There is a growing concern about the spread of misinformation on the internet. One of the key solutions to address this challenge is the practice of information verification by individuals. Current research on information verification tends to overlook the influence from individuals’ information and social environment. Informed by the media repertoire and the egocentric network approach, this study proposes to examine one’s news repertoire and news discussion networks as critical correlates with verification beliefs and behavior. A survey with a nationally representative sample in the United States (N = 1,088) revealed that a rich news repertoire and a higher level of news capital embedded in news discussion networks are positively associated with one’s perceptions of self-efficacy and actual engagement in information verification. In addition, the study uncovers the moderating role of news capital in magnifying the positive linkage between news repertoire richness and verification self-efficacy as well as the indirect pathway linking news repertoire richness to verification behavior via verification self-efficacy. Overall, our study offers a news ecology perspective that expands scholarly understanding and theorization of information verification.
AjzenI. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In KuhlJ.BeckmanJ. (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
2.
AjzenI. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
3.
AmazeenM. A. (2024). The misinformation recognition and response model: An emerging theoretical framework for investigating antecedents to and consequences of misinformation recognition. Human Communication Research, 50(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad040
4.
Aoun BarakatK.DabbousA.TarhiniA. (2021). An empirical approach to understanding users’ fake news identification on social media. Online Information Review, 45(6), 1080–1096. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-08-2020-0333
5.
ArendtH. (1968). Truth and politics. In ArendtH. (Ed.), Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought (pp. 227–264). Viking Press.
6.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
7.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.
8.
BanduraA. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In BryantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 121–153). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602428-10
9.
BeckerA. B.ScheufeleD. A. (2014). Media effects on political behavior. In ReinemannC. (Ed.), Political communication (pp. 609–626). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238174.609
10.
BodeL.VragaE. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166
11.
BorgattiS. P.JonesC.EverettM. G. (1998). Network measures of social capital. Connections, 21(2), 27–36.
12.
BrikšeI. (2003). The information environment: Theoretical approaches and explanations. European Journal of Communication, 19(2), 368–415.
13.
BuhlF.GüntherE.QuandtT. (2018). Observing the dynamics of the online news ecosystem: News diffusion processes among German news sites. Journalism Studies, 19(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2016.1168711
14.
CaoW.ZhangX.XuK.WangY. (2016). Modeling online health information-seeking behavior in China: The roles of source characteristics, reward assessment, and internet self-efficacy. Health Communication, 31(9), 1105–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1045236
15.
ChanM. (2024). Verification behaviors and countermeasures in the age of misinformation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 101(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231223998
16.
ChenH. T.AiM.GuoJ. (2022). The effect of cross-cutting exposure on attitude change: Examining the mediating role of response behaviors and the moderating role of openness to diversity and social network homogeneity. Asian Journal of Communication, 32(2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2021.2022173
17.
ChenW.LeeK. H.StraubhaarJ. D.SpenceJ. (2014). Getting a second opinion: Social capital, digital inequalities, and health information repertoires. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(12), 2552–2563. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23130
18.
ChenY.FeeleyT. H. (2014). Numeracy, information seeking, and self-efficacy in managing health: An analysis using the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Health Communication, 29(9), 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.807904
19.
ChiaS. C.LuF.GuntherA. C. (2024). Who fact-checks and does it matter? Examining the antecedents and consequences of audience fact-checking behaviour in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 29, 438–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221142439
20.
ChoJ.ShahD. V.McLeodJ. M.McLeodD. M.SchollR. M.GotliebM. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an OSROR model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x
21.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
22.
CornwellE. Y.CornwellB. (2008). Access to expertise as a form of social capital: An examination of race-and class-based disparities in network ties to experts. Sociological Perspectives, 51(4), 853–876. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2008.51.4.853
EvelandW. P.Jr. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877
25.
EvelandW. P.Jr.HivelyM. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
26.
EvelandW. P.Jr.HutchensM. J.MoreyA. C. (2013). Political network size and its antecedents and consequences. Political Communication, 30(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737433
27.
EvelandW. P.Jr.ShahD. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00318
FletcherR.NielsenR. K. (2018). Automated serendipity: The effect of using search engines on news repertoire balance and diversity. Digital Journalism, 6(8), 976–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1502045
30.
GeersS.VliegenthartR. (2021). Being inside or outside the virtuous circle: How news media repertoires relate to political participation repertoires. International Journal of Communication, 15, 3719–3739.
31.
HairJ. F.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202
32.
HairJ. F.RisherJ. J.SarstedtM.RingleC. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203
33.
HardyB. W.ScheufeleD. A. (2005). Examining differential gains from Internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02659.x
34.
HocevarK. P.FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2014). Social media self-efficacy and information evaluation online. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.020
35.
JahngM. R.StoycheffE.RochadiatA. (2021). They said it’s “fake”: Effects of discounting cues in online comments on information quality judgments and information authentication. Mass Communication and Society, 24(4), 527–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1870143
36.
JiangS. (2022). The roles of worry, social media information overload, and social media fatigue in hindering health fact-checking. Social Media+ Society, 8(3), 20563051221113070. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221113070
37.
JungN.KimY.de ZúñigaH. G. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.496135
KimY.ChenH. T. (2015). Discussion network heterogeneity matters: Examining a moderated mediation model of social media use and civic engagement. International Journal of Communication, 9, 2344–2365.
40.
KimY. C.LimJ. Y.ParkK. (2015). Effects of health literacy and social capital on health information behavior. Journal of Health Communication, 20(9), 1084–1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018636
KwakN.WilliamsA. E.WangX.LeeH. (2005). Talking politics and engaging politics: An examination of the interactive relationships between structural features of political talk and discussion engagement. Communication Research, 32(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204271400
43.
La Due LakeR.HuckfeldtR. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political participation. Political Psychology, 19(3), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00118
44.
LaiC. H.TangT. (2015). Understanding local news consumption and community participation via the lens of information repertoires and media multiplexity. Mass Communication and Society, 18(3), 325–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.995768
45.
LeeD. K. L.RamazanO. (2021). Fact-checking of health information: The effect of media literacy, metacognition and health information exposure. Journal of Health Communication, 26(7), 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.1955312
46.
LinH.KimY. (2023). Learning from disagreement on social media: The mediating role of like-minded and cross-cutting discussion and the moderating role of fact-checking. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107558
LuS. (2020). Taming the news feed on Facebook: Understanding consumptive news feed curation through a social cognitive perspective. Digital Journalism, 8(9), 1163–1180. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1837639
49.
LuS.LuqiuL. R. (2020). Does political efficacy equally predict news engagement across countries? A multilevel analysis of the relationship among internal political efficacy, media environment and news engagement. New Media & Society, 22(12), 2146–2165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819888417
50.
MajerczakP.StrzeleckiA. (2022). Trust, media credibility, social ties, and the intention to share towards information verification in an age of fake news. Behavioral Sciences, 12(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020051
51.
MarsdenP. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095397
52.
MatthesJ.KnollJ.ValenzuelaS.HopmannD. N.Von SikorskiC. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Political Communication, 36(4), 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1619638
53.
McLeodJ. M.ScheufeleD. A.MoyP.HorowitzE. M.HolbertR. L.ZhangW.ZubricS.ZubricJ. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26(6), 743–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026006005
MourãoR. R.ThorsonE.ChenW.ThamS. M. (2018). Media repertoires and news trust during the early Trump administration. Journalism Studies, 19(13), 1945–1956. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1500492
56.
MourãoR. R.ThorsonE.KrystonK.TunneyC. (2023). Predicting audience verification intention: The impact of partisanship, source, importance, and information familiarity on willingness to verify headlines. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 100(2), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221130992
57.
MüllerP.SchulzA. (2019). Facebook or Fakebook? How users’ perceptions of “fake news” are related to their evaluation and verification of news on Facebook. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 8(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-185161
58.
MutzD. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A. (2004). Political talk as a catalyst for online citizenship. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 877–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100410
61.
ParkC. S. (2019). The mediating role of political talk and political efficacy in the effects of news use on expressive and collective participation. Communication and the Public, 4(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047319829580
62.
PerryB. L.PescosolidoB. A.BorgattiS. P. (2018). Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, and models (Vol. 44). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316443255
63.
PescosolidoB. A.GardnerC. B.LubellK. M. (1998). How people get into mental health services: Stories of choice, coercion and “muddling through” from “first-timers.”Social Science & Medicine, 46(2), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00160-3
64.
QuY.SafferA. J. (2023). Issues, publics, organizations, and personal networks: Toward an integrated issue engagement model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 35(4), 209–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2023.2227300
65.
RagasM. W.TranH. L. (2015). The financial news ecosystem: Journalists’ perceptions of group hierarchy. Journalism, 16(6), 711–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884914540441
66.
RimalR. N. (2001). Perceived risk and self-efficacy as motivators: Understanding individuals’ long-term use of health information. Journal of Communication, 51(4), 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02900.x
67.
RobertsonC. T.MourãoR. R.ThorsonE. (2020). Who uses fact-checking sites? The impact of demographics, political antecedents, and media use on fact-checking site awareness, attitudes, and behavior. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219898055
SchäferA. (2015). Differential learning in communication networks. Interpersonal communication moderating influences of news media usage on political knowledge. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27(4), 509–543. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edv019
70.
SchäferS. (2020). Illusion of knowledge through Facebook news? Effects of snack news in a news feed on perceived knowledge, attitude strength, and willingness for discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.031
71.
ScheufeleD. A. (2002). Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365020202900103
72.
SchrøderK. C. (2015). News media old and new: Fluctuating audiences, news repertoires and locations of consumption. Journalism Studies, 16(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.890332
73.
Serap KurbanogluS. (2003). Self-efficacy: A concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 635–646. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410310506295
SongL.ChangT. Y. (2012). Do resources of network members help in help seeking? Social capital and health information search. Social Networks, 34(4), 658–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2012.08.002
SunY. (2022). Verification upon exposure to COVID-19 misinformation: Predictors, outcomes, and the mediating role of verification. Science Communication, 44(3), 261–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221088927
78.
TamboerS. L.KleemansM.MolenaarI.BosseT. (2023). Developing a model of news literacy in early adolescents: A survey study. Mass Communication and Society, 26(1), 74–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2048027
79.
TandocE. C.Jr.LingR.WestlundO.DuffyA.GohD.Zheng WeiL. (2018). Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2745–2763. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448177317
ThorsonK.WellsC. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087
VulpiusJ.LehaffJ.SchrøderK. C.PetersC. (2023). Exploring changing news repertoires: Towards a typology. Journalism, 24(1), 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211047384
84.
WebsterJ. G.KsiazekT. B. (2012). The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x
Widén-WulffG.EkS.GinmanM.PerttiläR.SödergårdP.TöttermanA. K. (2008). Information behaviour meets social capital: A conceptual model. Journal of Information Science, 34(3), 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150708467
87.
XiaoX. (2022). Not doomed: Examining the path from misinformation exposure to verification and correction in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Telematics and Informatics, 74, 101890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101890
88.
YamamotoM.NahS. (2018). Mobile information seeking and political participation: A differential gains approach with offline and online discussion attributes. New Media & Society, 20(5), 2070–2090. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817712722
89.
YuW.ShenF. (2024). Mapping verification behaviors in the post-truth era: A systematic review. New Media & Society, 26(3), 1703–1727. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231191138
90.
YuanE. (2011). News consumption across multiple media platforms: A repertoire approach. Information, Communication & Society, 14(7), 998–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.549235
91.
ZhaoX.MaZ.XuS.AustinL. L. (2024). How information repertoire affects vaccine hesitancy: Processes of information verification and cognitive elaboration. Health Communication, 39(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2154017
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.
