CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Digital Marketing and Social MediaMisinformation and Its ImpactsDigital Media and Philosophy

Click me…! The influence of clickbait on user engagement in social media and the role of digital nudging

Open access
Jung, Anna-Katharina, Stieglitz, Stefan, Kissmer, Tobias, Mirbabaie, Milad, Kroll, Tobias·2022·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0266743PMC PMC9242456
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Clickbait to make people click on a linked article is commonly used on social media. We analyze the impact of clickbait on user interaction on Facebook in the form of liking, sharing and commenting. For this, we use a data set of more than 4,400 Facebook posts from 10 different news sources to analyze how clickbait in post headlines and in post text influences user engagement. The results of our study revealed that certain features (e.g., unusual punctuation and common clickbait phrases) increase user interaction, whereas others decrease engagement with Facebook posts. We further use our results to discuss the potential role of digital nudging in the context of clickbait. Our results contribute to understanding and making use of the effect of different framings in social media.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0266743

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Some clickbait features can increase user interaction, and sensational features can be associated with engagement on social platforms.

    “It also aligns with research showing that some clickbait features can increase user interaction (Jung et al., 2022;Kuiken et al., 2017) and that sensational features can be associated with engagement on social platforms (Khawar & Boukes, 2025).”

    From Sensational Headlines, Engagement, and Credibility in Nepal’s Online News (2025) · cites this paper as Jung et al., 2022

  • Studies of clickbait and sensationalism suggest that some headline features can increase user interaction, but the effect is uneven, context-dependent, and often accompanied by reputational risk.

    “Studies of clickbait and sensationalism suggest that some headline features can increase user interaction, but the effect is uneven, context-dependent, and often accompanied by reputational risk (Jácobo-Morales, & Marino-Jiménez, 2024;Jung et al., 2022;Khawar & Boukes, 2025;Kuiken et al., 2017).”

    From Sensational Headlines, Engagement, and Credibility in Nepal’s Online News (2025) · cites this paper as Jung et al., 2022

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. [1]Newman N, Fletcher R, Levy DAL, Nielsen RK. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. 2016.
  2. [2]Camarero C, Garrido M-J, San Jose R. What Works in Facebook Content Versus Relational Communication: A Study of their Effectiveness in the Context of Museums. Int J Human–Computer Interact. 2018; 34: 1119– 1134. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2017.1418475 · DOI
  3. [3]Lowenstein-Barkai H, Lev-On A. Complementing or Substituting? News in an Era of Multiple Platforms and Second Screens. Int J Human–Computer Interact. 2018; 34: 922– 931. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2018.1471571 · DOI
  4. [4]Müller P, Schneiders P, Schäfer S. Appetizer or main dish? Explaining the use of Facebook news posts as a substitute for other news sources. Comput Human Behav. 2016; 65: 431– 441. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.003 · DOI
  5. [5]Roberts JA, David ME. The Social Media Party: Fear of Missing Out (FoMO), Social Media Intensity, Connection, and Well-Being. Int J Human–Computer Interact. 2020; 36: 386– 392. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2019.1646517 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [6]Hansen PG, Jespersen AM. Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy. Eur J Risk Regul. 2013; 4: 3– 28. doi: 10.1017/s1867299x00002762 · DOI
  7. [7]Kahai SS, Lei Y. Building social capital with Facebook: Type of network, availability of other media, and social self-efficacy matter#. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2019; 130: 113– 129. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.013 · DOI
  8. [9]Ju A, Jeong SH, Chyi HI. Will Social Media Save Newspapers? Journal Pract. 2014; 8: 1– 17. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2013.794022 · DOI
  9. [10]Nuaim A Al, Yim D, Khuntia J. Subjectivity and online news sharing. AMCIS 2017—America’s Conference on Information Systems: A Tradition of Innovation. Boston, USA; 2017.
  10. [11]Potthast M, Köpsel S, Stein B, Hagen M. Clickbait Detection. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 2016. pp. 810– 817. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30671-1_72 · DOI
  11. [12]Pengnate S. Measuring emotional arousal in clickbait: Eye-tracking approach. AMCIS 2016: Surfing the IT Innovation Wave - 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems. 2016. pp. 1– 9.
  12. [13]Felle T. Digital watchdogs? Data reporting and the news media’s traditional ‘fourth estate’ function. Journal Theory, Pract Crit. 2016; 17: 85– 96. doi: 10.1177/1464884915593246 · DOI
  13. [14]Nai A. The fourth estate. Election Watchdogs: Transparency, Accountability and Integrity. 2017. pp. 191– 210. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190677800.003.0010 · DOI
  14. [15]Bakir V, McStay A. Fake News and The Economy of Emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digit Journal. 2018; 6: 154– 175. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645 · DOI
  15. [16]Richardson N. Fake News and Journalism Education. Asia Pacific Media Educator. 2017. pp. 1– 9. doi: 10.1177/1326365X17702268 · DOI
  16. [17]Rubin VL, Chen Y, Conroy NJ. Deception detection for news: Three types of fakes. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015; 52: 1– 4. doi: 10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010083 · DOI
  17. [18]Kalsnes B, Larsson AO. Understanding News Sharing Across Social Media: Detailing distribution on Facebook and Twitter. Journalism Studies. 2017: 1– 20. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2017.1297686 · DOI
  18. [19]Stokowiec W, Trzciński T, Wołk K, Marasek K, Rokita P. Shallow reading with deep learning: Predicting popularity of online content using only its title. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 2017. pp. 136– 145. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60438-1_14 · DOI
  19. [20]Otto L, Glogger I, Boukes M. The Softening of Journalistic Political Communication: A Comprehensive Framework Model of Sensationalism, Soft News, Infotainment, and Tabloidization. Commun Theory. 2017; 27: 136– 155. doi: 10.1111/comt.12102 · DOI
  20. [21]Uddin Rony MM, Hassan N, Yousuf M. Diving deep into clickbaits: Who use them to what extents in which topics with what effects? Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, ASONAM 2017. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2017. pp. 232– 239. doi: 10.1145/3110025.3110054 · DOI
  21. [24]Cotter C. SPJ Code of Ethics. In: News Talk. 2012 pp. 251– 251. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511811975.016 · DOI
  22. [25]Molyneux L, Coddington M. Aggregation, Clickbait and Their Effect on Perceptions of Journalistic Credibility and Quality. Journal Pract. 2020; 14: 429– 446. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2019.1628658 · DOI
  23. [27]Lu H, Zhang M, Ma S. Between clicks and satisfaction: Study on multi-phase user preferences and satisfaction for online news reading. 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2018. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2018. pp. 435– 444. doi: 10.1145/3209978.3210007 · DOI
  24. [28]Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge. Int’l. London, GB: Penguin Books; 2009.
  25. [29]Weinmann M, Schneider C, vom Brocke J. Digital Nudging. Bus Inf Syst Eng. 2016; 58: 433– 436. doi: 10.1007/s12599-016-0453-1 · DOI
  26. [30]Vargheese JP, Sripada S, Masthoff J, Oren N. Persuasive Strategies for Encouraging Social Interaction for Older Adults. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2016; 32: 190– 214. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2016.1136176 · DOI
  27. [31]Rudat A, Buder J, Hesse FW. Audience design in Twitter: Retweeting behavior between informational value and followers’ interests. Comput Human Behav. 2014; 35: 132– 139. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.006 · DOI
  28. [32]Deuze M, Bruns A, Neuberger C. Preparing for an age of participatory news. Journal Pract. 2007; 1: 322– 338. doi: 10.1080/17512780701504864 · DOI
  29. [33]Leonhard L, Karnowski V, Kümpel AS. Online and (the feeling of being) informed: Online news usage patterns and their relation to subjective and objective political knowledge. Comput Human Behav. 2020; 103: 181– 189. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.008 · DOI
  30. [34]Glenberg AM, Wilkinson AC, Epstein W. The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Mem Cognit. 1982; 10: 597– 602. doi: 10.3758/BF03202442 · DOI
  31. [35]Pearson GD, Knobloch-Westerwick S. Perusing pages and skimming screens: Exploring differing patterns of selective exposure to hard news and professional sources in online and print news. New Media Soc. 2018; 20: 3580– 3596. doi: 10.1177/1461444818755565 · DOI
  32. [36]Hermida A, Lewis SC, Zamith R. Sourcing the Arab Spring: A Case Study of Andy Carvin’s Sources on Twitter During the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions. J Comput Commun. 2014; 19: 479– 499. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12074 · DOI
  33. [37]Khare P, Torres P, Heravi BR. What Just Happened? A Framework for Social Event Detection and Contextualisation. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE; 2015. pp. 1565– 1574. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.190 · DOI
  34. [38]Tandoc EC. Journalism is twerking? How web analytics is changing the process of gatekeeping. New Media Soc. 2014; 16: 559– 575. doi: 10.1177/1461444814530541 · DOI
  35. [39]Hanusch F, Tandoc EC. Comments, analytics, and social media: The impact of audience feedback on journalists’ market orientation. Journal Theory, Pract Crit. 2017; 146488491772030. doi: 10.1177/1464884917720305 · DOI
  36. [40]Chen Y, Conroy NJ, Rubin VL. Misleading online content: Recognizing clickbait as “false news.” WMDD 2015—Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Multimodal Deception Detection, co-located with ICMI 2015. 2015. pp. 15– 19. doi: 10.1145/2823465.2823467 · DOI
  37. [42]Willis J. The mind of a journalist: How reporters view themselves, their world, and their craft. The Mind of a Journalist: How Reporters View Themselves, Their World, and Their Craft. 2010. doi: 10.4135/9781452274911 · DOI
  38. [43]Johnson TJ, Kaye BK. Webelievability: A path model examining how convenience and reliance predict online credibility. Journal Mass Commun Q. 2002; 79: 619– 642. doi: 10.1177/107769900207900306 · DOI
  39. [44]Cable J, Mottershead G. “Can I click it? Yes you can”: Football journalism, Twitter, and clickbait. Ethical Sp Int J Commun Ethics. 2018; 15: 69– 80.
  40. [45]Fico F, Richardson JD, Edwards SM. Influence of Story Structure on Perceived Story Bias and News Organization Credibility. Mass Commun Soc. 2004; 7: 301– 318. doi: 10.1207/s15327825mcs0703_3 · DOI
  41. [46]García Orosa B, Gallur Santorun S, López García X. El uso del clickbait en cibermedios de los 28 países de la Unión Europea. Rev Lat Comun Soc. 2017; 72: 1261– 1277. doi: 10.4185/RLCS-2017-1218 · DOI
  42. [47]Lischka JA, Garz M. Clickbait news and algorithmic curation: A game theory framework of the relation between journalism, users, and platforms. New Media Soc. 2021 [cited 9 Jan 2022]. doi: 10.1177/14614448211027174 · DOI
  43. [48]Palau-Sampio D. Reference press metamorphosis in the digital context: clickbait and tabloid strategies in Elpais.com. Commun Soc. 2016; 29: 63– 79. doi: 10.15581/003.29.2.63–79 · DOI
  44. [49]Blom JN, Hansen KR. Click bait: Forward-reference as lure in online news headlines. J Pragmat. 2015; 76: 87– 100. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.010 · DOI · Paper page
  45. [50]Lefkowitz J. “Tabloidization” or Dual-Convergence: Quoted speech in tabloid and “quality” British newspapers 1970–2010. Journal Stud. 2018; 19: 353– 375. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2016.1190662 · DOI
  46. [51]Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Chang EP, Pillai R. The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2014; 20: 323– 335. doi: 10.1037/xap0000028 25347407 · DOI
  47. [52]Kuiken J, Schuth A, Spitters M, Marx M. Effective Headlines of Newspaper Articles in a Digital Environment. Digit Journal. 2017; 5: 1300– 1314. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1279978 · DOI · Paper page
  48. [53]Scacco JM, Muddiman A. The curiosity effect: Information seeking in the contemporary news environment. New Media Soc. 2019. doi: 10.1177/1461444819863408 · DOI
  49. [54]Shostak GI, Gillespie D. Communicative Tactics of Creating Headlines in British Newspapers. Procedia—Soc Behav Sci. 2014; 154: 276– 279. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.151 · DOI
  50. [56]Molek-Kozakowska K. Towards a pragma-linguistic framework for the study of sensationalism in news headlines. Discourse Commun. 2013; 7: 173– 197. doi: 10.1177/1750481312471668 · DOI · Paper page
  51. [57]Biyani P, Tsioutsiouliklis K, Blackmer J. “8 Amazing Secrets for Getting More Clicks”: Detecting Clickbaits in News Streams Using Article Informality Clickbait classification. Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artifical Intelligence (AAAI-16). 2016. pp. 94– 100.
  52. [58]Chakraborty A, Paranjape B, Kakarla S, Ganguly N. Stop Clickbait: Detecting and preventing clickbaits in online news media. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). 2016. pp. 9– 16. doi: 10.1109/ASONAM.2016.7752207 · DOI · Paper page
  53. [59]Petty R., Cacioppo J. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1986; 19: 123– 205. doi: 10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.309 · DOI
  54. [60]Meske C, Potthoff T. The DINU-Model–A Process Model for the Design of Nudges. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Guimarães, Portugal; 2017. pp. 2587– 2597.
  55. [61]Spagnolli A, Chittaro L, Gamberini L. Interactive Persuasive Systems: A Perspective on Theory and Evaluation. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2016; 32: 177– 189. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2016.1142798 · DOI
  56. [62]Freyne J, Yin J, Brindal E, Hendrie GA, Berkovsky S, Noakes M. Push Notifications in Diet Apps: Influencing Engagement Times and Tasks. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2017; 33: 833– 845. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2017.1289725 · DOI
  57. [63]Wisniewski PJ, Knijnenburg BP, Lipford HR. Making privacy personal: Profiling social network users to inform privacy education and nudging. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2017; 98: 95– 108. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.006 · DOI
  58. [64]Khern-Am-Nuai W, Yang W, Li N. Using context-based password strength meter to nudge users’ password generating behavior: A randomized experiment. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2017. pp. 587– 596. doi: 10.24251/hicss.2017.071 · DOI
  59. [65]van Bavel R, Rodríguez-Priego N, Vila J, Briggs P. Using protection motivation theory in the design of nudges to improve online security behavior. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2019; 123: 29– 39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.11.003 · DOI
  60. [66]Renaud K, Zimmermann V. Ethical guidelines for nudging in information security & privacy. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2018; 120: 22– 35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.05.011 · DOI
  61. [67]Djurica D, Figl K. The effect of digital nudging techniques on customers’ product choice and attitudes towards e-commerce sites. AMCIS 2017—America’s Conference on Information Systems: A Tradition of Innovation. 2017. pp. 1– 5.
  62. [68]Bhuiyan MM, Vick K, Mitra T, Zhang K, Horning MA. FeedReflect: A tool for nudging users to assess news credibility on twitter. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2018. pp. 205– 208. doi: 10.1145/3272973.3274056 · DOI
  63. [69]Kroll T, Stieglitz S. Digital nudging and privacy: improving decisions about self-disclosure in social networks. Behav Inf Technol. 2021; 40: 1– 19. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1584644 · DOI
  64. [70]Thaler RH. Nudge, not sludge. Science. 2018. p. 431. doi: 10.1126/science.aau9241 30072515 · DOI
  65. [71]Neuberger C, Kapern P. Grundlagen des Journalismus. Grundlagen des Journalismus. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2013. doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-94191-2 · DOI
  66. [72]Hull M. News Feed FYI: Bringing People Closer Together. Facebook Newsroom. 2018. pp. 1– 3.
  67. [73]Ross B, Potthoff T, Majchrzak TA, Chakraborty NR, Lazreg M Ben, Stieglitz S. The diffusion of crisis-related communication on social media: An empirical analysis of Facebook reactions. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2018. pp. 2525– 2534. doi: 10.24251/hicss.2018.319 · DOI
  68. [74]Chakraborty A, Sarkar R, Mrigen A, Ganguly N. Tabloids in the era of social media? Understanding the production and consumption of clickbaits in Twitter. Proc ACM Human-Computer Interact. 2017; 1. doi: 10.1145/3134665 · DOI
  69. [75]Chakraborty A, Paranjape B, Kakarla S, Ganguly N. Stop Clickbait: Detecting and preventing clickbaits in online news media. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, ASONAM 2016. 2016. pp. 9– 16. doi: 10.1109/ASONAM.2016.7752207 · DOI · Paper page
  70. [77]Pano T, Kashef R. A complete vader-based sentiment analysis of bitcoin (BTC) tweets during the ERA of COVID-19. Big Data Cogn Comput. 2020; 4: 1– 17. doi: 10.3390/bdcc4040033 · DOI
  71. [78]Elbagir S, Yang J. Twitter sentiment analysis using natural language toolkit and Vader sentiment. Lect Notes Eng Comput Sci. 2019; 2239: 12– 16. Available: http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2019/IMECS2019_pp12-16.pdf.
  72. [81]Reinemann C, Stanyer J, Scherr S, Legnante G. Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism. 2012. pp. 221– 239. doi: 10.1177/1464884911427803 · DOI
  73. [82]Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159. doi: 10.2307/2529310 843571 · DOI · Paper page
  74. [83]Hilbe JM. Negative binomial regression. Negative Binomial Regression. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2007. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811852 · DOI
  75. [84]Vergeer M, Hermans L. Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and Online Social Networking as Campaign Tools in the 2010 General Elections in the Netherlands. J Comput Commun. 2013; 18: 399– 419. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12023 · DOI
  76. [85]Thompson N, Wang X, Daya P. Determinants of News Sharing Behavior on Social Media. J Comput Inf Syst. 2020; 60: 593– 601. doi: 10.1080/08874417.2019.1566803 · DOI
  77. [86]Prior M. Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication. 2003. pp. 149– 171. doi: 10.1080/10584600390211172 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jung, A.-K., Stieglitz, S., Kissmer, T., Mirbabaie, M., & Kroll, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
  • Paderborn University (DE)
Corresponding author
Jung, Anna-Katharina
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2022-06-29
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
e0266743
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0266743
PMC
PMC9242456
OpenAlex
W4285414158
Cited by
64
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
14.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Universitätsbibliographie, Universität Duisburg-Essen (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DuEPublico (University of Duisburg-Essen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Open Access Publication Fund of the University XY
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
Keywords
clickbait, user engagement, social media, Facebook, digital nudging, news headlines, framing effects, news sources
MeSH terms
Emotions, Humans, Text Messaging, 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