The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceived social presence reduces fact-checking
Open accessAbstract
Significance: The dissemination of unverified content (e.g., “fake” news) is a societal problem with influence that can acquire tremendous reach when propagated through social networks. This article examines how evaluating information in a social context affects fact-checking behavior. Across eight experiments, people fact-checked less often when they evaluated claims in a collective (e.g., group or social media) compared with an individual setting. Inducing momentary vigilance increased the rate of fact-checking. These findings advance our understanding of whether and when people scrutinize information in social environments. In an era of rapid information diffusion, identifying the conditions under which people are less likely to verify the content that they consume is both conceptually important and practically relevant.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822 · cited 1×
“Note that we distinguish between verification and belief because one’s tendency to fact-check a claim can be independent of how true one perceives that claim to be, the latter of which may often be influenced by factors like source credibility (17) and compatibility with existing worldviews (confirmation bias) (18).”
BackgroundConfirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · Cited by 7,267
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767
What Makes Online Content Viral?
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353 · Cited by 3,178 · cited 1×
“In reality, a variety of forces likely contribute toward the latter, including confirmation bias, the tendency to persist in one’s views despite evidential discrediting, and the allure of sharing controversial or emotionally arousing stimuli (28, 29).”
BackgroundSocial Facilitation: A solution is suggested for an old unresolved social psychological problem.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.149.3681.269 · Cited by 2,951
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
The psychology of social impact
Latané, B. (1981) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.4.343 · Cited by 2,864
Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822 · Cited by 2,216
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, Ö. N., & Taylor, A. M. (2001) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.27 · Cited by 1,516
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The future of social media in marketing
Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00695-1 · Cited by 1,893
“Recent research has shown that in a perceived social setting, such as social media, participants were less likely to fact-check information (Jun et al. 2017), and avoided information that didn’t fit well with their intuition (Woolley and Risen 2018).”
BackgroundThe spread of low-credibility content by social bots
Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Varol, O., Yang, K.-C., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7 · Cited by 1,125
The spread of low-credibility content by social bots
Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Varol, O., Yang, K.-C., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2018) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 574
Arming the public with artificial intelligence to counter social bots
Yang, K., Varol, O., Davis, C. A., Ferrara, E., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2019) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.115 · Cited by 419
“While more traditional nefarious entities, like malware, attack vulnerabilities of hardware and software, social bots exploit human vulnerabilities, such as our tendencies to pay attention to what appears to be popular and to trust social contacts (Jun et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSocial Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Jun, Y., Meng, R., & Johar, G. V.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2017-05-22
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 5976-5981
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC5468680
- OpenAlex
- W2619683052
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 39.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- ACR North American Advances
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Keywords
- perceived social presence, fact-checking, social media, sustained attention, information evaluation, social evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Research, Social Perception, Internet, Information Dissemination, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
