The facts of fake news: A research review
Abstract
This article offers a review of scholarly research on the phenomenon of fake news. Most studies have so far focused on three main themes: the definition and the scope of the problem; the potential causes; and the impact of proposed solutions. First, scholarly research has defined fake news as a form of falsehood intended to primarily deceive people by mimicking the look and feel of real news. While initial research has shown that only a small fraction of the online audience is exposed to fake news, for this small group of individuals, the impact of fake news can be quite substantial. Second, studies have identified cognitive processes that make individuals more prone to the influence of fake news, such as confirmation bias, selective exposure, and lack of analytical thinking. Fake news also derives its power from its appeal to partisanship, perceived novelty, and repeated exposure facilitated by both bots and human users that share them in the online sphere. Finally, while fact checking has also risen in response to fake news, studies have found that corrections to wrong information only work on some individuals.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Research has demonstrated fact-checking's efficacy in helping debunk fake news but also acknowledged that the labor-intensive nature made it challenging to scale.
“Research has demonstrated its efcacy in helping debunk fake news [19,102] but also acknowledged that the labor-intensive nature made it challenging to scale [71].”
From Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [102]
Corrections made by detection models are proven to help reduce people's belief in misinformation.
“Corrections made by detection models are proven to help reduce people's belief in misinformation [102].”
From Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [102]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 26 · Cited by 326
- Authors
- Tandoc, E. C.
- Affiliations
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Tandoc, Edson C.
- ORCID
- Tandoc, Edson C.
- Venue
- Sociology Compass
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-07-25
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 9
- ISSN
- 1751-9020 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2966382687
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 12
- FWCI
- 51.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Sociology Compass (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Tier 2 Fund (T2-1-042)
- Tier 1 Fund (T1-002-125-05)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Keywords
- fake news, misinformation, definition of fake news, confirmation bias, selective exposure, analytical thinking, partisanship, perceived novelty, bots, social media sharing, fact-checking
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