Skip to main content

Effects of Conspiracy Thinking Style, Framing and Political Interest on Accuracy of Fake News Recognition by Social Media Users: Evidence from Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNISA,volume 12774)

Abstract

This study examines the effect of specific factors (including user features, such as propensity for conspiracy thinking, and news item features, such as news frame and news source) on the accuracy of social media users in fake news recognition. Being a part of a larger research on fake news perception, this study uses the data from an online experiment that asks social media users from three countries (Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan) to evaluate a set of news items constructed with specific conditions. Namely, the users receive true and fake news about the neighboring countries framed differently and ascribed to either domestic or foreign sources. We then assess users’ accuracy in detecting fake news. The results of the study confirm the important role of conspiracy thinking style in false news recognition (leading to a decrease in accuracy) and users’ capability for deliberation on social media more broadly. However, the influence of contextual factors is mixed. While news sources exhibit no influence on the accuracy of fake or true news detection, dominant framing tends to increase the accuracy of true news only. More predictors of news recognition accuracy are discussed in the paper. As a result, this research contributes to the theory of fake news susceptibility by revealing a rich set of individual factors and interaction effects that influence human judgment about news truthfulness and impact deliberation possibilities in socially mediated environments.

Keywords

  • Fake news
  • Accuracy
  • Conspiracy mentality
  • Frame
  • Thinking style

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-77626-8_23
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-77626-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  1. Buller, D.B., Burgoon, J.K.: Interpersonal deception theory. Commun. Theor. 6, 203–242 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x

  2. Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., Mccann, R.M.: Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 27, 293–335 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A.: Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 909–927 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Gill, H., Boies, K., Finegan, J.E., McNally, J.: Antecedents of trust: establishing a boundary condition for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust. J. Bus Psychol. 19, 287–302 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-004-2229-8

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Porshnev, A., Miltsov, A.: The effects of thinking styles and news domain on fake news recognition by social media users: evidence from Russia. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) HCII 2020. LNCS, vol. 12194, pp. 305–320. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49570-1_21

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Flynn, D.J., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J.: The Nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics: nature and origins of misperceptions. Adv. Polit. Psychol. 38, 127–150 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Robinson, P., Goddard, P., Parry, K., Murray, C., Taylor, P.M.: Pockets of Resistance: British News Media, War and Theory in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Manchester University Press, Oxford (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Zollmann, F.: Bringing propaganda back into news media studies. Crit. Sociol. 45, 329–345 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517731134

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., Kroepsch, A.: Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard Int. J. Press/Polit. 8, 36–70 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X02251047

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Berinsky, A.J.: Rumors and health care reform: experiments in political misinformation. Brit. J. Polit. Sci. 47, 241–262 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000186

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M.: Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31, 211–236 (2017)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Coe, C.M.: Tell Me Lies: Fake News, Source Cues, and Partisan Motivated Reasoning, (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Anthony, A., Moulding, R.: Breaking the news: belief in fake news and conspiracist beliefs. Aust. J. Psychol. 71, 154–162 (2019)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. 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. Accessed 4 Sept 2019

  18. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Goertzel, T.: Belief in conspiracy theories. Polit. Psychol. 15, 731 (1994). https://doi.org/10.2307/3791630

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Iyengar, S., Simon, A.: News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: a study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. Commun. Res. 20, 365–383 (1993)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. McCombs, M.E., Shaw, D.L.: The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin. Q. 36, 176 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1086/267990

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Scheufele, D.: Framing as theory for media effects. J. Commun. 20, 103–122 (1999)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. D’Angelo, P., Kuypers, J.A. (eds.): Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. Routledge, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pavik, J.V.: News framing and new media: Digital tools to re-engage an alienated citizenry. In: Reese, S.D., Gandy, O.H., Grant, A.E. (eds.) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, pp. 311–321. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J. (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gitlin, T.: The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dusyk, N., Axsen, J., Dullemond, K.: Who cares about climate change? The mass media and socio-political acceptance of Canada’s oil sands and Northern gateway pipeline. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 12–21 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.07.005

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  30. Kwon, K.H., Chadha, M., Pellizzaro, K.: Proximity and terrorism news in social media: a construal-level theoretical approach to networked framing of terrorism in Twitter. Mass Commun. Soc. 20, 869–894 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1369545

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  31. Carragee, K.M., Roefs, W.: The neglect of power in recent framing research. J. Commun. 54, 214–233 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02625.x

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  32. Coleman, C.-L., Dysart, E.V.: Framing of Kennewick man against the backdrop of a scientific and cultural controversy. Sci. Commun. 27, 3–26 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005278609

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Kohring, M., Matthes, J.: Trust in news media: development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Commun. Res. 34, 231–252 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206298071

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  34. Pan, Z., Kosicki, G.: Framing analysis: an approach to news discourse. Polit. Comm. 10, 55–75 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  35. Semetko, H.A., Valkenburg, P.M.V.: Framing European politics: a content analysis of press and television news. J. Commun. 50, 93–109 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Su, M.-H., Liu, J., McLeod, D.M.: Pathways to news sharing: Issue frame perceptions and the likelihood of sharing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 91, 201–210 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.026

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  37. Druckman, J.N.: Political preference formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98, 671–686 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404041413

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  38. Chong, D., Druckman, J.N.: Spanish abstract. J. Commun. 57, 99–118 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331_3.x

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  39. Slothuus, R.: More than weighting cognitive importance: a dual-process model of issue framing effects: a dual-process model of issue framing effects. Polit. Psychol. 29, 1–28 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00610.x

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  40. 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, p. 441. ACM Press, Seattle, Washington, USA (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145274.

  41. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  42. 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-17) Technical Report WS-17–17: News and Public Opinion, pp. 759–766 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  44. Vendemia, M.A., Bond, R.M., DeAndrea, D.C.: The strategic presentation of user comments affects how political messages are evaluated on social media sites: evidence for robust effects across party lines. Comput. Hum. Behav. 91, 279–289 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.007

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  45. Borah, P.: The hyperlinked world: a look at how the interactions of news frames and hyperlinks influence news credibility and willingness to seek information. J. Comput.-Mediat. Comm. 19, 576–590 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12060

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  46. Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R.M., Pingree, R.J.: News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: effects on media trust and information seeking. J. Comput.-Mediat. Comm. 20, 520–535 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  47. Craciun, G., Moore, K.: Credibility of negative online product reviews: reviewer gender, reputation and emotion effects. Comput. Hum. Behav. 97, 104–115 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.010

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. Graefe, A., Haim, M., Haarmann, B., Brosius, H.-B.: Readers’ perception of computer-generated news: credibility, expertise, and readability. Journalism 19, 595–610 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916641269

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  49. Chung, M.: The message influences me more than others: how and why social media metrics affect first person perception and behavioral intentions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 91, 271–278 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.011

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  50. Meyer, H.K., Marchionni, D., Thorson, E.: The journalist behind the news: credibility of straight, collaborative, opinionated, and blogged “news.” Am. Behav. Sci. 54, 100–119 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376313

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  51. Vziatysheva, V., Sinyavskaya, Y., Porshnev, A., Terpilovskii, M., Koltcov, S., Bryanov, K.: Testing users’ ability to recognize fake news in three countries. An experimental perspective. In: Social Computing and Social Media. Design, Ethics, User Behavior, and Social Network Analysis. Springer, Cham (in press). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49570-1

  52. Kazun, A., Pashakhin, S.: ‘Alien elections’: neighboring state news on the 2018 Russian presidential elections. J. Econ. Sociol. 22, 71–91 (2021)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  53. Koltsova, O., Judina, D., Pashakhin, S., Kolycheva, A.: Coverage of Presidential Elections in Kazakhstan and Ukraine by Russian Media. POLIS (in press)

    Google Scholar 

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

  55. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S.: Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67 (2015). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

  56. Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W.: Heuristic decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62, 451–482 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  57. Koltsova, O., Sinyavskaya, Y., Terpilovskii, M.: Designing an experiment on recognition of political fake news by social media users: factors of dropout. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) HCII 2020. LNCS, vol. 12194, pp. 261–277. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49570-1_18

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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 2021.

The authors acknowledge the research and data collection assistance by Maxim Terpilowski, Yadviga Sinyawskaya, and Victoria Vziatysheva.

Compliance with Ethical Standards. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (National Research University Higher School of Economics Institution Research Board decision, 23.04.2020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Porshnev .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix 1. Supplementary Material

Appendix 1. Supplementary Material

Supplementary tables associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at https://fakenewsproject.org/HCI2021/Appendix_1.pdf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Porshnev, A., Miltsov, A., Lokot, T., Koltsova, O. (2021). Effects of Conspiracy Thinking Style, Framing and Political Interest on Accuracy of Fake News Recognition by Social Media Users: Evidence from Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. In: Meiselwitz, G. (eds) Social Computing and Social Media: Experience Design and Social Network Analysis . HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12774. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77626-8_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77626-8_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-77625-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-77626-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)