Cited by 212Misinformation and Its ImpactsIslamic Finance and CommunicationSpam and Phishing Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Seeing Is Believing: Is Video Modality More Powerful in Spreading Fake News via Online Messaging Apps?

Open access
Sundar, S Shyam, Molina, Maria D, Cho, Eugene·2021·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Abstract

Abstract False rumors on WhatsApp, the world’s largest messaging app, have led to mob lynching in India and other countries. Doctored videos sent over the platform have elicited visceral responses among users, resulting in the wrongful death of innocent people. Would the responses have been so strong if the false news were circulated in text or audio? Is video modality the reason for such powerful effects? We explored this question by comparing reactions to three false stories prepared in either text-only, audio-only, or video formats, among rural and urban users in India. Our findings reveal that video is processed more superficially, and therefore users believe in it more readily and share it with others. Aside from advancing our theoretical understanding of modality effects in the context of mobile media, our findings also hold practical implications for design of modality-based flagging of fake news, and literacy campaigns to inoculate users against misinformation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jcmc/zmab010

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Eagly, 1993, The psychology of attitudes
  2. Kumar, 2016, Comparison between rural and urban India: A critical analysis, International Journal of Current Research, 8, 43329

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 212

Metadata

Authors
Sundar, S. S., Molina, M. D., & Cho, E.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
  • The College of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Sundar, S Shyam
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Published
2021-08-01
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
301-319
ISSN
1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3188473680
Cited by
212
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 2
FWCI
34.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Pennsylvania State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Islamic Finance and Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
fake news, misinformation, WhatsApp, messaging apps, belief in misinformation, urban-rural differences, misinformation literacy

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