CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 102Misinformation and Its ImpactsComplex Network Analysis TechniquesSpam and Phishing Detection

Misinformation on Instagram: The Impact of Trusted Endorsements on Message Credibility

Open access
Mena, Paul, Barbe, Danielle, Chan-Olmsted, Sylvia·2020·Social Media + Society
DOI 10.1177/2056305120935102
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This research explores how social validation, measured through trusted endorsements and bandwagon heuristics, influence the credibility of misinformation on Instagram. Using experimental design, this study found that trusted endorsements (i.e., the liking of content by a trustworthy or reputable source) significantly impacted the credibility of misleading content on Instagram. Perceived message credibility was greater when a fabricated post was endorsed by a trustworthy personality. Findings provide insights into how message credibility is evaluated on a social media platform like Instagram in the context of misinformation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2056305120935102

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Celebrity endorsements and influencer status can significantly increase the perceived credibility of fake news or misinformation, even when the content itself is misleading.

    “There is no evidence behind the intentions of Donald Trump, but there is solid scientific evidence showing that celebrity endorsements and influencer status can significantly increase the perceived credibility of fake news or misinformation, even when the content itself is misleading (Mena et al., 2020).”

    From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Mena et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 102

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Appelman, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Measuring message cred- ibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057 · DOI
  2. Bakhshi, S., Shamma, D. A., & Gilbert, E. (2014). Faces engage us: Photos with faces attract more likes and comments on Instagram. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 965-974). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557403 · DOI
  3. Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories func- tionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619-638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166 · DOI
  4. Braun, K. A., & Loftus, E. (1998). Advertising's misinformation effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(6), 569-591. https:// doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(1998120)12:6<569::AID- ACP539>3.0.CO;2-E Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high- quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Callahan, K., Henson, R. K., & Cowan, A. K. (2008). Social valida- tion of evidence-based practices in autism by parents, teach- ers, and administrators. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(4), 678-692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803- 007-0434-9 · DOI
  6. Cunningham, N., & Bright, L. F. (2012). The Tweet is in your court: Measuring attitude towards athlete endorsements in social media. International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 4(2), 73-87.
  7. Del Giudice, K. (2010). Crowdsourcing credibility: The impact of audience feedback on Web page credibility. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(59), 1-9.
  8. Fraser, B. P., & Brown, W. J. (2002). Media, celebrities, and social influence: Identification with Elvis Presley. Mass Communication and Society, 5(2), 183-206. https://doi. org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0502_5 · DOI
  9. Gruzd, A., Lannigan, J., & Quigley, K. (2018). Examining govern- ment cross-platform engagement in social media: Instagram vs Twitter and the big lift project. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 579-587.
  10. Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., Rice, L. M., & Roberts, N. (2013). Social influence online: The impact of social validation and likability on compliance. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 51-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030592 · DOI
  11. Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2016). Instagrammatics and digi- tal methods: Studying visual social media, from selfies and GIFs to memes and emoji. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.20 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 1155332 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Hwang, S. (2013). The effect of Twitter use on politicians' cred- ibility and attitudes toward politicians. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(3), 246-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 062726X.2013.788445 · DOI
  14. Jessen, J., & Jørgensen, A. H. (2011). Aggregated trustworthiness: Redefining online credibility through social validation. First Monday, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i1.3731 · DOI
  15. Lederman, R., Fan, H., Smith, S., & Chang, S. (2014). Who can you trust? Credibility assessment in online health forums. Health Policy and Technology, 3(1), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hlpt.2013.11.003 · DOI
  16. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond mis- information: Understanding and coping with the "post-truth" era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353-369.
  17. Lin, T. M., Lu, K. Y., & Wu, J. J. (2012). The effects of visual information in eWOM communication. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(1), 7-26. https://doi. org/10.1108/17505931211241341 · DOI
  18. Linares, L. I. R., & Muñoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical foundations, applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 2(1), 12-33.
  19. Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affili- ation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042-1063.
  20. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heu- ristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(Part B), 210-220. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01191156 · DOI
  22. Seltzer, E. K., Horst-Martz, E., Lu, M., & Merchant, R. M. (2017). Public sentiment and discourse about Zika virus on Instagram. Public Health, 150, 170-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. puhe.2017.07.015 · DOI
  23. Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G., & Kuntaraporn, M. (2006). Online word-of- mouth (or mouse): An exploration of its antecedents and conse- quences. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(4), 1104-1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00310.x · DOI
  24. Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and cred- ibility (pp. 73-100). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/ dmal.9780262562324.073 · DOI
  25. Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). Defining "fake news." Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137-153. https://doi.org/10. 1080/21670811.2017.1360143 · DOI
  26. Trifiro, B. M., & Gerson, J. (2019). Social media usage patterns: Research note regarding the lack of universal validated measures for active and passive use. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 205630511984874. https://doi.org/10.1177/205630511 9848743 · DOI
  27. Van Der Heide, B., & Lim, Y. S. (2016). On the conditional cueing of credibility heuristics: The case of online influ- ence. Communication Research, 43(5), 672-693. https://doi. org/10.1177/0093650214565915 · DOI
  28. Van der Veen, R., & Song, H. (2014). Impact of the perceived image of celebrity endorsers on tourists' intentions to visit. Journal of Travel Research, 53(2), 211-224. https://doi. org/10.1177/0047287513496473 · DOI
  29. Vosoughi, S., Mohsenvand, M. N., & Roy, D. (2017). Rumor gauge: Predicting the veracity of rumors on Twitter. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 11(4), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3070644 · DOI
  30. Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cogni- tive authority (Reprint ed.). Praeger.
  31. Zhang, A. X., Ranganathan, A., Metz, S. E., Appling, S., Sehat, C. M., Gilmore, N., & Vincent, E. (2018, April). A struc- tured response to misinformation: Defining and annotating credibility indicators in news articles [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on World Wide Web: Journalism, Misinformation, and Fact Checking Track (WWW '18 Companion), Lyon, France.

Authors
Mena, P., Barbe, D., & Chan-Olmsted, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of Florida, USA
Corresponding author
Mena, Paul
ORCID
Venue
Social Media + Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-04
Volume
6
Issue
2
ISSN
2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/2056305120935102
OpenAlex
W3037097658
Cited by
102
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15
FWCI
20.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
misinformation, Instagram, message credibility, social validation, bandwagon effect, social media influence, user-generated content

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