IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v31y2020i3p987-1006.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appealing to Sense and Sensibility: System 1 and System 2 Interventions for Fake News on Social Media

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia L. Moravec

    (Information, Risk, and Operations Management Department, McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78705)

  • Antino Kim

    (Operations and Decision Technologies Department, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Alan R. Dennis

    (Operations and Decision Technologies Department, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

Abstract

Disinformation on social media—commonly called “fake news”—has become a major concern around the world, and many fact-checking initiatives have been launched to mitigate the problem. The way fact-checking results are presented to social media users is important because if the presentation format is not persuasive, then fact-checking may not be effective. For instance, Facebook tested the idea of flagging dubious articles in 2017 but concluded that it was ineffective and subsequently removed the feature. We conducted three experiments with social media users to investigate two different approaches to implementing a fake news flag—one designed to have its primary effect when processed by automatic cognition (System 1) and the other designed to have its primary effect when processed by deliberate cognition (System 2). We found that both interventions were effective, and an intervention that combined both approaches was about twice as effective. We also found that awareness training on the meaning of the flags increased the effectiveness of the System 2 intervention but not the System 1 intervention, exactly as theory predicts. Believability, in turn, influenced the extent to which users would engage with the article (e.g., read, like, comment, and share). Our results suggest that both theoretical routes can be used—separately or together—in the presentation of fact-checking results in order to reduce the influence of fake news on the users.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia L. Moravec & Antino Kim & Alan R. Dennis, 2020. "Appealing to Sense and Sensibility: System 1 and System 2 Interventions for Fake News on Social Media," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 987-1006, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:31:y:2020:i:3:p:987-1006
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2020.0927
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2020.0927
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2020.0927?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Dezhi Yin & Sabyasachi Mitra & Han Zhang, 2016. "Research Note—When Do Consumers Value Positive vs. Negative Reviews? An Empirical Investigation of Confirmation Bias in Online Word of Mouth," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 131-144, March.
    3. Xinxin Li & Lorin M. Hitt, 2008. "Self-Selection and Information Role of Online Product Reviews," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 456-474, December.
    4. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    5. Kietzmann, Jan H. & Hermkens, Kristopher & McCarthy, Ian P. & Silvestre, Bruno S., 2011. "Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 241-251, May.
    6. John D'Arcy & Anat Hovav & Dennis Galletta, 2009. "User Awareness of Security Countermeasures and Its Impact on Information Systems Misuse: A Deterrence Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 79-98, March.
    7. Bence Bago & Wim De Neys, 2017. "Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory," Post-Print hal-03510054, HAL.
    8. Detmar W. Straub, 1990. "Effective IS Security: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 255-276, September.
    9. Theodoros Lappas & Gaurav Sabnis & Georgios Valkanas, 2016. "The Impact of Fake Reviews on Online Visibility: A Vulnerability Assessment of the Hotel Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 940-961, December.
    10. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 211-236, Spring.
    11. Yi-Chun (Chad) Ho & Junjie Wu & Yong Tan, 2017. "Disconfirmation Effect on Online Rating Behavior: A Structural Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 626-642, September.
    12. JaeHong Park & Prabhudev Konana & Bin Gu & Alok Kumar & Rajagopal Raghunathan, 2013. "Information Valuation and Confirmation Bias in Virtual Communities: Evidence from Stock Message Boards," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1050-1067, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gupta, Ashish & Li, Han & Farnoush, Alireza & Jiang, Wenting, 2022. "Understanding patterns of COVID infodemic: A systematic and pragmatic approach to curb fake news," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 670-683.
    2. Eric K. Clemons & Ravi V. Waran & Sebastian Hermes & Maximilian Schreieck & Helmut Krcmar, 2022. "Computing and Social Welfare," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 417-436, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patricia L. Moravec & Antino Kim & Alan R. Dennis & Randall K. Minas, 2022. "Do You Really Know if It’s True? How Asking Users to Rate Stories Affects Belief in Fake News on Social Media," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 887-907, September.
    2. Cheng Zhao & Chong Alex Wang, 2023. "A cross-site comparison of online review manipulation using Benford’s law," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 365-406, March.
    3. Bizzi, Lorenzo & Labban, Alice, 2019. "The double-edged impact of social media on online trading: Opportunities, threats, and recommendations for organizations," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 509-519.
    4. Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Laato, Samuli & Talukder, Shamim & Sutinen, Erkki, 2020. "Misinformation sharing and social media fatigue during COVID-19: An affordance and cognitive load perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    5. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Steffen Zimmermann & Dennis Kundisch & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Design of Review Systems - A Strategic Instrument to shape Online Review Behavior and Economic Outcomes," Working Papers Dissertations 42, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    6. Baccarella, Christian V. & Wagner, Timm F. & Kietzmann, Jan H. & McCarthy, Ian P., 2018. "Social media? It's serious! Understanding the dark side of social media," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 431-438.
    7. Qian Wang & Michael Chau & Chih-Hung Peng & Eric W. T. Ngai, 2022. "Using the Anchoring Effect and the Cultural Dimensions Theory to Study Customers’ Online Rating Behaviors," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1451-1463, October.
    8. Hongpeng Wang & Rong Du & Jin Li & Weiguo Fan, 2020. "Subdivided or aggregated online review systems: Which is better for online takeaway vendors?," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 915-944, December.
    9. Marios Kokkodis & Theodoros Lappas, 2020. "Your Hometown Matters: Popularity-Difference Bias in Online Reputation Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 412-430, June.
    10. Sands, Sean & Campbell, Colin & Ferraro, Carla & Mavrommatis, Alexis, 2020. "Seeing light in the dark: Investigating the dark side of social media and user response strategies," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 45-53.
    11. Jake Hoskins & Shyam Gopinath & J. Cameron Verhaal & Elham Yazdani, 2021. "The influence of the online community, professional critics, and location similarity on review ratings for niche and mainstream brands," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1065-1087, November.
    12. Yipu Deng & Jinyang Zheng & Warut Khern-am-nuai & Karthik Kannan, 2022. "More than the Quantity: The Value of Editorial Reviews for a User-Generated Content Platform," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6865-6888, September.
    13. Warut Khern-am-nuai & Karthik Kannan & Hossein Ghasemkhani, 2018. "Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Rewards for Contributing Reviews in an Online Platform," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 871-892, December.
    14. Jordi Paniagua & Rafael Rivelles & Juan Sapena, 2019. "Social Determinants of Success: Social Media, Corporate Governance and Revenue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Wei Chen & Bin Gu & Qiang Ye & Kevin Xiaoguo Zhu, 2019. "Measuring and Managing the Externality of Managerial Responses to Online Customer Reviews," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 81-96, March.
    16. Julia Cage & Nicolas Hervé & Marie-Luce Viaud, 2017. "The Production of Information in an Online World: Is Copy Right?," Working Papers hal-03393171, HAL.
    17. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    18. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    19. Dean Neu & Gregory D. Saxton & Abu S. Rahaman, 2022. "Social Accountability, Ethics, and the Occupy Wall Street Protests," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 17-31, September.
    20. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:31:y:2020:i:3:p:987-1006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.