press.
73.
TukachinskyR.WalterN.SaucierC. J. (2020). Antecedents and effects of parasocial relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 70(6), 868–894. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa034
74.
ValenzuelaS.BachmannI.LawrenceR. G.GildeZúñigaH. (2023). Politics and media in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly: A centennial research retrospective. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 100(4), 808–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231203542
75.
VuH. T.ChenY. (2023). What influences audience susceptibility to fake health news: An experimental study using a dual model of information processing in credibility assessment. Health Communication, 39(6), 1113–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2206177
76.
WangS.ChuT. H.HuangG. (2023). Do bandwagon cues affect credibility perceptions? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Communication Research, 50(6), 720–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221124395
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.
