Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Thinking Styles and News Domain on Fake News Recognition by Social Media Users: Evidence from Russia

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Social Computing and Social Media. Design, Ethics, User Behavior, and Social Network Analysis (HCII 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12194))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The development and deployment of new technologies have influenced the media environment by enabling quick and effective dissemination of false news via social networks. Several experimental studies have highlighted the role of thinking style, social influence, source credibility and other factors when it comes to fake news recognition. Our study makes several contributions to existing knowledge. Web introduce a measure of conspiracy thinking, a comparison between politics and business news recognition, and we investigate the effects of sensationalist headlines on users’ abilities to differentiate between false and true news. 228 university students (203 completed the entire survey) from three departments (Humanities, Management, and Economics) took part in an online experiment. The results of a regression analysis demonstrate that double-checking of news online has a significant effect on individuals’ overall ability of differentiating between true and false news. Thinking styles, prior experience, and such control variables as age and gender have no significant effect on the overall level of accuracy. We also discuss the effects of different factors responsible for the accuracy of fake news recognition in business and political news, as well as several limitations of the study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pornpitakpan, C.: The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Pyschol. 34, 243–281 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Morris, M.R., Counts, S., Roseway, A., Hoff, A., Schwarz, J.: Tweeting is believing?: understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW 2012, Seattle, Washington, USA, p. 441. ACM Press (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145274

  3. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T.D., Rand, D.G.: Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147, 1865–1880 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pennycook, G., Rand, D.G.: Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jopy.12476. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12476. Accessed 04 Sep 2019

  5. Pennycook, G., Rand, D.G.: Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bronstein, M.V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D.G., Cannon, T.D.: Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 8, 108–117 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Colliander, J.: “This is fake news”: investigating the role of conformity to other users’ views when commenting on and spreading disinformation in social media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 97, 202–215 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Coe, C.M.: Tell me lies: fake news, source cues, and partisan motivated reasoning (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stojanov, A., Halberstadt, J.: The conspiracy mentality scale: distinguishing between irrational and rational suspicion. Soc. Psychol. 50, 215–232 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lamberty, P., Imhoff, R.: Powerful pharma and its marginalized alternatives?: effects of individual differences in conspiracy mentality on attitudes toward medical approaches. Soc. Psychol. 49, 255–270 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Uscinski, J.E., Olivella, S.: The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change. Res. Politics 4, 205316801774310 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017743105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Frischlich, L., Brinkschulte, F., Becker, M.: The moderating role of right-wing authoritarianism and conspiracy mentality for the perception and effects of distorted news articles, 11

    Google Scholar 

  13. Horne, B.D., Adalı, S.: This just in: fake news packs a lot in title, uses simpler, repetitive content in text body, more similar to satire than real news. In: The Workshops of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media AAAI (ICWSM 2017), Technical Report WS-17-17: News and Public Opinion, pp. 759–766 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sitaula, N., Mohan, C.K., Grygiel, J., Zhou, X., Zafarani, R.: Credibility-based fake news detection. arXiv:1911.00643 [cs] (2019)

  15. van Prooijen, J.-W., Douglas, K.M.: Belief in conspiracy theories: basic principles of an emerging research domain. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2530. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2530. Accessed 04 Sep 2019

  16. Edelson, J., Alduncin, A., Krewson, C., Sieja, J.A., Uscinski, J.E.: The effect of conspiratorial thinking and motivated reasoning on belief in election fraud. Polit. Res. Q. 70, 933–946 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917721061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Abalakina-Paap, M., Stephan, W.G., Craig, T., Gregory, W.L.: Beliefs in conspiracies. Polit. Psychol. 20, 637–647 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goertzel, T.: Belief in conspiracy theories. Polit. Psychol. 15, 731–742 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Herrero-Diz, P., Conde-Jiménez, J., Tapia-Frade, A., Varona-Aramburu, D.: The credibility of online news: an evaluation of the information by university students /La credibilidad de las noticias en Internet: una evaluación de la información por estudiantes universitarios. Cultura y Educación 31, 407–435 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2019.1601937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Frederick, S.: Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 25–42 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stieger, S., Reips, U.-D.: A limitation of the cognitive reflection test: familiarity. PeerJ 4, e2395 (2016). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thomson, K.S., Oppenheimer, D.M.: Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 11, 15 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., Imhoff, R.: Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: conspiracy mentality questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 4 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225

  24. Бaйpaмoвa, Э.Э., Eникoлoпoв, C.H.: Aдaптaция мeтoдики oпpeдeлeния ypoвня мaгичecкoгo мышлeния M. Экблaдa и Л.Дж. Чaпмaнa нa pyccкoязычнoй выбopкe. Пcиxиaтpия, 40–46 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Eckblad, M., Chapman, L.J.: Magical ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 51, 215–225 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.2.215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Inglehart, R., et al. (eds.): World Values Survey: Round Six (2014). http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp

  27. Navarrete, C.B., Soares, F.C.: Dominance Analysis Package. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dominanceanalysis/dominanceanalysis.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was implemented in the framework of the Russian Scientific Fund Grant №19-18-00206 at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2019.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Alexander Porshnev

  2. Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan

    Alexandre Miltsov

Authors
  1. Alexander Porshnev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandre Miltsov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Porshnev .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

    Gabriele Meiselwitz

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table A.1. Amount of participants indicated the information source as main source of information
Full size table
Table A.2. Amount of participants indicated the information source as main source of information
Full size table
Table A.3. Descriptive statistics for accuracy dimensions
Full size table
Table A.4. Descriptive statistics for rational thinking questions
Full size table
Table A.5. Descriptive statistics for conspiracy beliefs questions
Full size table
Table A.6. Descriptive statistics for conspiracy beliefs questions
Full size table
Table A.7. Descriptive statistics for Magical thinking questions
Full size table
Table A.8. Dominant variables from each factor for dimensions of Accuracy (average contribution)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Porshnev, A., Miltsov, A. (2020). The Effects of Thinking Styles and News Domain on Fake News Recognition by Social Media Users: Evidence from Russia. In: Meiselwitz, G. (eds) Social Computing and Social Media. Design, Ethics, User Behavior, and Social Network Analysis. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12194. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49570-1_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49570-1_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49569-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49570-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation