New media literacy (NML) is an emerging construct of great value in a digital age in which information overload threatens the well-being of society. Among the scarcity of available research going beyond a theoretical conceptualization of NML and using structural equational modeling, we explored the influence of NML on media trust, perception of fake news, and fact-checking motivation that underlie the dissemination of unverified information during the COVID-19 pandemic. Challenging the assertion of NML’s absolute effect on mitigating the problem of fake news communication, the components of NML were shown to contribute to the transmission of unverified information among citizens unless the risk of fake news was well understood. The findings suggest that further research is required to fully understand the scope of NML in designing public education, and that the problem of fake news spread may be a social phenomenon that digitalized society must embrace.
AlexandrovALillyBBabakusE (2013) The effects of social-and self-motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science41(5): 531–546.
2.
ApukeODOmarB (2020a) Fake news and COVID-19: modelling the predictors of fake news sharing among social media users. Telematics and Informatics56: 101475.
3.
ApukeODOmarB (2020b) Modelling the antecedent factors that affect online fake news sharing on COVID-19: the moderating role of fake news knowledge. Health Education Research35(5): 490–503.
4.
AriasAVMayordomoSFernándezI, et al. (2008) Psychosocial factors, perceived risk and driving in a hostile environment: driving through tunnels. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues8(1): 165–181.
5.
BagozziRPYiY (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16(1): 74–94.
BarutETKocM (2020) Understanding the relationship between new media literacy, communication skills, and democratic tendency: model development and testing. New Media & Society22(10): 1922–1941.
8.
BentlerPM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin107(2): 238–246.
9.
BentlerPMBonettDG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin88(3): 588–606.
10.
BierhoffH-WVornefeldB (2004) The social psychology of trust with applications in the internet. Analyse & Kritik26(1): 48–62.
11.
BordiaPDiFonzoN (2004) Problem solving in social interactions on the Internet: rumor as social cognition. Social Psychology Quarterly67(1): 33–49.
12.
BordiaPDiFonzoN (2005) Psychological motivations in rumor spread. In: FineGAHeathCCampion-VincentV (eds) Rumor Mills: The Social Impact of Rumor and Legend. New York: Aldine Press, pp. 87–102.
13.
CaputoA (2017) Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey. Universitas Psychologica16(2): 245–255.
14.
ChaYLNaEY (2014) Exploring the current statues of influential Internet rumor communication in Korea: focusing on a synchronous approach. Korean Public Administration Review58(4): 312–349.
15.
ChaikenS (1989) Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: UlemanJSBarghJA (eds) Unintended Thought. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 212–252.
16.
ChenD-TWuJWangY (2011) Unpacking new media literacy. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics9(2): 84–88.
17.
ChoEH (2019) The effect of news media use and trust on the perception, identification, and acceptance of fake news. Journalism of Communication Science19(1): 180–213.
18.
Del VicarioMBessiAZolloF, et al. (2016) The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America113(3): 554–559.
19.
DryhurstSSchneiderCRKerrJ, et al. (2020) Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research23(7–8): 994–1006.
20.
FariesMD (2016) Why we don’t “just do it” understanding the intention-behavior gap in lifestyle medicine. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine10(5): 322–329.
21.
FletcherRParkS (2017) The impact of trust in the news media on online news consumption and participation. Digital Journalism5(10): 1281–1299.
22.
FlynnFJWiltermuthSS (2010) Who’s with me? False consensus, brokerage, and ethical decision making in organizations. Academy of Management Journal53(5): 1074–1089.
23.
FriestadMWrightP (1994) The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research21(1): 1–31.
24.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
25.
IgbinoviaMOOkuonghaeOAdebayoJO (2020) Information literacy competence in curtailing fake news about the COVID-19 pandemic among undergraduates in Nigeria. Reference Services Review49(1): 3–18.
26.
IntroneJYildrimIGLandoliL, et al. (2018) How people weave online information into pseudoknowledge. Social Media+ Society4(3): 85639.
27.
Jones-JangSMMortensenTLiuJ (2019) Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist65(2): 371–388.
28.
KachkaevaAKolchinaAShomovaS, et al. (2020) “Trust, but verify”: problems of formation of media literacy and critical thinking of Russian students. Media Practice and Education21(3): 200–211.
KellnerDShareJ (2005) Toward critical media literacy: core concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education26(3): 369–386.
33.
KimKMLeeSS (2018) Perception bias and news fairness evaluation of news listeners: analysis of trust in media, message bias, self-categorization, and influence of self-enhancement. Communication Theory143(3): 145–198.
34.
KlineRB (2015) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
35.
KocMBarutE (2016) Development and validation of New Media Literacy Scale (NMLS) for university students. Computers in Human Behavior63: 834–843.
36.
KoltayT (2011) The media and the literacies: media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society33(2): 211–221.
37.
KwanLY-YYapSChiuC (2015) Mere exposure affects perceived descriptive norms: implications for personal preferences and trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes129: 48–58.
38.
LeeEHLeeT (2021) A socio-behavioral approach to understanding the spread of disinformation. Asian Communication Research18(3): 168–187.
39.
LinT-BLiJ-YDengF, et al. (2013) Understanding new media literacy: an explorative theoretical framework. Journal of Educational Technology & Society16(4): 160–170.
40.
LinT-BMokhtarIAWangL-Y (2015) The construct of media and information literacy in Singapore education system: global trends and local policies. Asia Pacific Journal of Education35(4): 423–437.
41.
LyonsBAMerolaVReiflerJ (2020) How bad is the fake news problem? The role of baseline information in public perceptions. In: NewmanEJaffeMSchwarzN, et al. (eds) The Psychology of Fake News. London: Routledge, pp. 11–26.
42.
MelkiJTamimHHadidD, et al. (2021) Mitigating infodemics: the relationship between news exposure and trust and belief in COVID-19 fake news and social media spreading. PLoS ONE16(6): e0252830.
43.
MoslehMPennycookGRandDG (2020) Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on Twitter. PLoS ONE15(2): e0228882.
44.
MüllerPSchulzA (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 Media8(4): 547–559.
45.
NaeemSBBhattiRKhanA (2021) An exploration of how fake news is taking over social media and putting public health at risk. Health Information & Libraries Journal38(2): 143–149.
46.
NelsonMRWoodMLPaekH-J (2009) Increased persuasion knowledge of video news releases: audience beliefs about news and support for source disclosure. Journal of Mass Media Ethics24(4): 220–237.
47.
O’NeillEBreretonFShahumyanH, et al. (2016) The impact of perceived flood exposure on flood-risk perception: the role of distance. Risk Analysis36(11): 2158–2186.
48.
PennycookGRandDG (2019) Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition188: 39–50.
49.
PennycookGMcPhetresJZhangY, et al. (2020) Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science31(7): 770–780.
50.
R Development Core Team (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
51.
RauchJ (2016) Are there still alternatives? Relationships between alternative media and mainstream media in a converged environment. Sociology Compass10(9): 756–767.
52.
ReuterCKaufholdM-A (2018) Fifteen years of social media in emergencies: a retrospective review and future directions for crisis informatics. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management26(1): 41–57.
53.
ReuterCSpielhoferT (2017) Towards social resilience: a quantitative and qualitative survey on citizens’ perception of social media in emergencies in Europe. Technological Forecasting and Social Change121: 168–180.
54.
RidingsCMGefenDArinzeB (2002) Some Antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems11: 271–295.
55.
RossRMRandDGPennycookG (2021) Beyond “fake news”: analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news headlines. Judgment & Decision Making16(2): 484–504.
56.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
ShengQCaoJZhangX, et al. (2022) Zoom out and observe: news environment perception for fake news detection. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.10885
59.
SlovicPFlynnJHLaymanM (1991) Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science254(5038): 1603–1607.
60.
StåhlTVan ProoijenJ-W (2018) Epistemic rationality: skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personality and Individual Differences122: 155–163.
61.
SteigerJH (1990) Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research25(2): 173–180.
62.
StrömbäckJTsaftiYBoomgaardenH, et al. (2020) News media trust and its impact on media use: toward a framework for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association44(2): 139–156.
63.
TofflerA (1980) The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books.
64.
TsfatiY (2010) Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist54(1): 22–42.
65.
TsfatiYCappellaJN (2003) Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research30(5): 504–529.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. In: KahnemanDlovicPTverskyA (eds) Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–189.
68.
Van AelstPStrömbäckJAalbergT, et al. (2017) Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association41(1): 3–27.
69.
van Der LindenSRoozenbeekJComptonJ (2020) Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology11: 2928.
70.
Van DeursenAVan DijkJ (2011) Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society13(6): 893–911.
WassermanHMadrid-MoralesD (2019) An exploratory study of “fake news” and media trust in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. African Journalism Studies40(1): 107–123.
73.
YumJYJeongSH (2019) Predictors of fake news exposure and sharing: personality, new media literacy, and motives. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies63(1): 7–45.
