In spite of the attractiveness of fake news stories, most people are reluctant to share them. Why? Four pre-registered experiments (N = 3,656) suggest that sharing fake news hurt one’s reputation in a way that is difficult to fix, even for politically congruent fake news. The decrease in trust a source (media outlet or individual) suffers when sharing one fake news story against a background of real news is larger than the increase in trust a source enjoys when sharing one real news story against a background of fake news. A comparison with real-world media outlets showed that only sources sharing no fake news at all had similar trust ratings to mainstream media. Finally, we found that the majority of people declare they would have to be paid to share fake news, even when the news is politically congruent, and more so when their reputation is at stake.
AcerbiA (2019) Cognitive attraction and online misinformation. Palgrave Communications5(1): 15.
2.
AcerbiA (2020) Cultural Evolution in the Digital Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
AllenJHowlandBMobiusM, et al. (2020) Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Science Advances6(14): eaay3539.
4.
AltaySde AraujoEMercierH (2020) “If this account is true, it is most enormously wonderful”: Interestingness-if-true and the sharing of true and false news. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/tdfh5/
5.
AltaySMajimaYMercierH (2020) It’s my idea ! Reputation management and idea appropriation. Evolution & Human Behavior41: 235–243.
6.
AltaySMercierH (2020) Relevance is socially rewarded, but not at the price of accuracy. Evolutionary Psychology18(1): 1474704920912640.
7.
BagoBRandDGPennycookG (2020) Fake news, fast and slow : deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Epub ahead of print 9 January. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000729.
8.
BalmasM (2014) When fake news becomes real : combined exposure to multiple news sources and political attitudes of inefficacy, alienation, and cynicism. Communication Research41(3): 430–454.
9.
BerricheMAltayS (2020) Internet users engage more with phatic posts than with health misinformation on Facebook. Palgrave Communications6(1): 1–9.
10.
BlaineTBoyerP (2018) Origins of sinister rumors : a preference for threat-related material in the supply and demand of information. Evolution and Human Behavior39(1): 67–75.
11.
BoyerPParrenN (2015) Threat-related information suggests competence : a possible factor in the spread of rumors. PLoS One10(6): e0128421.
12.
BrashierNMSchacterDL (2020) Aging in an era of fake news. Current Directions in Psychological Science29(3): 316–323.
ChambersS (2020) Truth, deliberative democracy, and the virtues of accuracy : is fake news destroying the public sphere?Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 2 April. DOI: 10.1177/0032321719890811.
17.
CollinsPJHahnUvon GerberY, et al. (2018) The bi-directional relationship between source characteristics and message content. Frontiers in Psychology9: 18.
18.
CorriveauKHHarrisPL (2009) Choosing your informant : weighing familiarity and recent accuracy. Developmental Science12(3): 426–437.
19.
Del VicarioMBessiAZolloF, et al. (2016) The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(3): 554–559.
20.
DittoPH (2009) Passion, reason, and necessity : a quantity-of-processing view of motivated reasoning. In: BayneTFernandezJ (eds) Delusion and Self-Deception: Affective and Motivational Influences on Belief Formation. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 23–53.
21.
DuffyALingR (2020) The gift of news : Phatic news sharing on social media for social cohesion. Journalism Studies21(1): 72–87.
22.
EdwardsKSmithEE (1996) A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71: 5–24.
23.
EffronDA (2018) It could have been true : how counterfactual thoughts reduce condemnation of falsehoods and increase political polarization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin44(5): 729–745.
24.
FischerIHarveyN (1999) Combining forecasts : what information do judges need to outperform the simple average?International Journal of Forecasting15(3): 227–246.
GrahamJHaidtJNosekBA (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology96(5): 1029.
27.
GrinbergNJosephKFriedlandL, et al. (2019) Fake news on twitter during the 2016 US Presidential election. Science363(6425): 374–378.
28.
GuessANaglerJTuckerJ (2019) Less than you think : prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances5(1): eaau4586.
29.
GuessANyhanBReiflerJ (2020) Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour4: 472–480.
30.
GuoLVargoC (2018) “Fake News” and emerging online media ecosystem : an integrated intermedia agenda-setting analysis of the 2016 US Presidential Election. Communication Research47(2): 178–200.
31.
HoppTFerrucciPVargoCJ (2020) Why do people share ideologically extreme, false, and misleading content on social media ? A self-report and trace data–based analysis of countermedia content dissemination on Facebook and Twitter. Human Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 19 May. DOI: 10.1093/hcr/hqz022.
32.
IyengarSLelkesYLevenduskyM, et al. (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22: 129–146.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108: 480–498.
35.
LazerDMBaumMABenklerY, et al. (2018) The science of fake news. Science359(6380): 1094–1096.
36.
LeeCSMaL (2012) News sharing in social media : the effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior28(2): 331–339.
37.
LewandowskySEckerUKCookJ (2017) Beyond misinformation : understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition6(4): 353–369.
38.
MarchalNKollanyiBNeudertL-M, et al. (2019) Junk News During the EU Parliamentary Elections : Lessons from a Seven-Language Study of Twitter and Facebook. Oxford: Project on Computational Propaganda, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University.
39.
MercierH (2020) Not Born Yesterday : The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
MourãoRRRobertsonCT (2019) Fake news as discursive integration : an analysis of sites that publish false, misleading, hyperpartisan and sensational information. Journalism Studies20(14): 2077–2095.
42.
NelsonJLTanejaH (2018) The small, disloyal fake news audience : the role of audience availability in fake news consumption. New Media & Society20(10): 3720–3737.
43.
OsmundsenMBorABjerregaard VahlstrupP, et al. (2020) Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind “Fake News” Sharing on Twitter. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/v45bk/
44.
PainterCHodgesL (2010) Mocking the news : how The Daily Show with Jon Stewart holds traditional broadcast news accountable. Journal of Mass Media Ethics25(4): 257–274.
45.
PennycookGRandDG (2019a) Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(7): 2521–2526.
46.
PennycookGRandDG (2019b) Lazy, not biased : susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition188: 39–50.
47.
PennycookGEpsteinZMoslehM, et al. (2019) Understanding and reducing the spread of misinformation online.
48.
PennycookGMcPhetresJZhangY, et al. (2020) Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media : Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention. Psychological Science31(7): 770–780.
49.
PetersMA (2018) Education in a post-truth world. In: PetersMARiderSHyvönenMBesleyT (eds) Post-Truth, Fake News. Singapore: Springer, pp. 145–150.
SkowronskiJJCarlstonDE (1989) Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation : a review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin105(1): 131.
57.
SlovicP (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis13(6): 675–682.
58.
SterrettDMalatoDBenzJ, et al. (2019) Who shared it? Deciding what news to trust on social media. Digital Journalism7(6): 783–801.
59.
TandocECJr (2019) The facts of fake news : a research review. Sociology Compass13(9): e12724.
60.
TandocECJrLimZWLingR (2018a) Defining “fake news” A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism6(2): 137–153.
61.
TandocECJrLingRWestlundO, et al. (2018b) Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news : a conceptual framework. New Media & Society20(8): 2745–2763.
62.
The Media Insight Project (2016) A New Understanding : What Makes People Trust and Rely on News. Available at: http://bit.ly/1rmuYok
63.
TroucheEJohanssonPHallL, et al. (2018) Vigilant conservatism in evaluating communicated information. PLoS One. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188825.
64.
Van BavelJJPereiraA (2018) The partisan brain : an Identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences22(3): 213–224.
65.
Van DuynECollierJ (2019) Priming and fake news : the effects of elite discourse on evaluations of news media. Mass Communication and Society22(1): 29–48.
66.
VosoughiSRoyDAralS (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science359(6380): 1146–1151.
67.
WalterNCohenJHolbertRL, et al. (2019) Fact-checking : a meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication37: 350–375.
68.
WaruwuBKTandocECJrDuffyA, et al. (2020) Telling lies together ? Sharing news as a form of social authentication. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 10 June. DOI: 10.1177/1461444820931017.
69.
YanivIKleinbergerE (2000) Advice taking in decision making : egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes83: 260–281.
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.
