New research suggests that two psychological models play a key role in sharing and detecting of fake news across a diverse range of topics. The study, published in Frontiers in Psychology, found that higher levels of emotional instability were predictive of sharing fake news and higher levels of rational thinking were predictive of the capacity to detect fake news on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
Fake news, which includes misinformation and propaganda, has always been present but has become more prevalent and damaging due to the widespread use of social media platforms for information sharing. Research has shown that fake news can lead to various negative outcomes such as loss of public trust, increased polarization, and poor decision-making. Therefore, it is important to improve the detection of fake news and mitigate its impact.
While previous research has primarily focused on highly political and partisan fake news, the authors of the new study sought to examine everyday non-partisan fake news across various topics such as crime, economy, education, health, and immigration. They were particularly interested in identifying a psychological profile associated with falling for fake news, which could allow for better interventions to be developed to reduce the likelihood of individuals spreading false information.
“Fake news has the capacity to undermine trust in our political systems and so we need to know more about what kinds of people share and what kinds of people can detect fake news, and where they might do this (e.g. Facebook vs Twitter vs Instagram vs Whatsapp). Are there particular psychological models that can predict sharing and detection behavior?” said study author Mark P. Shephard, a senior lecturer at the University of Strathclyde.
For their study, the researchers recruited 82 undergraduate students from the School of Government and Public Policy and asked them to complete several tasks online.
In the sharing behavior task, participants were presented with a list of news items, some real and some fake, covering various topics like crime, economy, education, etc. The news items focused on a type of fake news that is not overtly partisan or related to major socio-political events.
The participants were asked to read each item carefully and indicate whether they would share it on social media. If they would share it, they were also asked to specify which platform they would use, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or WhatsApp.
The study also included psychometric measures to assess participants’ cognitive abilities and personality traits. The cognitive reflection test (CRT) evaluated their ability to think critically and override intuitive but incorrect responses. The rational thinking style test assessed their inclination towards rational thinking. The emotional stability scale measured their emotional resilience.
After completing the sharing behavior task and the psychometric measures, participants were informed that some of the news items they encountered were fake. They were then asked to revisit each item and rate, on a scale of 1 to 7, how likely it was for the item to be fake.
Even individuals who are considered well-informed, such as political science university students, were found to share a high degree of fake news. “Even groups we might least expect to fall prey to fake news (political science university students) do (with 32% of everyday fake news shared on average),” Shephard remarked.
The researchers found that individuals with lower emotional stability were more likely to engage in news sharing behavior, regardless of the news’s veracity. This suggests that emotional stability plays a role in the propensity to share news. On the other hand, the capacity for rational thinking was a significant predictor of correctly identifying fake news.
Facebook and Twitter were identified as the primary platforms for sharing fake news. Fake health and crime news were more likely to be shared on Facebook, while fake health news had a significant sharing effect on Twitter. In contrast, there was a lower sharing rate for news related to immigration on all platforms, indicating that it appeals mainly to individuals with specific interests in that topic.
The researchers also found variations in the ability to detect real and fake news across different topic domains. Users were generally better at identifying real news, except for news related to immigration, where there was more reluctance to believe any news. Regarding fake news detection, users tended to misattribute fake health news as real news, highlighting the importance of addressing health-related misinformation.
Shephard said he was surprised to observe “how easy it is to believe that something is true.”
The new findings shed light on the individual psychological characteristics related to sharing and detecting fake news. But Shephard highlighted two areas in need of further research. “We need to tease apart the totally false from the exaggerated,” he said, and secondly, “we need to look at intentions behind sharing (well-intentioned/thought it was true and helpful vs partisan/know it is fake but suits my ideology).”
The study, “Everyday non-partisan fake news: Sharing behavior, platform specificity, and detection“, was authored by Mark P. Shephard, David J. Robertson, Narisong Huhe, and Anthony Anderson.
