Cited by 198Misinformation and Its ImpactsCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactJournalism and Media Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 21 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Falling for Fake News: Investigating the Consumption of News via Social Media

Open access
Flintham, Martin, Karner, Christian, Bachour, Khaled, Creswick, Helen, Gupta, Neha, Moran, Stuart·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

In the so called 'post-truth' era, characterized by a loss of public trust in various institutions, and the rise of 'fake news' disseminated via the internet and social media, individuals may face uncertainty about the veracity of information available, whether it be satire or malicious hoax. We investigate attitudes to news delivered by social media, and subsequent verification strategies applied, or not applied, by individuals. A survey reveals that two thirds of respondents regularly consumed news via Facebook, and that one third had at some point come across fake news that they initially believed to be true. An analysis task involving news presented via Facebook reveals a diverse range of judgement forming strategies, with participants relying on personal judgements as to plausibility and scepticism around sources and journalistic style. This reflects a shift away from traditional methods of accessing the news, and highlights the difficulties in combating the spread of fake news.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper combines a UK survey and a think-aloud Facebook-feed study to examine how people consume news via social media and judge whether stories are fake. It finds that news consumption via Facebook is common, many have believed fake news before later recognizing it, and participants used varied, inconsistent strategies—source reputation, content plausibility, and personal interest—rather than a single verification method.

Key findings

  • Survey (309 UK respondents, May 2017): 65% accessed news via Facebook feeds at least once a day, but only 20% obtained “most” of their news via Facebook; 37% had believed a news story true then later realized it was exaggerated, inaccurate, or blatantly false; 46% had immediately identified an item as fake.
  • In the survey, 61% went through to read the full story; among those who read the article in full or part, only 55% believed the headline accurately matched the content.
  • The think-aloud study (9 participants, 13 news posts) found no single consistent strategy: participants judged veracity by source reliability (e.g., BBC/CNN trusted, unknown or satirical sources distrusted), content plausibility and prior knowledge, and journalistic style, author, and date.
  • Personal interest strongly shaped engagement: participants often ignored or scrolled past stories they found irrelevant, even when tasked to find fake news, and some deliberately sought out fake stories.

Methods

  • Descriptive online survey advertised via an online survey tool and snowballed from institutional mailing lists; 309 UK respondents completed it in May 2017 (41.1% male, 55.7% female; 70.4% aged 18–25; 71% students).
  • Think-aloud study with 9 participants (5 female, 4 male; aged 19–40, mean 27) browsing a fictitious Facebook account “Leo Porter” populated with 13 manually selected real and fake news posts; asked to “find the fake news” while thinking aloud, followed by semi-structured interviews.
  • Qualitative thematic analysis of transcripts and screen recordings; one researcher coded initially, themes were discussed, and a second researcher re-ran the data focusing on those themes.

Limitations

  • Stated: small sample, locality, and limited realism; participants browsed a created profile rather than their own Facebook, lacking familiar social context; the task slowed normal browsing pace; findings are not broadly generalizable.
  • Stated: UK-only survey/study context; future research is needed in wider, more naturalistic settings, ideally through audience ethnographies.
  • Evident from the text: survey recruitment via snowballing from institutional mailing lists and a predominantly student sample (71%) may bias the survey; the qualitative study’s n=9 further limits generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3173574.3173950

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

75 Own result · 23 Own interpretation · 13 Not checked yet · 8 No basis given · 6 Own method

Verify all 21 references — free account

Show all 75 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 25
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 33
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
50 of 50
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The fictitious Facebook account and news posts mirror the sort of news feed users encounter day to day.

    “We constructed a fictitious Facebook account belonging to 'Leo Porter' to mirror the sort of news feed that users might encounter day to day whilst using their own Facebook account.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants' think-aloud and interview responses reflect their everyday practices when engaging with news.

    “Our aim was to prompt participants to draw upon and elucidate their everyday practices when engaging with news in this manner.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 13 news posts selected are representative of real and fake news encountered on social media.

    “13 news posts were manually selected from among those reported in the survey as stories encountered by participants on social media.They were chosen to provide a mixture of real and fake news, including obviously mundane but also implausible real news, and fake news from a number of sources again following Rubin's [27] typology of satire, exaggeration and hoax, from the mundane to the unusual:”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The survey respondents are representative of social media news consumers.

    “Our survey results suggest that social media users are not only incidentally consuming news via sites such as Facebook, but they are aware of -and encountering -fake news, some of which is taken at face value.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Echo chambers exist and fake news can exacerbate their effects.

    “Our current discussion however is not about whether echo chambers are real or new, nor is it about how to address them.”
    “how fake news might have exacerbated the effects of those chambers”
5 of 5

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

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 10.5555/2857070.2857152 · DOI
  2. J.-F. Lyotard. 1990. The Postmoden Condition. Culture and Society. Contemporary Debates.
  3. Office for National Statistics. 2016. Internet users in the UK?: 2016. Statistical Bulletin: 1--9.
  4. 10.5555/2857070.2857153 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–198 of 198

Metadata

Authors
Flintham, M., Karner, C., Bachour, K., Creswick, H., Gupta, N., & Moran, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Lincoln (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-04-21
Pages
1-10
OpenAlex
W2789935117
Cited by
194
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 2
FWCI
57.16
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) (acceptedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Nottingham
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
Keywords
fake news, post-truth, social media news consumption, Facebook, verification strategies, misinformation, institutional trust, skepticism, source evaluation, journalistic style, belief formation, satire, hoaxes

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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