Abstract

Fake news swiftly spreads throughout social media platforms, influencing public opinion, decision-making, and even societal cohesion. Understanding the elements which drive the dissemination of fake news has become an important and pressing issue in the contemporary digital environment. Through a detailed examination of data obtained from 328 young individuals, the research identifies para-social interaction, information seeking, information sharing, and status-seeking as the main driving factors for the transmission of fake news in the digital era. Conversely, the factors of passing time and fear of missing out were found to have a negligible relationship with fake news sharing, indicating a lesser impact on the spread of fake news. Additionally, the model fit as evaluated by R-square, suggested that approximately 55% of the variance in fake news sharing was explained by the independent variables included in the study. The findings of the study will help devise effective strategies to counteract the phenomenon of fake news sharing and promote media literacy.

Key Words

Fake News Sharing, Parasocial Interaction, Information Sharing, Information Seeking, Status-Seeking, Pass time, Fear of Missing Out (FoMO)

Introduction

In today's modern age, the propagation of fake news has become a global concern for individuals, businesses, and governments. In general, "fake news" refers to any facts or popular stories published with the purpose of reaching people. Its proliferation has the ability to undermine democracy, upset social peace, and jeopardize national security (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). Furthermore, with the proliferation of social and digital media platforms, false news has become more accessible, simple to distribute, and harder to identify, making it a tremendous issue to battle (Vosoughi, et al., 2018). Because of its potential to affect public opinion and decision-making, this problem has received a lot of attention. Governments, businesses, and individuals are becoming increasingly aware of the need to counteract and avoid its detrimental effects. Consequently, recognizing the multiple factors involved in the development of false content that harms the democratic process, is a critical area of research right now. 

The quest for social status is a primary and potent driver of the spread of fake news. As individuals tend to share such postings and information in order to align their thoughts and beliefs, improve their social status, and demonstrate their social recognition, they do so in order to align their opinions and beliefs with those of others (Munson & Resnick, 2010). Moreover, the concept of "shareability" adds considerably to the circulation of misleading content. Bruns and Highfield, (2015), discovered that it has the ability to incentivize new members of social networks to assist in the transmission of fake news. The need for social recognition that results from spreading such fake news eventually plays a crucial role in its spread. 

The fundamental necessity for information exchange also represents the pervasive feature of spreading fake news. People have easy access to a wealth of information in today's digital era, yet they frequently require assistance in distinguishing between reputable and misleading sources (Lazer, et al., 2018). Individuals with insufficient awareness of political matters are more prone to be persuaded by the disinformation that is frequently circulated online. This is especially true when it comes to the regulation of manufactured information, which may be confusing and misleading to individuals without specialized knowledge. In fact, research indicates that those with great political interest but inadequate expertise are exposed to the dissemination of false content to a higher extent (Guess, et al., 2018). As digital channels are becoming a generally acknowledged source of information for numerous sorts of entertainment and leisure activities in today's society. However, it is common for individuals to post sensational and captivating news without verifying its authenticity (Cheng & Schafer, 2020). According to Zubiaga, et al. (2018), false news reports on Twitter are more likely to feature emotive language and popular hashtags, hence increasing their exposure and potential effect. People frequently share fake news stories than real news without verifying their accuracy. In summary, it seems that a significant number of individuals rely on social media and other digital platforms as sources of information, which may not always be reliable.

It is common for people to develop an emotional connection with media personalities, celebrities, or influencers, which can cause them to trust and believe in the views and opinions of their favourite media figures, even if they lack credibility or expertise (Kim & Dennis, 2019). Similarly, certain people have the mindset of believing in the conspiracy theories of media celebrities. This mindset favours the interest in fabricated information or inaccurate news stories. As a result, the inclination tends to be mediated by analytical as well as intuitive thinking, however, both relate in an alternative manner (Pennycook & Rand, 2019). Overall, researchers present the concept of fake news as an intentional outspread of disseminated content in the shape of factual news, such as false information appearing to be appropriate and usually circulated on online platforms (Lewandowsky, et al., 2020). This type of news information is mainly contributed to or circulated by authorities to misinform and direct the public on specific topics. It is the primary source of confusion and the need for more people's reliance on the media. There exist various additional factors that play a vital role in the propagation of incorrect news. Some of the most crucial factors involve motivated reasoning and biased confirmation. These are majorly involved in the person's susceptibility to accept and reject information (Pennycook & Rand, 2019). Other than the human personal need to seek information and status, advancements in technology and the upgradation of digital platforms also contributed to this concept to a great extent (Vosoughi, et al., 2018). From the perspective of antecedence, political motivation among the communities and societal polarization are also contributors which accelerate the outbreak process of fabricated content (Guess, et al., 2020). 

As misleading news information travels rapidly and reaches more individuals than reliable news, Vosoughi, et al. (2018), emphasize the seriousness of the situation and the necessity for effective interventions to counteract fake news. Overall, the rapid increase in social platforms along with the easy accessibility in news creation and dissemination has made it challenging to identify true and false news stories. To narrate the roots of the issue of the transmission of fabricated content, it is crucial to comprehend the variables that lead to its propagation. By understanding these variables, effective solutions may be created to assist individuals in recognizing and avoiding the regulation of fake news. In addition, it will aid in the development of techniques for verifying data and the veracity of information. As a result, this study investigates factors such as para-social interaction, status-seeking, information seeking, information sharing, time passing, and fear of missing out (FoMO), as possible precursors to the disseminating of wrong information.

Literature Review

No doubt, the spread of fake news is a pressing global issue, even in Pakistan. Social media platforms have created an easiness for the spread and circulation of misinformation, resulting in various negative consequences. These include the spread of inaccurate information, further reinforcement of biases and prejudices, and decreased trust in reliable news sources (Bode & Vraga, 2015; Tandoc, et al., 2018). The term gained popularity in 2016 during the United States presidential election. These elections have been known to influence the audience and public greatly in terms of their mind perceptions and social beliefs. The research explored that this was the fake news circulation that becomes a leading reason for support of Donald Trump among voters who were already inclined to support him while also decreasing support for Hillary Clinton among decided voters (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). It is possible that the primary term "Fake News" is a relatively new word to the digital community, however, the concept of circulation of false information is not that new. It has a complete history in concepts of propaganda that contributed to playing a remarkable role in manipulating the public's opinion and influencing different political agendas (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017). At the same time, technological advancements and versatile digital platforms have created an amplification for the fake news spread in today's community.




Social Influence Theory

Social influence theory is one theoretical framework that explains the leading causes of the outspread of fabricated news content. This theory posits the mindset that people are greatly influenced by their social environment and surroundings. If any news is getting prevalent in the social surrounding, there is an excellent chance that the audience will start shaping their beliefs and behaviours according to their social impact (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). As per the understanding of the concept of false information, society more rigorously believes and relies on the information if they perceive that others in their social networks are doing so. Several other studies and research have supported the impact and influence of social influence in spreading false news. For example, one outstanding supportive study by Del Vicario, et al. (2016) clears the stance that false news stories are more actively shared on digital platforms rather than any true story, and this is primarily the effect was driven by social influence. Similarly, a study by Larson et al. (2019) found that vaccine hesitancy was associated with the perception that others in one's social network were also hesitant about vaccines.

Cialdini, (2001), argues that people are up to all the information regulated by a highly authorized informational source without any discrimination of right or wrong if the informational source has a well-reputed social influence on the audience. In other words, it can be stated that such trusted and credible information resources have the authority which would be used for trading information because people will believe all that news merely on the perception that the source is highly reliable and doesn't counter another side of the story that it might promote misleading information. Further supporting the studies, Cialdin, (2001), relates the ideas with the principle of social proofs. It has proven that people will accept all that content and information being carried on a widespread level by the public. When a person sees that everyone around is accepting certain information or news, he will start thinking or taking it right because most society reflects acceptance behaviour. This social acceptance behaviour became the ultimate source of the outspreading of inappropriate information. Similarly, Lewandowsky et al., (2017), reveal that people have nothing to do with the truth and falseness of the news or information when information is bound with certain pre-existing mindsets and approaches. This can be termed confirmation bias, which had a remarkable impact on the circulation of misinformation. This social influence of a pre-existing mindset among the community causes people to accept the ideas as it appears worldwide without considering their veracity.




Selective Exposure Theory

The selective exposure theory is another theoretical framework that has relevance to the current study. This very prevalent theory depicts the overall comprehensive analysis of all those attempting to find out the primary factors involved in the layout of false information. The theory implies that the public tends to follow all the information that stands by any previously existing ideas or mindset. They hesitate and avoid information contradicting those beliefs and values (Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2015). Concisely stating the summation of theory, the public and the audience are attracted to all the information and stories that have previously aligned biases to support the outspread of news. Selective exposure theory is related to the basic factors of misleading information. It can be supportive of the outspread of fake data in various ways. In this term, the public will ignore or avoid information that contradicts the already existing mindset of society. They tend to follow conventional beliefs, and anything out of the box will be considered inappropriate and unauthentic regardless of its factual statistics (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009). Information seeking might implicate and pose serious threats that lead to information dissemination. This selective exposure theory mainly works by creating different sorts of filter bubbles. If not, then the Echo Chambers, where people are not ready to seek information out of specific boundaries. They only accept and convince the ideas with previous biases or approaches. Notions that are preconceived may sometimes be fabricated or belongs to misleading aspects (Guess et al., 2020). This behaviour is ubiquitous in specified communities with ideological or influential societal approaches. Such behaviour of the community became the crucial aspect that reinforced disinformation. Further, this theory is also considered supportive in perspective because it supports cognitive biases. In the analysis of cognitive biases, people only interpret information related to their pre-existing beliefs. If they get on fake news, but it corresponds to something prior information, they would readily accept it and consider it accurate without checking its reliability and evaluating its critical statistics (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). In this way, they became an unknown asset for outspreading misleading and inaccurate information.

In addition to all this, the algorithm of digital media platforms, along with a content recommendation, is also very amplifying in all these circumstances of selective audience exposure. These algorithms are responsible for showing only the content or news to the public based on their preference. Per their feedback, the audience needs more exposure and restricts this exposure to a diversified perspective (Bakshy, Messing, & Adamic, 2015). It signifies different consequences in which people willingly or unwillingly are exposed to information dissemination. Through this selective exposure, the public will discover valuable mechanisms explaining the dissemination activities and spread of false news. It expresses the fundamental approach of how people expose themselves to certain biased information and do not allow them to accept any other dynamics apart from their pre-existing ideas. However, such issues of selective exposure magnify the importance of media literacy, understanding, and promoting diversified information resources for authenticity and credibility. Various researchers have used this theory as a reference to support their points of thought. Likewise, Guess et al.’s (2019), analysis on the outspread of fake information. His research mainly confines the activities U.S. presidential election in 2016. The conclusion for the research bounds with the politically conservative people. These people were up to sharing disinformation during the election campaign to favour political biases. All these are the result of the Public's Selective Exposure. Similarly, Kim & Dennis, (2019) found that subjection to news sources of partisan was positively interlinked to the belief and sharing of fabricated news stories.

Modelling the Factors Affecting Fake News Sharing

Social media is used by people for various reasons, such as passing time, entertainment, seeking guidance, and staying in contact with their favourite celebrities. This demand has led to the swift dissemination of information beyond its original source. Additionally, various online influencers and filter bubbles are available that exaggerate the issue by influencing the mindset and approaches of the public by exposing the audience to diversified perspectives (Bakshy et al., 2015). This influence of approaches falls in the para-social interaction of the public with public figures. For example, Handarkho, (2020) noted that emotional connections are not limited to friends and family. They can also be formed with individuals who are acknowledged and appreciated as celebrities and idols. More specifically, parasocial interaction is the degree to which an individual develops an attachment to someone who acts as a mentor or role model for him (Tsai & Men, 2017). This interaction creates an impactful environment where the information, either true or false, seeks immediate attention and dominates peoples’ decision-making process. The factor of para-social interaction is gaining high-scale popularity these days. In this, the audience and public community create partial interactive relationships with all the socially acknowledgeable personalities, influencers and celebrities. It would ultimately add up to the layout of the fabricated contents. In para-social relationships, the audience has a sort of familiarity and attachment to publically social figures without any discrimination and the absence of a genuine interpersonal connection. Individuals who engage in para-social activity may be more interested in circulating the fabricated news aspects in society. Furthermore, the trust and credibility attributed to media figures can extend to the information they share, making individuals confident in resharing and posting the news facts and information without critically evaluating their accuracy (Vraga & Tully, 2019). Based on the past research mentioned above, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H1: Parasocial interaction on social media is significantly related to fake news sharing. 
One of the most authentic and relatable examples for the concerned research was during the pandemic 19, when not only wrong figures narrated about the affected people but also various conspiracies have been made to treat COVID-19. One such conspiracy theory linked the treatment of viruses with the 5G technology. This news about the vaccine opened out expeditiously on digital platforms (Pennycook et al., 2020). This example truly signifies how a news circulation without authentication can seriously harm or influence the treatment of danger and impact public reliance and confidence on digital platforms. Information uprightness is a significant need of every society, especially in times of crisis or any fuss. Its importance can be estimated during the COVID-19 era. Various unwed and inappropriate resources further exaggerated the accurate affected numbers. Similarly, "Pizzagate" is one of the most prevalent conspiracy theories in 2016. This theory stands by an allegation that the pizzeria was involved in child abuse or sexual activities along with a group of famous political leaders. This allegation circulated at full tilt on social media. This theory went viral during the Presidential elections, and many people took it as a blame game. Later on, the theory was investigated, but it highlights the significance and danger posed to society by inappropriate or authenticated information (Silverman & Alexander, 2016). The generality of this issue has only intensified in this technological time of society, as the latest advancements have facilitated the propagation of wrong beliefs. Therefore, this has gained imperative significance to gain a comprehensive understanding of the underlying motives for the circulation of fabricated information in order to accurately assess its current impact on society, thus, the following hypotheses have been developed for the study. 
H2: Information seeking is significantly related to fake news sharing. 
The need for information sharing also plays a crucial role in disseminating disinformation. In today's digital age, where information is readily accessible and shareable, individuals are often motivated to share news stories to demonstrate their knowledge, inform others, or contribute to ongoing discussions. However, the ease of sharing without proper verification can inadvertently become a remarkable source of false information. Meanwhile, the cognitive processes of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning tend to influence individuals' decisions to share fake news. Individuals may unconsciously select and proceed with content that aligns with the already available preferences. It ultimately reinforces the spread of misinformation (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). The following hypothesis is thus derived from the research: 
H3: Information sharing is significantly related to fake news sharing.
Similarly, status-seeking is a notable point often linked to the disinformation approaches in contemporary society. Additionally, to pursue social recognition and validation, individuals may engage in behaviours that enhance their social status, including sharing sensational or provocative news stories. Vosoughi and colleagues (2018), suggest that fake and fabricated news content appeals more than real stories on social sites. It can be partly related to the attention-seeking nature of individuals motivated to share news stories that generate high social interaction and validation. The desire to be perceived as well-informed or influential may lead to the propagation of fabricated content in the digital world of social networking (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Thus the desire to get social recognition leads to the subsequent hypothesis: 
H4: Status seeking is significantly related to fake news sharing
Engaging in a leisure activity known as passing time can provide a pleasant way to spend one's time, as opposed to engaging in laborious tasks. Simply put, pass time refers to the conduct of individuals who engage in an activity to combat boredom or because they have little to do. The motivation has also been investigated in research on fake news propagation. According to Pomerance (2022), there is a connection between past times and the distribution of fabricated content in COVID-19. Similarly, among a Nigerian sample authors found that different factors are contributing to fake scenarios including free time to pass, info sharing as well as seek and most importantly socialization (Shin, & Thorson, 2017). The role and influence of digital media platforms for entertainment and passing time are also considerably noticeable. Individuals often turn to social media to stay updated, be entertained, or alleviate boredom. Guess et al., (2018), suggest that individuals may be more likely to engage with and share sensationalized or emotionally charged news stories for entertainment. The allure of captivating narratives or provocative headlines can capture individuals' attention, leading to increased engagement and dissemination of fake news. The constant need for stimulation and entertainment on digital sites became the source for the outspread of disinformation in society. (Guess et al., 2018). The current study also proposed pass time as an important factor to share fake news.
H5: Pass time is significantly related to fake news sharing
Meanwhile, studies have established another idea for fake news: that it has content and reception dimensions, this framework offers a holistic approach to understanding fake news. It recognizes that fake news does not only refers to the content, however, it also involves the complicated interplay between it and how audiences receive and engage with it (Egelhofer & Lecheler, 2019). The study highlights the need for empirical studies, theoretical advancements, and methodological innovations to delve deeper into the multifaceted nature of fake news and emphasizes the significance of conducting rigorous research to advance the understanding of fake news, particularly through interdisciplinary collaboration (Egelhofer & Lecheler, 2019). Fear of missing out (FoMO) is therefore investigated as a psychological aspect in this regard. Fear of missing out (FoMO) is a type of social phobia in which an individual fears losing contact with his or her peers and social group. (Baumeister and Tice, 1990).  Simply put, FoMO is a perception of social isolation. FoMo is investigated as a deep-root mediator for the use of digital media and purposeful deep fake sharing (Ahmed, 2022), which leads to the formulation of the following hypothesis.
H6: Fear of missing out (FomO) is significantly related to fake news sharing
Scholars ratify that misinformation critically impacts society and related democratic activities. These are the miss leading information that mainly undermines the trust of the public in the media as well as weakens the strength and foundation of any democratic society (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Other than this, outspread of misleading information can be the source of various worldwide problematic situations that mainly include violence, instability in political conditions, and, most importantly, polarization. (Pennycook & Rand, 2019). As technology advances and online tools for verifying the authenticity of news become more available, it is important to understand these fake news factors, which is a growing research concern.

Methods and Measure

To calculate the factors affecting fake news sharing data was collected through the snowball sampling technique from a sample of 328 respondents. A self-administered questionnaire with all variables included was provided in person as well as online. To analyze the collected data and check how well the variables describe the dependent variable fake news sharing regression analysis was run employing SPSS software. To know if the proposed model fits the data well, R² was calculated. R² reveals what proportion of the variation in the data is explained by the model. The results are demonstrated in the tables below:




 

Regression Analysis

Table 1

Regression

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.747	.558	.550	1.85363
a. Predictors: (Constant), Parasocial, Info seeking, Info sharing, status-seeking, pass time, FoMO

 




Table 1 depicts the adjusted R square value of 0.550 which denotes that the predictor variables, Parasocial interaction, information seeking, information sharing status-seeking, pass time, and fear of missing out FoMO collectively contribute 55% variance in the outcome variable, fake news sharing. It demonstrates a strong correlation between the predictors and outcome variables




 

Table 2

ANOVA

Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	1380.962	6	230.160	66.986	<.001
	Residual	1092.631	318	3.436
	Total	2473.592	324
a. Dependent Variable: fake news sharing
b. Predictors: (Constant), parasocial interaction, Info seeking, Info sharing, status-seeking, pass time, FoMO The p-value in Table 2 is 0.001, which is less than 0.05, indicating that the independent variables Parasocial interaction, information seeking, information sharing, status-seeking, pass time, and fear of missing out FoMO have a significant relationship with the dependent variable fake news sharing.

 

Table 3

Coefficients

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	.266	.835		.318	.751
	Parasocial Interaction	.430	.039	.582	12.315	<.001
	Information seeking	.778	.061	.575	12.712	<.001
	Information Sharing	.181	.046	.199	3.926	<.001
	Status seeking	.433	.034	.586	12.715	<.001
	Pass time	.044	.027	.061	1.640	.102
	Fear of missing out	.063	.044	.056	1.419	.157
Dependent Variable: Fake news sharing

 




The coefficient results are shown in Table 3. The beta value and p-value (?= 0.582, p=.001) between the independent variable parasocial interaction and fake news sharing indicate that there is a strong association between the two variables. Similarly, the path coefficient (beta value and p-value) between Information seeking and fake news sharing (?= 0.575, p=.001), and between status-seeking and fake news sharing (?= 0.586, p=.001), also depict the robust relationship. A significant association (?= 0.199, p=.001), between information sharing and fake news sharing is also evident from the result. However, the ? and p values between pass time and fake news sharing (?= 0.061, p=.102) and between fear of missing out and fake news sharing (?= 0.056, p=.157), show a negligible relationship. Overall, it is proved that para-social interaction, Information seeking, Information sharing, and status-seeking, are strong predictors of fake news sharing.

Discussion

Hence, this dominant research proves that fake news critically impacts society and related democratic activities. These are the miss leading information that mainly undermines the trust of the public in the media as well as weakens the strength and foundation of any democratic society (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Other than this, outspread of misleading information can be the source of various worldwide problematic situations that mainly include violence, instability in political conditions, and, most importantly, polarization. (Pennycook & Rand, 2019). With each technological advancement, the escalating volume of fake news necessitates the identification of potential factors underlying the dissemination of fake news. Having this knowledge would make it feasible to prevent its dissemination. This study investigated a comprehensive list of these factors, including para-social interaction, Information seeking, Information sharing, status-seeking, pass time, and fear of missing out, Contributed a lot and extend the knowledge necessary to devise reliable methods for reducing the outspread of false information. 

The results strengthen the literature by providing para-social interaction, information seeking and status-seeking as the main motives behind fake news sharing (Apuke, & Omar, 2020). The results indicate that status-seeking is the most promising predictor for overcoming the problem of fake news sharing through acceptance of H4. Meaning thereby, the status-seeking factor demonstrates that people tend to share fake news when they want to appear up-to-date, and well-informed, or to inspire and encourage others by being ahead of the curve in acquiring knowledge. Similarly, the approval of H1 established a connection between para-social interaction and fake news sharing. The finding showed that individuals typically associate their ideas and beliefs with the information supplied by the people they admire and shared the news without verifying its authenticity through reputable sources. The results also supported the second hypothesis H2, revealing that the information-seeking factor is associated with the dissemination of fake news. Most of the fake news is shared not only to obtain feedback from other social media users but also to facilitate the exchange of fresh knowledge. The findings supported H3, which postulated a relationship between information sharing and fake news dissemination. Demonstrating that the motivation for distributing fake news and misleading material is a desire for information exchange, either to aid others in acquiring relevant news or to increase readability. However, the rejection of H5 and H6 concluded that passing time and fear of missing out are dominated by para-social interaction and status-seeking factors. 

In summary, the findings of this research demonstrate a robust and significant relationship between various independent variables and the dependent variable of fake news sharing. Specifically, factors such as para-social interaction, information seeking, information sharing, and status-seeking have emerged as influential determinants of individuals' engagement in the dissemination of fake news. These results highlight the significance of psychological and social factors in shaping the spread of misinformation in today's digitally connected world. On the other hand, passing time and fear of missing out was found to have negligible associations with fake news sharing, suggesting that these particular factors may play a less critical role in influencing individuals' propensity to share deceptive information. By shedding light on these distinct patterns of association, this study provides significant insights for governments, media organizations, and the general public in their efforts to combat fake news and disinformation and increase digital media literacy.  

References

• Ahmed, S. (2022). Disinformation Sharing Thrives with Fear of Missing Out among Low Cognitive News Users: A Cross-national Examination of Intentional Sharing of Deep Fakes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 66(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2022.2034826
• Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
• Apuke, O. D., & Omar, B. (2020). Modelling the antecedent factors that affect online fake news sharing on COVID-19: the moderating role of fake news knowledge. Health Education Research, 35(5), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyaa030
• Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: the correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619– 638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166
• Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2015). Is Habermas on Twitter?: Social media and the public sphere. In The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics (pp. 56-73). Routledge.
• Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
• Cheng, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). The social media logic of political misinformation. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(3), 332-348.
• Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55, 591-621.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson education.
• Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(3), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
• Egelhofer, J. L., & Lecheler, S. (2019). Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: a framework and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1602782
• Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Are news audiences increasingly fragmented? A Cross- National Comparative Analysis of Cross- Platform News Audience Fragmentation and Duplication. Journal of Communication, 67(4), 476–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12315
• Gelfert, A. (2018). Fake news: A definition. Informal logic, 38(1), 84-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i1.5068
• uess, A. M., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586
• Guess, A.M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. https://www.american.edu/spa/ccps/politics-of-truth/upload/nyhan-american.pdf
• Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature human behaviour, 4(5), 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41562-020-0833-x
• Handarkho, Y. D. (2020). Impact of social experience on customer purchase decision in the social commerce context. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 22(1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsit-05-2019-0088
• Hao, K., & Heaven, W. D. (2020). The year deepfakes went mainstream. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved, 4(25), 2021. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/2 4/1015380/best-ai-deepfakes-of-2020
• Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19- 39. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
• Kim, A., & Dennis, A. R. (2019). Says who? The effects of presentation format and source rating on fake news in social media. Mis quarterly, 43(3), 1025-1039. http://dx.doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/15188
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Johnson, B. K., & Westerwick, A. (2015). Confirmation bias. In The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1-11). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Larson, H., De Figueiredo, A., Zhao, X., Schulz, W., Verger, P., Johnston, I. G., Cook, A. R., & Jones, N. (2016). The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights through a 67-Country survey. EBioMedicine, 12, 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042
• Lazer, D., Baum, M., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23484653
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
• Maheshwari, S. (2016). How fake news goes viral: A case study. The New York Times, 20. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html
• Munson, S. A., & Resnick, P. (2010). Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1457- 1466). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753543
• Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303- 330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
• Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Collins, E. T., & Rand, D. G. (2020). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944-4957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
• Pennycook, G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(7), 2521-2526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806781116
• Shin, J., & Thorson, K. (2017). Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 233-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12284
• Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2017). Social CEOs: The effects of CEOs’ communication styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. New media & society, 19(11), 1848-1867. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444816643922
• Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
• Vraga, E. K., & Tully, M. (2019). “I Don't Trust Them”: The Influence of Para-Social Interaction and Source Cues on Fake News Perceptions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24(3), 107-124.
• Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking (Vol. 27, pp. 1-107). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c
• Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2018). Detection and resolution of rumours in social media: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(2), 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3161603