IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v76y2024ics0160791x2300249x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do we not stand up to misinformation? Factors influencing the likelihood of challenging misinformation on social media and the role of demographics

Author

Listed:
  • Gurgun, Selin
  • Cemiloglu, Deniz
  • Close, Emily Arden
  • Phalp, Keith
  • Nakov, Preslav
  • Ali, Raian

Abstract

This study investigates the barriers to challenging others who post misinformation on social media platforms. We conducted a survey amongst U.K. Facebook users (143 (57.2 %) women, 104 (41.6 %) men) to assess the extent to which the barriers to correcting others, as identified in literature across disciplines, apply to correcting misinformation on social media. We also group the barriers into factors and explore demographic differences amongst them. It has been suggested that users are generally hesitant to challenge misinformation. We found that most of our participants (58.8 %) were reluctant to challenge misinformation. We also identified moderating roles of age and gender in the likelihood of challenging misinformation. Older people were more likely to challenge misinformation compared to young adults while, men demonstrated a slightly greater likelihood to challenge compared to women. The 20 barriers influencing the decision to challenge misinformation, were then grouped into four main factors: social concerns, effort/interest considerations, prosocial intents, and content-related factors. We found that, controlling for age and gender, “social concerns” and “effort/interest considerations” have the significant impact on likelihood to challenge. Identified four factors were analysed in terms of demographic differences. Men ranked “effort/interest considerations” higher than women, while women placed higher importance on “content-related factors”. Moreover, older individuals were found to be more resilient to “social concerns”. The influence of educational background was most prominent in ranking “content-related factors”. Our findings provide important insights for the design of future interventions aimed at encouraging the challenging of misinformation on social media platforms, highlighting the need for tailored, demographically sensitive approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Gurgun, Selin & Cemiloglu, Deniz & Close, Emily Arden & Phalp, Keith & Nakov, Preslav & Ali, Raian, 2024. "Why do we not stand up to misinformation? Factors influencing the likelihood of challenging misinformation on social media and the role of demographics," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:76:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x2300249x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X2300249X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102444?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Morris, Michael G. & Ackerman, Phillip L., 2000. "A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision-Making Processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 33-60, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vishal K. Gupta & Suman Niranjan & Banu A. Goktan & John Eriskon, 2016. "Individual entrepreneurial orientation role in shaping reactions to new technologies," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 935-961, December.
    2. Cowan, Kelly R. & Daim, Tugrul U., 2011. "Review of technology acquisition and adoption research in the energy sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 183-199.
    3. Li-Su Huang & Cheng-Po Lai, 2014. "Knowledge Management Adoption And Diffusion Using Structural Equation Modeling," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 8(1), pages 39-56.
    4. Sara Cannizzaro & Rob Procter & Sinong Ma & Carsten Maple, 2020. "Trust in the smart home: Findings from a nationally representative survey in the UK," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-30, May.
    5. Woersdorfer, Julia Sophie & Kaus, Wolfhard, 2011. "Will nonowners follow pioneer consumers in the adoption of solar thermal systems? Empirical evidence for northwestern Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2282-2291.
    6. Renata Benigna Gonçalves & Júlio César Bastos Figueiredo, 2022. "Effects of perceived risks and benefits in the formation of the consumption privacy paradox: a study of the use of wearables in people practicing physical activities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1485-1499, September.
    7. Dileep Kumar M & Harvi S, 2014. "Malaysian Y Generation Consumer Research: Does Gender and Technology Literacy affirmative towards E-commerce activities?," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 6(12), pages 906-918.
    8. Md Shamimul Islam & Noorliza Karia & Mohamed Soliman Mohamed Soliman & Mahmudul Hasan Fouji & Jamshed Khalid & Muhammad Khaleel, 2017. "Adoption of Mobile Banking in Bangladesh: A Conceptual Framework," Review of Social Sciences, LAR Center Press, vol. 2(8), pages 1-8, August.
    9. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    10. Simone Mueller & Larry Lockshin & Jordan Louviere, 2010. "What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 335-350, December.
    11. Chen Yang & Jing Hu, 2022. "When do consumers prefer AI-enabled customer service? The interaction effect of brand personality and service provision type on brand attitudes and purchase intentions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(2), pages 167-189, March.
    12. Cavalcanti, Carina & Fleming, Christopher & Leibbrandt, Andreas, 2022. "Risk externalities and gender: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 51-64.
    13. Liu, Chuang-Chun, 2016. "Understanding player behavior in online games: The role of gender," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 265-274.
    14. Banik, Shanta & Gao, Yongqiang, 2023. "Exploring the hedonic factors affecting customer experiences in phygital retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    15. Hamid Reza Khedmatgozar, 2021. "The impact of perceived risks on internet banking adoption in Iran: a longitudinal survey," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 147-167, March.
    16. Phan, Thi Nha Truc & Bertrand, Philippe & Vo, Xuan Vinh & Jones, Kirsten, 2023. "Investigating financial decision-making when facing skewed distributions of return: A survey study in Vietnam," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 318-329.
    17. Abhishek Parikh & Jayesh D. Patel & Anand Kumar Jaiswal, 2021. "Managing job applications online: integrating website informativeness and compatibility in theory of planned behaviour and technology acceptance model," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 48(1), pages 97-113, March.
    18. Selim Raihan & Mahtab Uddin & Sakil Ahmmed, 2021. "Dynamics of Youth and Gender Divide in Technology in Bangladesh," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 22(2), pages 205-232, September.
    19. Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & Ashutosh Patil, 2006. "Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1865-1883, December.
    20. Zhang, Lixuan & Yencha, Christopher, 2022. "Examining perceptions towards hiring algorithms," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).

    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:eee:teinso:v:76:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x2300249x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.