Fake News: Can Young People Distinguish Fact from Fiction? | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2021. № 71. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/71/19

Fake News: Can Young People Distinguish Fact from Fiction?

The aim of this article is to investigate the specificity of fake news perception by the youth audience and the criteria of truth or falsity. The research method was online surveying. The pilot study involved 200 young residents of Moscow aged 18 to 35; there were no professional journalists among them. The respondents were offered eight news items: four real and four fake ones. Some of the news contained photographs. The respondents were supposed to determine if the news was real or fake and mark criteria they used to make the decision. The findings show that every third respondent’s answer was wrong, i.e. the young audience finds it fairly difficult to identify fake news. Only four respondents managed to identify all the eight news items correctly. The obtained data show that the capability of distinguishing accurate information from distorted information does not depend on the person’s gender, and even the level of education does not make an essential difference. The respondents give the source of information and reference to a known person or organization as the main criteria for trust. The respondents detect fake news by linguostylistic features of the text, the source of information, or lack of respective reference as such. A deeper analysis shows that the respondents, based on their own reliance, scarcely recognize how much the news can be trusted. Reliance is more intuitive than a clear comprehension of the positioning of this or that media, blogger or network group in the Russian media landscape. The primary call for trusting fake news is the lack of a critical perception of the news. In most cases, the respondents used their own guesses, feelings, and even inner voice as the main argument for defining fake news as real. Also, the obtained data makes it possible to conclude that the presence of an image does not allow the audience to determine the truth or falsity of the news, since most respondents do not recognize photos processed with special software as fake, even if they illustrate doubtful news from an unauthorized source. Photos that do not directly relate to the event but contain the image of the person in question in fake news can also mislead the reader. The mere presence of an image is often perceived as a proof of truth. The authors come to the conclusion that even Moscow youth, typically characterized by active media consumption and constant online presence, is not able to cope with the identification of fake news. In future studies, the authors plan to expand the sampling and investigate the perception of doubtful news by the older audience, as well as the audience of other subjects of the Russian Federation.

Download file
Counter downloads: 205

Keywords

fake, fake news, news, youth, Internet, social networks, social media, perception

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Zuykina Kristina L.Lomonosov Moscow State Universitychris-zu@yandex.ru
Sokolova Daria V.Lomonosov Moscow State Universitydarina0306@gmail.com
Всего: 2

References

Vosoughi et al. The spread of true and false news online // Science. 2018. № 359. Р. 1146-1151.
Lewandowsky S., Ecker U.K.H., Seifert C.M., Schwarz N. et al. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing // Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2012. № 13 (3). Р. 106-131.
Wardle Cl. «Fake News». It’s Complicated. 2017. URL: https://medium.com/1st-draft/fake-news- its-complicated-d0f773766c79
Самошкин Е.А. Институты борьбы с дезинформацией и мисинформацией в СМИ // Вестник Московского университета. Сер. 10: Журналистика. 2017. № 6. С. 176-190.
Endres K.L. Evolution of journalism and mass communication // Journalism and mass communication. 2009. Vol. 1. EOLSS. URL: http://www.eolss.net/samplechapters/c04/e6-33-01.pdf
Finneman T., Thomas R.J. A family of falsehoods: Deception, media hoaxes and fake news // Newspaper Research Journal. 2018. № 39 (3). Р 350-361. DOI: 10.1177/0739532918796228
Uberti D. Fake News’ is Dead // CJR.org. February 14, 2017. URL: http://www.cjr.org/criticism/fake_news_trump_white_house_cnn.php? (accessed: Feb. 20 2017).
Raspopova S., Bogdan E. Misinformation As Ignoring Professional Principles Of Journalism // The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences. 2019. Р. 456-461. doi: 10.15405/epsbs.2019.08.02.53.
Fallis D. What is disinformation? // Library Trends. 2015. № 63 (3). Р. 401-426.
Wardle C., Derakhshan H. Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making // Coucil of Europe Report DGI. 2017. 09. Council of Europe.
Frankfurt H.G., Bischoff M. On Bullshit. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 2005.
Giglietto F., Iannelli L., Valeriani A., Rossi L. ‘Fake news’ is the invention of a liar: How false information circulates within the hybrid news system // Current Sociology. 2019. № 67 (4). Р. 625-642. DOI: 10.1177/0011392119837536
Зуйкина К.Л., Соколова Д.В. Специфика контента российских фейковых новостей в Интернете и на телевидении // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 10. Журналистика. 2019. № 4. С. 3-22. DOI: 10.30547/vestnik.journ.4.2019.322
Rubin V., Chen Y., Conroy N. Deception Detection for News: Three Types of Fakes // The Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology Annual Meeting (ASIST 2015). 2015, Nov. 6-10. St. Louis.
Edson C., Tandoc., Zheng W., Ling R. Defining ‘fake news’ // Digital Journalism, 2018. Vol. 6, № 2. Р. 137-153.
Суходолов А.П., Бычкова А.М. «Фейковые новости» как феномен современного медиапространства: понятия, виды, назначение, меры противодействия // Вопросы теории и практики журналистики. 2017. Т. 6, № 2. С. 143-169. DOI: 10.17150/2308-6203.2017.6(2).143-169
Egelhofer J., Lecheler S. Annals of the international communication association. 2019. Vol. 43, № 2. Р. 97-116.
Fazio L.K., Brashier N.M., Payne B.K., Marsh E.J. Knowledge Does Not Protect Against Illusory Truth // Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. 2015. № 144. Р. 9931002. doi: 10.1037/xge0000098
Pennycook G., Cannon T. D., Rand D.G. Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2018. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000465
Wang,Wei-Chun, Brashier Nadia, Wing Erik, Marsh Elizabeth, Cabeza Roberto. On Known Unknowns: Fluency and the Neural Mechanisms of Illusory Truth // Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2016. № 28. Р. 1-8. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00923.
Hasson Uri, Simmons Joseph, Todorov Alexander. Believe It or Not On the Possibility of Suspending Belief // Psychological science. 2005. № 16. Р. 566-571. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01576.x.
Bulevich J.B., Thomas A.K. Retrieval Effort Improves Memory and Metamemory in the Face of Misinformation // Journal of Memory and Language. 2012. № 61 (1). Р. 45-58.
Gilbert D.T., Krull D.S., Malone P.S. Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990. № 59. Р. 601-613.
Gilbert D.T., Tafarodi R.W., Malone P.S. You can't not believe everything you read // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993. № 65. Р. 221-233.
Pantazi Myrto, Kissine Mikhail, Klein Olivier. The Power of the Truth Bias: False Information Affects Memory and Judgment Even in the Absence of Distraction // Social Cognition. 2018. Vol. 36, № 2. Р. 167-198. DOI: 10.1521/soco.2018.36.2.167
Hinze S.R., Slaten D.G., Horton W.S., Jenkins R., Rapp D.N. Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: Plausibility effects on memory for facts and errors // Memory & Cognition. 2014. № 42. Р. 305-324.
Jacovina M.E., Hinze S.R., Rapp D.N. Fool Me Twice: The Consequences of Reading (and Rereading) Inaccurate Information // Applied Cognitive Psychology, Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 2014. № 28. Р. 558-568. DOI: 10.1002/acp.3035
Rapp D.N. How do readers handle incorrect information during reading? // Memory & Cognition. 2008. № 36. Р. 688-701.
Richter T., Schroeder S., Wohrmann B. You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009. № 96. Р. 538-558.
Rapp D., Slavovich N. Can’t we just disregard fake news? The consequences of exposure to inaccurate information // Behavior and Brain Science. 2018. Vol. 5 (2). Р. 232-239.
Pennycook G., Rand D.G. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning // Cognition. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
Козловский Б. Максимальный репост. Как соцсети заставляют нас верить фейковым новостям. М. : Альпина Паблишер, 2018.
Ильченко С.Н. Фейк в практике электронных СМИ: критерии достоверности // Медиаскоп. 2016. Вып. 4. URL: http://www.mediascope.ru/2237
Иссерс О.С. Медиафейки: между правдой и мистификацией // Коммуникативные исследования. 2014. № 2. С. 112-123.
Петрова А.А. Фейковые новости в аспекте лингвистической экспертизы // Лингвополитическая персонология: дискурсивный поворот : материалы Международных научных конференций / отв. ред. Н.Б. Руженцева. 2019. С. 165-169.
Саркисьянц В.Р., Рябова М.В. Фейковые новости: коммуникативный и лингвоюридический аспекты // Гуманитарные и социальные науки. 2019. С. 209-220. DOI: 10.23683/2070-1403-2019-77-6-209-220
 Fake News: Can Young People Distinguish Fact from Fiction? | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2021. № 71. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/71/19

Fake News: Can Young People Distinguish Fact from Fiction? | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2021. № 71. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/71/19

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 410