Adolescents and Potentially Misleading Online News: A Credibility

Assessment Study Using Qualitative Interview

Tilburg University
Master Communication and Information Sciences

Course: Research Skills: Research Interview

Instructor: Dr. Renske van Enschot

Student: Euriahs M. Togar

Snr: 2013228
Group 1

Word count: 2,638

April 4, 2018
 Abstract

The internet has become a research pool for people searching for information. Its apparent

limitless search scope coupled with its speed makes it attractive to information seekers. A

growing concern, nevertheless, is the fact that the internet is inundated with misleading

information making it hard for consumers to decipher truth from falsehood. The goal of this

study was to investigate how adolescents deal with this prevalent phenomenon of misleading

online news, what strategies they employ to assess credibility, and how they react to misleading

news. The results show several things: the lack of requisite credibility assessment skills,

unwillingness to engage in effortful analytical thinking, the use of intuition to assess credibility,

unwillingness to propagate misleading information, and worrying fears over the consequences of

misleading information.
 Introduction

The internet offers an immense opportunity for information dissemination and search.

Individuals and news organizations can reach their target audiences with the potential to reach

millions within seconds. The internet’s extensive reach capability and ubiquitous potential

when combined with mobile technologies has made it a universal resource pool for

information seekers. Citing The Newspaper Association of America, Cassidy (2007) suggests

an exponential rise in online news seekers with 112 million people visiting online news sites

in 2006 alone. Similarly, Bucy (2003) suggests that more people are switching to online news

as compared to traditional news outlets such as television.

Until recently, however, many viewed online news with less suspicion and placed

blind trust in the sources. The US elections held in 2016 and the emergence of “Fake News”

changed that perspective and has since heightened news consumers suspicion and distrust in

news media in general (online/offline). The internet is flooded with fake or misleading news

propagated by professionals and amateurs alike (Giglietto et al. 2016) thus, leaving

information seekers susceptible to deceptions and manipulations which sometimes lead them

to becoming willful or unwitting propagators. This means online news consumers must surf

the net with extreme care to avoid being victims of misleading information. This

pervasiveness and prevalence of misleading information and the consequent burden placed

those seeking information to distinguish between truthful and misleading information

prompted this research to understand how adolescent online news consumers assess the

credibility of the information they come across every time they go online.. Thus, the question
of the study is: how do adolescents evaluate online news credibility? How do they react when

they discover the news is fake and misleading? An understanding of the issue is important

given the huge concerns surrounding it.

Searching for information can be said to be far effortless than in the past. All it takes

now to access information is just a click (Hilligoss & Rieh, 2007, Metzer & Flanagin, 2013,

and Chung et al., 2012). These authors speak of the abundance of information available

online, information explosion via networked digital media technologies, and the internet as

the primary source of information, respectively. While finding information may no longer be

a challenge, a new and perhaps more serious problem has emerged; the veracity of the

information online.

The internet makes it easy for anyone to publish information by lowering the cost of

production and dissemination of information, thus, leaving the door to authorship wide open

to anyone who has a piece of information to share (Metzger, 2007). Similarly, Johnson and

Kaye (2010) assert that web-based publishers are less pressured to produce truthful and

unbiased information, while Greer (2003) considers the internet as having pages upon pages

of documents with too many authors ranging from fringe activists to respected media outlets.
 Study Method

A qualitative interview study was conducted involving three participants to answer the

research questions. The method of recruitment was voluntary. Participants were approached

and asked to participate in the study after being informed about its purpose.

All three participants were female adolescents residing in The Netherlands and aged

29, 25, and 23 respectively. One was a non-Dutch citizen. Except for one of the participants,

two are college students. Participants voluntarily signed up using consent forms containing

information about the study. Participants were assured of anonymity and told they could end

the interview at any time and leave the study if they chose to. An interview guide, consisting

of predominantly open-ended questions, was prepared in advance of the study. The questions

were categorized based on three major themes: news interest, credibility assessment criteria,

and reaction to or handling of misleading news. The interviews lasted between 30 to 45

minutes and consisted primarily of open-ended questions.

Analysis

The interviews were transcribed using full transcription method following which a

codebook was developed using a triangulation of Open and Axial coding. To ensure inter-

coder reliability, each interviewer coded separate transcripts. The codes were then compared

analyzed for similarities and differences of concepts. Additional measures taken for intercoder

reliability included the use of one interview guide, swapping of transcripts for analysis.

Following the synchronization using, Axial coding was then applied to pull out stronger

categories from the data. With this approach, a better understanding into the phenomenon, its

causes, and its impacts emerged from the data, culminating into a single and final codebook.

Results

Three adolescents were interviewed about their online news experience relative to

misleading news; how they know an information is misleading, what measures they apply to

assess credibility, how they react to misleading information, and how its effect on their online

information quest behavior. Several major categories emerged from the data each having

subcategories. The major categories include causal conditions, phenomenon, awareness level,

context, strategies, reaction or handling, and consequences. The grounded theory model is

shown in Figure 1. Within the space limit of this study, we discuss the major categories and

some subcategories.
Causal Conditions

Easy access to news online as compared to offline, the ubiquitous feature of the

internet using mobile devices to access current information emerged as causal conditions. For

example, one of the interviewees said she prefers online news as opposed to newspapers, “it’s

more current...and paper is always outdated, or at least 24 hours.” Alluding to the ubiquitous

nature of the internet when combined with mobile technology, another interviewee said she

would rather read her news online because she do so even when on the go.
Phenomenon

The causal conditions discussed above lead to adolescents’ exposure to misleading

information which is broken into misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is

defined as false or inaccurate information circulating as a result of honest mistakes,

negligence or unconscious biases, and disinformation defined as false information deliberately

aimed at deceiving others (Giglietto et al., 2016). Identifying misleading can be a tricky and

difficult as the study found out.

Awareness level

Interviewees lacked knowledge and understanding of the terms and seemed uncertain

when asked. “I do not know, haha” one participant said bluntly. Another participant, when

asked the same question, said “no idea, o my God!” While not knowing the difference

between terms may seem innocent, it is a matter of interest because information seekers

become easy targets and victims of misleading information. Interestingly, however,

participants use self-adaptive measures to decipher fake from real information.

Strategies

The study found that participants use coping strategies to help spot fake from real

news. From the interview data came three major subcategories of strategies employed by the

interviewees to identify misleading information that can be summarized on the basis of

heuristics, construct, and interaction levels consistent with Hilligoss & Rieh (2016).

Heuristics, which is general rules of thumb was the dominant or most used approach

perhaps because it requires less time and effort. One participants reported using this approach

to look up editorial policies of sources, while they all considered structure of content, and

prefer sticking with familiar sources. On the structure of content, one interviewee said “...if

there are many spelling mistakes or grammar mistakes, that is like one of the points…” while

on editorial policy another participants said “...I trust those (referring to The Economist)

completely because they have a lot of different authors who contribute, and they always check

each other…”

Participants also reported relying on intuition when it became difficult to spot fake

from real. One participants, for example, put it this way “...sometimes you think twice, like, I

am not sure if that is correct but then you should use like your own intuition about what is

right or what is not right.”

According to Hilligoss and Rieh (2007), the construct level of credibility assessment is

subjective and depends on the individual’s own conceptual understanding. Participants in the

study also used this strategy to identify misleading information by applying two aspects of

construct measure including trust and objectivity. On the aspect of objectivity for example,

one participant said when she sensed a story as being opinionated and pushy, she would
 suspect it as being fake and misleading and would quit it. A participant reported basing her

judgement on trust.

The interaction level is where the individual associates specific attributes with

particular sources to form their judgement about the information’s credibility (Hilligoss &

Rieh, 2007). The data analysis also showed that participants used this level by cross checking

with various sources to verify certain information they were doubtful about. For example, a

participant said she compares sources by cross checking facts across different sources. “I

would compare the stories from one source to another and see whether or not they

differed...and if it differ then I would question the facts that are differed” she said. Other

forms of interaction level revealed in the data was credibility judgement based on reputation

of the source and or authors, source standard, and size.

Context

The data analysis also showed that participants, while applying these self-measures to

assess the credibility of information, applied them situationally rather than generally. The use

of these measures depend on several factors like time, importance/magnitude of story,

purpose, when doubtful, and the source of the information. These were the contexts and

determinants of the credibility strategies discussed above. One participant stressed using the

measures particularly when the purpose of the information is school related. When asked

when she uses the measures, another participant remarked “it’s absolutely not all of the time. I

wish I had the time to do that all the time.” Like the previous participant, she said she uses the

measures depending on the purpose or when it is a topic of interest. She added that it would
 be time consuming to double check information and therefore only apply the credibility

assessment measures to “big news stories such as the 2016 US elections and the mixing of

Russia.” Finally, participants said the context would also depend on the familiarity with the

source and the source’s reputation.

Reaction/handling of misleading news

In line with the research question, participants responded to questions about their

experience with misleading information and how they reacted if they had that experience. All

three participants reported having some experience with contents they judged as misleading.

One participant alluded to a story about an event she was involved with and how the author

reported what was not true. On the question of their reaction or how they deal with misleading

information, all three participants reported they usually ignore or dismiss such news.

Participants were also asked whether they have shared information they knew was misleading.

One participant recalled sharing an information she later found out was misleading while the

other two participants said they had never and would never share because it is wrong to do so.
Consequences

The last category that emerged from the data was the impact of misleading news on

the participants and how it has affected their online behavior. All three participants said they

were more suspicious and critical of news media than any time before. Participants also

reported low trust in the media. This is particularly troubling for the media as they strive for

online presence because if people will continue to embrace the internet and online news than

credibility is important (Johnson & Kaye, 1998). Two participants reported having fear given

the “huge impact” of the media on society. Making an illustration of her point, a participant

said “I can tell you, for example, don’t go outside today because there are particles in the air

that can make you sick. I can just make up a story right here and will make sure that you will

not go outside and work today, which is ridiculous.” “It’s a very dangerous world,” she added.

Discussion

Many studies have been conducted surrounding “fake news” especially since it came

to prominence during the 2016 US presidential elections. The aim of the present study was to

investigate how adolescents evaluate online news and react when they judge a piece of

information as fake and misleading. A theoretical model emerged from interviews conducted

with three adolescents and subsequently analyzed. The model presented in Figure 1 describes,

among other things, the credibility assessment criteria or strategies used by the study

participants. The emerging theory is one that suggests a lack of analytical thinking by

participants when assessing credibility of online news.

 Pennycook and Rand (2017) found that people who engage in analytic thinking were

less likely to fall to fake news than those who did not engage in analytical thinking.

Consistent with this finding, the current study found that participants were more willing to

engage in peripheral appraisal of information rather than engage in deliberative thinking

processes. While participants of the study may not lack analytic thinking skills, they seem less

willing to apply those skills when reading online news stories because such cognitive

processes require deliberate effort and time. Preferably, participants used approaches like

source familiarity and reputation as basis for judging credibility which lower judgement

standards (Pennycook & Rand, 2017).

The context that emerged from the data explains the cosmetic approach adapted by the

participants. All participants said they would use the credibility measures only if they have

time, if the story was important to them, depending on the purpose, and if the source was

unfamiliar, an effortless approach common among online information seekers (Metzer &

Flanagin, 2013). Judging credibility on the basis of reputation of author or source, perceived

standard and size, as the data also revealed can be a slippery slope. Giglietto et al. (2016) for

example warn of the steep decline in the credibility of media institutions suggesting that it is

insufficient and perhaps dangerous to place blind faith in institutions and make credibility

judgements on those basis. Credibility assessment should go beyond the peripheral approach

uncovered in this study.

Even though participants in this study mentioned using measures such as checking

story structure, looking up editorial policies, and source reputation, these measures are in

themselves inadequate. Metzer and Flanagin (2013) extend the evaluation criteria further to
include checking the accuracy, the authority, currency of the information, and coverage or

scope of the information and/or its source all of which require deliberate effort on the part of

the one seeking the information. The interviewees find such systematic evaluative measures

cumbersome and therefore seem less willing to move beyond their common methods to adapt

such thorough approaches.

The findings of this study are consistent with Metzer and colleague’s findings as well

as Hilligoss and Rieh’s (2008) findings both of which referenced Prominence interpretation

Theory and bounded rationality to explain people’s information processing behavior. For

example, bounded rationality or satisficing claims people are not always able to rationalize

due to limitations like time and processing power (Metzer and Flanagin, 2013) and would

resort to strategies they perceived as time saving and less effortful.

The current study had some limitations. First, the study comprised three participants

which limits the findings generalizability. Second, participants were not randomly selected.

Future studies on this emergent phenomenon can, however, build upon the findings and

limitations to explore the subject more comprehensively with a larger sample representative

of adolescents given their prevalent use of the internet for seeking

information.
 References

Bucy, E. P. (2003). Media credibility reconsidered: Synergy effects between on-air and online

news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 325-340. Retrieved from:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/107769900308000202

Cassidy, W. P. (2007). Online news credibility: An examination of the perceptions of

newspaper journalists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 478–

498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00334.x

Chung, C. J., Nam, Y., & Stefanone M. A. (2012). Exploring online news credibility: The

relative influence of traditional and technological factors. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 17(2), 171–186, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-

6101.2011.01565.x

Giglietto, F., Iannelli, L., Rossi, L., & Valeriani, A. (2016). Fakes, news and the election: A

new taxonomy for the study of misleading information within the hybrid media

system. Convegno AssoComPol 2016, 15-17. Available at SSRN:

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2878774

Greer, J. D. (2003). Evaluating the credibility of online information: A test of source and

advertising influence. Mass Communication and Society, 6(1), 11-28.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0601_3
Hilligoss, B. & Rieh, S.Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment:

Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing & Management, 44,

1467–1484. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001

Johnson, T., & Kaye, B. K. (1998). Cruising is believing?: Comparing internet and traditional sources

on media credibility measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 325-

340. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909807500208

Johnson, T., & Kaye, B. K. (2010). Still cruising and believing? An analysis of online credibility

across three Presidential Campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 57–77.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376311

Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online

information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078-2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20672

Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments:

The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(B), 210-220.

doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012

Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. (2017). Who falls for fake news? The roles of analytic thinking,

motivated reasoning, political ideology, and bullshit receptivity. Available at SSRN:

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3023545