See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334114303

Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social
media use and fake news sharing behavior

Article  in  Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · June 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026

CITATIONS READS

10 2,681

5 authors, including:

Shalini Talwar Amandeep Dhir

K J Somaiya Institute of Management Studies and Research Mumbai Lappeenranta – Lahti University of Technology LUT
20 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   1,107 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Puneet Kaur Melfi Alrasheedi

Aalto University King Faisal University
35 PUBLICATIONS   289 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Study of Generalized Measures of Fuzzy Information and Divergence and their Applications. View project

Decision Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Melfi Alrasheedi on 05 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social T
media use and fake news sharing behavior
Shalini Talwara, Amandeep Dhirb,c,∗, Puneet Kaurc,d, Nida Zafare, Melfi Alrasheedyf
a
K J Somaiya Institute of Management Studies and Research, Mumbai, India
b
Faculty of Educational Science, University of Helsinki, Finland
c
Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
d
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, Finland
e
Department of Psychology, Lahore Garrison University, Lahore, Pakistan
f
School of Business, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The current study examines the associations of the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior
Cross-sectional study among social media users. A large cross-sectional data from 1022 social media users are collected to test the
Fear of missing out (FoMO) research model, formulated using social comparison theory, self-determination theory, rational choice theory
Self-disclosure and seminal work on psychology and communication. The study results suggest that online trust, self-disclosure,
Social comparison
fear of missing out (FoMO), and social media fatigue are positively associated with the sharing fake news (in-
Social media fatigue and trust
tentionally). In contrast, social comparison has a negative association. The study findings also indicate that
online trust has negative association with authenticating news before sharing. The study concludes with some
implications for policy makers and marketers that could be useful in protecting society and brands from the
perils of the misuse of social media and fake news.

1. Introduction negative comments were made on social media after the emission
scandal (Litsa, 2016).
Online social media have drastically transformed how information Though, electronic WOM spread across social media can help a firm
is shared and assimilated by individuals, communities, and firms (Dhir enhance its reputation and performance (Loureiro et al., 2018; Nisar
et al., 2018a; Dhir et al., 2018a; Dhir et al., 2017). Globally, firms are et al., 2019), yet at the same time, Pace et al. (2014) argue that the
using social media to augment their sales revenue by reaching out to exposure to social media intensifies the word of mouth (WOM) and that
new customers and enhancing the existing customers' experience the reactions of consumers exposed to brand issues on social media are
(Movsisyan, 2016; Yadav et al., 2015). Firms not only use social media more negative as compared to those exposed through traditional media.
as a tool for their marketing campaigns (Baum et al., 2018), but also Hennig-Thurau et al. (2013) observe that social media exposure has the
extend it beyond marketing to drive innovation (Torres de Oliveira potential to negatively impact brands since customers have the freedom
et al., 2019). However, as extant literature evidences, there is a dark to share their bad experiences and other issues related to brands. Si-
side of online social media as well. The Barilla case provides crucial milarly, Kohli et al. (2015) also argue that social media has the ability
insights into the negative impact of the social media as the CEO's to strengthen or kill a brand.
controversial comments received a negative backlash on social media, The threat of the viral spread of genuine issues (e.g., concerns and
plunging the firm into a brand crisis (Coffee, 2013). More recently, Elon complaints) on social media is quite worrisome, but at least in such
Musk's (The CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and The Boring Company) tweets instances, the firms can try to resolve these issues to some extent.
and related Facebook posts adversely affected Tesla's stock price, However, the spread of rumors and issues which are totally fabricated
leading to lawsuits by its investors and investigations by the regulators may make firms feel completely helpless, as such situations are beyond
(Matousek, 2018). Another instance of a brand being affected by news their control. At present, the actual and more serious threat is posed by
going viral on social media was the Volkswagen case, where many fake news stories spreading issues on social media that are non-existent.

∗
Corresponding author. University of Helsinki, Finland, Faculty of Educational Science, Helsinki, 00170, Finland.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Talwar), amandeep.dhir@helsinki.fi (A. Dhir), puneet.kaur@aalto.fi (P. Kaur), [email protected] (N. Zafar),
[email protected] (M. Alrasheedy).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026
Received 1 February 2019; Received in revised form 22 May 2019; Accepted 28 May 2019
0969-6989/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

For instance, in 2016, threats were made to boycott Pepsi over a viral scholars. However, these associations were not empirically modelled in
fabricated statement in social media discussing the hostility shown by the past. Furthermore, to the best of our understanding, no prior study
PepsiCo CEO to Trump supporters (Gupta, 2016). Another company, on fake news has utilized structural equation modelling (SEM) to model
New Balance, also had to face the anger of anti-Trump groups after it the fake news sharing behavior. The study concludes with some key
was falsely named as the official brand associated with Trump's cam- theoretical implications for researchers and practical implications for
paign (Gupta, 2016). These instances raise concerns because, in the managers and policy makers.
current era of Web 2.0, consumers play a more active role in the dif-
fusion of marketing information by creating and disseminating elec- 2. Literature review
tronic WOM via online social media (Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017).
Any fake news shared by the consumers can have damaging con- 2.1. Fake news
sequences by negatively impacting the brand. It becomes a graver
concern in the light of the fact that any news, true or fake, can spread Fake news is defined as online falsehoods formatted and circulated
like wildfire in online social media and go viral very quickly (Bessi, in a way as to make them appear authentic and legitimate to the readers
2017; Popat et al., 2017). The situation has been aggravated due to the (Mustafaraj and Metaxas, 2017). While fake news has always been
fact that, in many countries, news is now accessed mainly on online present in some form or another for centuries, it is more popular now
social media platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook (Fletcher and than ever, as shown by the recent research (Dewey, 2016). The interest
Nielsen, 2017). These platforms have often been disparaged for not only of scholars in studying it has also increased during the past few years. A
helping, but indeed boosting the spread of fake news (Caplan et al., large number of the existing fake news studies are conceptual and
2018). The threat of fake news is quite imminent as it possible for firms, qualitative (e.g., Jin et al., 2016; Mustafaraj and Metaxas, 2017; Shu
governments, and even individuals to generate and disseminate in- et al., 2017). For example, Mustafaraj and Metaxas (2017) study the
formation (or news) to serve their own agendas to a large audience details of the use of anonymous Twitter handles to spread mis-
quickly through social media (Chayko, 2017). Facebook and WhatsApp information about an electoral candidate, Martha Coakley, to under-
have initiated many measures to prevent the misuse of their platforms stand the spread of fake news on social networks. The study reveals that
for willful spread of fake news. For example, in July 2018, in India, the news was spread through the infiltration of groups of users already
WhatsApp removed the ‘quick forward’ button, started labeling of conversing online in order to use them to share misinformation orga-
messages as ‘forwarded’ messages, and limited the users' ability to nically across their networks. There exist several empirical studies as
forward any item to only five groups at a time (Bhattacharya, 2018). well on fake news, but these are largely based on the analysis of
Despite the damaging effects of the spread of fake news on online newsfeeds, tweets and Facebook posts to understand the spread of fake
social media, it is largely not known as to why people continue to share news (e.g., Jang et al., 2018; Shin et al., 2018). Shin et al. (2018)
fake news. Our review suggests that prior literature lacks theoretical analyze tweets representing rumors related to politics that were
frameworks on understanding fake news sharing behavior (knowingly tweeted and shared on Twitter during the 2012 U.S. election, collected
or unknowingly) that takes into account the very nature of social in real time from January 2012 through January 2013. The study re-
media. Recent study by Marwick (2018) utilizes a sociotechnical model veals that rumor has a tendency to reverberate and resurface many
of media effects to explain that people share fake news guided by their times after the initial publication, whereas the factual news does not
pre-existing beliefs, media affordances and the structuring of messages. come up again and again. Jang et al. (2018) analyze a large number of
Newhoff (2018) argues that, to better understand why people share tweets about both fake and real news related to the 2016 US Pre-
fake news deliberately or unintentionally, further sociological or psy- sidential election from January 1, 2016, to April 30, 2017. The study
chological inquiry is categorically required. reveals that ordinary Twitter users had generated the fake news root
The current study bridges this gap as it tries to examine the em- tweets, but these tweets included links to dubious news websites. The
pirical associations between the dark side of online social media and study also highlights differences between the evolution of real and fake
fake news sharing behavior of social media users. A framework of fake news stories.
news sharing behavior of consumers was developed by identifying Most of the other prior empirical studies are based on text analysis
certain behaviors and manifestations associated with social media using time series, examination of the root content, writing style analysis
usage. As fake news sharing is a negative aspect of online social media, of hyper partisan, analysis of sharing history of the identified fake story,
it can be anticipated to have association with other negative aspects evaluation of the information presented in the form of tweets, com-
related to social media use. The disagreeable social media behaviors ments and articles, and randomized controlled trial of political mobi-
that adversely impact users (e.g., performance, productivity, wellbeing) lization messages (e.g., Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017; Bond et al., 2012;
have often been referred to as the dark side of social media (Baccarella Potthast et al., 2017). In a study based on survey data encompassing 12
et al., 2018; Dhir et al., 2018a,b,c; Dhir et al., 2016a; Dhir et al., US states and 8000 school and college students, researchers found that
2016b). Some of the commonly discussed negative outcome behaviors most respondents were unable to distinguish between fake and real
in the context to social media are compulsive social media use (Dhir information (McGrew et al., 2018). There is a gap as far as studies re-
et al., 2015), social media fatigue (SMF hereinafter) (Bright et al., 2015; lated to behavioral aspects of sharing fake news by social media users
Dhir et al., 2018a,b,c), fear of missing out (FoMO hereinafter) are concerned.
(Blackwell et al., 2017) and social comparison (Nesi and Prinstein,
2015). In addition to the negative manifestations, the behaviors related 2.2. Dark side of social media
to the very nature of social media use were also considered, namely,
self-disclosure (Bazarova and Choi, 2014) and online trust (Grabner- Social media has a dark side to it which is looming larger by the day,
Kräuter and Bitter, 2013). and it is damaging the freedom and wellbeing of communities and in-
The developed framework was tested with a large cross-sectional dividuals (Baccarella et al., 2018). Scholars argue that these platforms
data of 1022 WhatsApp users. The independent variables were dark promote socially vindictive behavior, e.g., self-promotion, emotional
side of social media (FoMO, social comparison, and SMF), and social coldness, duplicity, aggressiveness, self-objectification, and narcissism
media use (online trust and self-disclosure). The current study presents (Fox and Rooney, 2015; Garcia and Sikström, 2014). These negative
one of the first empirical investigations into the association of the dark aspects of social media significantly influence cognitive, emotional,
side of social media, social media use and fake news sharing behavior. social, and mental health outcomes (ImmordinoYang et al., 2012).
The novelty of this study is that it explores the links between some of Furthermore, negative aspects of social media also pose a threat to our
the key aspects of social media use that have attracted the interest of society and the firms at large. Some of the prominent negative impacts

73
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

include online firestorms and hate propagation (Rost et al., 2016), postulated that, when a person is highly motivated, he would tend to
feeling of being tired at work and work–life conflicts (van Zoonen et al., engage in upward comparison, that is, compare himself with people
2017) and the spread of online gossip or fake news, which threatens the who are better than him. This represents the motivation for self-eva-
existence of firms (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017). Given the importance luation and self-enhancement. In contrast, an unmotivated person
of spreading fake news in impacting firms and consumers, this study would resort to downward comparison, considering himself to be the
aims to explore these associations. best. The behavior of social comparison has been observed to be
There exists only limited understanding of the association between manifested in social media use also (Nesi and Prinstein, 2015).
the use of social media and spread of fake news. For example, Blackwell Rational choice theory (RCT): It has its roots in economics, but is
et al. (2017) suggest that FoMO significantly leads to compulsive social also used by other social scientists to analyze human behavior. The
media usage. But, it is not clear if compulsive social media use or FoMO theory postulates that individuals make choices that tend to maximize
are positively associated with fake news sharing behavior. An under- their personal utility (Becker, 1976). Such choices are in their best self-
standing of such relationship may provide insights into the strategies interest possible and are outcomes of well-thought through alternatives
that can be used by managers and regulators to protect their brands and and preferences. The theory also implies that the choices are made in
cull the viral spread of damaging news online, respectively. specific context and may change with a change in the situation or be-
liefs. In a pure economics context, the theory considers rational choice
2.3. Online gossips and fake news to be the result of analysis of costs and benefits associated with each
preference. It has been argued that rational choice theory is also
In evolutionary psychology, gossip has been described as strategies manifested in social media use where consumers consciously decide to
people use to influence others (Guerin, 2003). Over the years, scholars continue to use social media, anticipating positive outcomes rather than
have maintained that gossip is useful in promoting social cohesion and discontinuing its use on account of social media fatigue (Logan et al.,
information transmission (Dunbar, 1996; Konnikova, 2011; Okazaki 2018).
et al., 2013). The sharing of gossip has acquired a more interesting Self-determination theory (SDT): It provides a framework for the
connotation in the age of Web 2.0. The nature of social media is par- assessment of human motivation and personality (Deci and Ryan,
ticipatory, whereby people make new acquaintances and strengthen 1985). It posits that people are active organisms who seek to evolve
connections with existing friends through online interactions (Dewan continuously in order to make coherent sense of self. But such natural
and Ramaprasad, 2014). Group protection, status enhancement, social inclination for growth does not operate automatically and needs social
bonding, peer identification, and feeling of belonging to a group may be support to catalyze it. An obvious deduction of the theory, then, is that
seen as factors that motivate people to engage in gossip (Boyer O'Leary the social context and cultural factors are also capable of impeding the
et al., 2014; Lyons and Hughes, 2015). tendencies of psychological growth, initiative and active engagement.
Online gossip and sharing of online fake news have some connec- This would detrimentally impact the individual's wellbeing and quality
tions as both involve sharing of information. The rise in instances of of performance. Conversely, conditions supporting autonomy, compe-
sharing malicious fake news in social media has become a great con- tence and relatedness can enhance performance, creativity and dili-
cern, especially since a notable number of users rely on social media for gence. In the context of social media, this theory seems to explain a
news, e.g., as high as 62% (Gottfried and Shearer, 2016). The perils of prominent social media manifestation, FoMO. The need for relatedness
fake news spread are also highlighted by the fact that, in a recent study, and sense of belonging has been argued to be the main motivation
a large percentage of people recalled believing the fake news they saw driving FoMO (Beyens et al., 2016).
during the US Presidential election in 2016 (Allcott and Gentzkow,
2017). The volume and speed of information being transmitted on so- 3. Research model and hypotheses
cial media make it virtually impossible to detect its credibility quickly,
thereby underscoring the urgency of developing efficient systems to A conceptual model was proposed based on the seminal work
spot fake news (Tacchini et al., 2017). Despite this, we still lack ex- available in the field of communication and psychology to hypothesize
ploratory empirical studies examining the different antecedents of the relationship of the selected antecedents, namely, online trust, self-
sharing of fake news by social media users guided by an intrinsic need disclosure, FoMO, social comparison and SMF with sharing fake news
to gossip. The current investigation tries to contribute to this scarce and authenticating fake news before sharing online (Fig. 1). As far as
literature. the authors know, there is no prior theory-driven study using survey
data to examine fake news sharing behavior; therefore, there is no a
2.4. Theories priori. Consequently, different theories that seemed relevant to social
media behavior of users were consulted such as social comparison
Many theories of psychology, theorized well before the advent of theory, self-determination theory and theory of rational choice, along
social media, seem to explain various aspects of social media behavior with the related seminal work to develop the research model using
quite well. For instance, social comparison on social media can be un- different aspects of social media usage and fake news sharing behavior.
derstood in the context of social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), Key constructs and the theories, seminal work and recent studies used
rational choice theory (Becker, 1976) and self-determination theory to ground the associations between them are presented in Table 1.
(Deci and Ryan, 1985). These theories have been used in the current
study to hypothesize relationship between social media behaviors of 3.1. Sharing fake news and online trust
consumers and fake news sharing.
Social comparison theory (SCT): It was formulated to explain how Trust refers to the willingness to believe someone based upon po-
individuals form beliefs and opinions about their capabilities and the sitive expectations from his or her past behavior (Mayer et al., 1995). In
drive they possess to evaluate their own abilities (Festinger, 1954). SCT an online environment, trust is built as an outcome of successful ex-
theorizes that, when people are not able to evaluate their abilities on change of useful information (Grabner-Kräuter and Bitter, 2013). High
their own, they resort to comparing themselves with others. Such level of online trust encourages people to provide more social support
comparison gives them a sense of validation and cognitive clarity. and take risks in sharing information (Krasnova et al., 2010; Lin and
Furthermore, such comparisons produce more accurate assessments Liu, 2012). Consequently, online trust has emerged as an important
when the target of comparison is similar to the person making the aspect in a world where content is freely generated by users (DuBois
comparison. The theory also discusses two types of comparisons, et al., 2011). However, trust has not been examined as yet in the con-
namely, upward and downward comparisons. Festinger (1954) text of fake news sharing behavior. The only closely related available

74
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

Fig. 1. Our research model.

study suggests that negative gossip (e.g., malicious, nasty, hurtful or H2. Online trust is positively associated with sharing fake news online
fake information) is usually shared with someone the gossiper trusts
(Grosser et al., 2010). The high level of online trust is likely to cause
users to lend more support to the information shared with them by 3.2. Sharing fake news and self-disclosure
sharing it further on their social network. Consequently, the association
between online trust and fake news sharing behavior can be antici- Self-disclosure represents sharing of personal information with
pated. In the light of the above discussion, it can be argued that social others (Gibbs et al., 2006). It is usually motivated by the need to in-
media users having high trust in the information and news shared on crease mutual understanding, strengthening relationships, and enhan-
WhatsApp are likely to share fake news with others and are less likely to cing bonds among group members (Whitty and Joinson, 2009). Prior
authenticate the news before sharing. Furthermore, the high online literature has linked self-disclosure with social purposes (Winter et al.,
trust can be anticipated to prevent users from authenticating news re- 2014) and need for social connections (Buglass et al., 2017). Similarly,
ceived from trusted sources since users feel comfortable to share any gossip is also a means for status enhancement and social bonding
news received from trusted sources, even if they seem to be fake. (Lyons and Hughes, 2015). Consequently, self-disclosure might also
Therefore, we propose: share an association with online gossip and fake news sharing behavior.
H1. Online trust is negatively associated with authenticating news For example, seminal work suggests that self-disclosure might be im-
before sharing online portant in getting social support for gossip, as the life of gossip depends
on the support it receives from those who share it (Eder and Enke,

Table 1
Constructs and theories.
Constructs Type of antecedent Theory Seminal work Recent studies

Online Trust → Fake news sharing and Social Media Behavior Mayer et al. (1995) DuBois et al., (2011);
authentication Grabner-Kräuter and Bitter
(2013);
Krasnova et al., (2010);
Grosser et al. (2010)
Self-disclosure → Fake news sharing and Social Media Behavior Eder & Enke (1991) Buglass et al., (2017);
authentication Christofedes et al., (2009);
Lyons and Hughes (2015);
Whitty & Joinson (2009)
Social comparison → Fake news sharing and Dark side of social Social comparison theory (Festinger, Keefer (1993); Suls (1977) Cramer et al., (2016);
authentication media 1954) Wert & Salovey (2004)
Fear of missing out → Fake news sharing and Dark side of social Self-determination theory (Deci and Baumeister & Tice (1990) Alt (2015);
authentication media Ryan, 1985) Beyens et al., (2016);
Blackwell et al. (2017);
Nottingham Trent University
(2016)
Social media fatigue → Fake news sharing and Dark side of social Theory of rational choice (Becker, Lewis & Wessely,1992 Greenfield (2017);
authentication media 1976) Lee et al., (2016);
Logan et al., (2018);
Marwick (2018);
Ravindran et al. (2014)

75
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

1991). The need for popularity has also been identified as the driving making them vulnerable to harassment, critical comments, and gossip
force behind the online self-disclosure (Christofedes et al., 2009). Fur- (Nottingham Trent University, 2016). This finding is in line with the
thermore, it can also be anticipated that, in the light of gaining popu- seminal work also, which suggests that social exclusion (a likely cause
larity or the attention of others, social media users may share news that of FoMO) may lead to a decrease in self-regulation and exacerbate
is exciting and sensational, without any concern for its being fake or undesirable behavior (Baumeister et al., 2005). To summarize, we
true. Due to this, we hypothesize that users who indulge in more self- argue that increased use of social media, heightened vulnerability and
disclosure are less likely to authenticate news before sharing, and be recklessness due to FoMO can be expected to cause users to share fake
more inclined to share fake news. news. Furthermore, decreased self-regulation is less likely to motivate
them to make any effort to authenticate news before sharing. Conse-
H3. Self-disclosure is negatively associated with authenticating news
quently, it is likely that users with high FoMO may not authenticate
before sharing online
information before sharing and share fake news. Hence, we propose the
H4. Self-disclosure is positively associated with sharing fake news following:
online
H7. FoMO is negatively associated with authenticating news before
sharing online.
3.3. Sharing fake news and online social comparison
H8. FoMO is positively associated with sharing fake news online.
Social comparison theory argues that individuals possess an in-
trinsic desire to gauge themselves through social comparisons and they 3.5. Sharing fake news and social media fatigue
also tend to make comparisons with others who seem similar (Festinger,
1954). Also, the need to keep up and compare oneself with others re- SMF is defined as a subjective experience that comprises negative
sults in a drive to enhance oneself (Wert and Salovey, 2004). Online emotions such as anger, disappointment, tiredness, exhaustion, and
social media platforms have provided new and exciting means for reduced energy, resulting from continuous use of online social media
people to practice social comparisons online (Cramer et al., 2016). For (Ravindran et al., 2014). In the seminal literature, fatigue is argued to
example, sharing travel stories and information about impressive pur- result in the impairment of mental and physical strength (Lewis and
chases with online friends has become a trend (Lin et al., 2018). Wessely, 1992). The same outcomes are noticed in the case of SMF, as
However, the need for enhancing oneself could blur the lines between observed by Lee et al. (2016), who have linked SMF with lower interest,
reality and fiction, thereby making gossip a function of social com- tiredness, and indifference. Since SMF is the result of information
parison. This is in line with the seminal work in psychology which overload, upon experiencing fatigue, some users may have the inten-
suggests that gossip is an indirect and painless method of obtaining tions to hold back or even take a break from social media participation
information people need for comparison (Suls, 1977) and seeking social (Ravindran et al., 2014) or become selective in using it (Greenfield,
approval (Keefer, 1993; Suls, 1977). Consequently, two diverse beha- 2017). Further, SMF also leads to more errors and negative outcomes
viors related to sharing fake news can be anticipated from the social like confusion or frustration (Logan et al., 2018).
media users in their pursuit of social comparison. First, to gain social Fatigued users can be expected to be less inclined to authenticate
approval, the users may put in efforts to authenticate certain news or news before sharing, given their intentions to reduce the use of social
information which they perceive to be important to their social net- media, combined with the increased susceptibility to make errors.
work. Second, to build a positive image in front of others and position Hence, we propose:
them as having more authentic information than others, users may not
share any news that may seem fake. Based on this anticipated behavior, H9. Social media fatigue is negatively associated with authenticating
we propose: news before sharing online

H5. Social comparison is positively associated with authenticating news Additionally, due to the perceived usefulness of social media, fati-
before sharing online gued users may not disengage from it completely. Instead, they may
behave as postulated by the theory of rational choice (Becker, 1976)
H6. Social comparison is negatively associated with sharing fake news and use social media based on its expected utility. Such expected utility
online of being on social media will be based on a combination of users’
preferences and required outcomes. It can be argued that, since pre-
3.4. Sharing fake news and fear of missing out ferences are linked to beliefs and beliefs are potent drivers of behavior
(Heiphetz et al., 2013), fatigue may drive users to share selective in-
Extant literature suggests that FoMO has its roots in various psy- formation aligned with their pre-existing beliefs, as proposed by the
chological insufficiencies in competence and relatedness needs, as dis- sociotechnical model of media effects (Marwick, 2018). This can be
cussed by Deci and Ryan (1985) in the self-determination theory. In interpreted to imply that the fatigued users, in their bid to continue to
their bid to overcome these deficiencies and seek relatedness, people be on social media selectively, may share even fake news that they
tend to turn to online social media, as these provide consistent flow of come across, if it is in accordance to their existing beliefs and helps
social and informational rewards (Oulasvirta et al., 2011). In this them achieve their preferred social outcome. On the basis of above
context, the use of social media may reach a compulsive level, thereby discussion, we hypothesize the following:
linking FoMO to higher use of social media (Alt, 2015; Blackwell et al., H10. Social media fatigue is positively associated with sharing fake
2017). FoMO can also be seen as a psychological reaction, like anxiety, news online
that individuals may experience when they feel excluded from their
social or peer groups (Baumeister and Tice, 1990). Therefore, seeking
popularity and sense of belongingness are considered to be key drivers 4. Data and method
of FoMO (Beyens et al., 2016).
Scholars also describe FoMO as continuous anxiety or suspicion 4.1. Item pool development
among social media users that others might have much more rewarding
experience than them (Przybylski et al., 2013). A recent study by psy- Open-ended surveys with 88 WhatsApp users (65 females) with
chologists at Nottingham Trent University has linked FoMO with gossip mean age of 21.58 years were conducted in Northern India. The open-
sharing and found that FoMO made people more reckless online, ended surveys focused on their understanding of fake news, measures

76
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

taken by them to check the authenticity of the news and behavior Table 2
patterns related to fake news circulation on social media platforms. The Model fit indices for measurement and structural models.
responses were analyzed using NVIVO 11 software (QSR International) Model Fit Indices
to understand some key themes in the data (Corbin and Strauss, 2008).
Following the standard practice of qualitative research, these themes Model CMIN/DF GFI AGFI TLI CFI NFI RMSEA
were taken forward for analysis after finding adequate support in the
Measurement model 6.28 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.92 0.07
literature to enhance their understanding, (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, Structural model 6.28 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.92 0.07
2010). The emerging themes and discussions with experts helped us to
understand the behavior underlying sharing of fake news. The gener- Note. Chi-square ratio degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF), Comparative Fit Index
ated themes were: sharing news without authentication while believing (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) Goodness of Fit Index(GFI), Adjusted Goodness
it to be true; sharing news without authentication with no concern for of Fit Index (AGFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Root mean square error of ap-
its being true; deliberately sharing fake news as manifestation of some proximation (RMSEA).
social media behavior, such as seeking popularity; sharing any news
that seemed fake; and always authenticating any news before sharing. and discriminant validity ( Table 4). The value of average variance
Intuitively, it emerged that a study on why people share fake news extracted (AVE) for all study measures is greater than the threshold
should cover not only behavior related to sharing fake news, but also limit of 0.50 (Kline, 2016), thereby confirming convergent validity. The
the behavior related to authenticating news before sharing. This ob- study measures also possess sufficient discriminant validity because the
servation is also reinforced by the fact that recent studies related to fake square root of AVE for all given measures is greater than the corre-
news also discussed fact-checking and detection as important part of sponding inter-measure correlation, and correlation between any two
fake news circulation (e.g., Wang, 2017; Potthast et al., 2017; Rubin given study measures is below 0.80 (Kline, 2016). Furthermore, max-
et al., 2015) as well as detection of fake online reviews (Munzel, 2016). imum shared variance (MSV) and average shared variance (ASV) are
less than AVE, which satisfies another condition for discriminant va-
4.2. Data collection process lidity. The reliability of the study measures is also confirmed because
the composite reliability (CR) for all study measures is above 0.70 (
Data were collected from 1022 WhatsApp users in May 2018. The Table 4).
study participants were aged between 18 and 30 years and the average We have also examined and confirmed that there are no multi-
age of the respondents was 22.19 years (SD = 3.05). There were 73.7% collinearity issues representing inter-association among independent
female respondents [N = 753]. The study was advertised in three dif- variables (O’brien, 2007). Further, in line with the recommendations of
ferent public and private universities in Lahore, Pakistan. The target Pappas et al. (2017), the common latent factor technique and the CFA
user group was briefed about the objectives and research questions marker variable technique were applied to examine the potential
were explained to them along with the implications of the study. The common method bias. The study was not found to suffer from any such
specific time slots for the survey answering session were advertised, and issue.
one of the authors of the study supervised and administered these
sessions. Consent was taken from the study participants before ad- 5.3. Structural model
ministering the questionnaire. Also, the participation in the study was
kept voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. The model was evaluated using SEM, and it also returned an ac-
ceptable model fit. This suggests that the structural model fits the data
4.3. Data analysis methods well ( Table 2). The standardized regression coefficients measuring the
hypothesized relationships and their respective probability values are
The collected data were analyzed using SPSS 23 (IBM Corp. 2017) presented in Fig. 2. The coefficient of online trust (β = −0.17;
and AMOS 23. It was confirmed that the measurement items were p < 0.001) is statistically significant (negative) in the context of au-
normally distributed as kurtosis and skewness were in the threshold thenticating news before sharing online. In comparison, online trust
limit of ± 1. Next, a two-step process was applied to test the research (β = 0.43; p < 0.001) shares positive and significant association with
model. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the measurement sharing fake news online. The self-disclosure shares significant (posi-
model was performed to examine the model fit indices and different tive) association with both authenticating (β = 0.31; p < 0.001) and
forms of validity and reliability. Afterwards, the structural path and sharing fake news (β = 0.09; p < 0.05). Social comparison
different hypotheses were assessed using structural equation modelling (β = −0.11; p < 0.01) shares significant (negative) and FoMO
(SEM). (β = 0.17; p < 0.01) shares significant (positive) association only with
sharing fake news online. Finally, SMF is found to have statistically
5. Results significant (positive) association with both authenticating (β = 0.22;
p < 0.001) and sharing fake news (β = 0.15; p < 0.001).
5.1. Measurement model The research model explains 17% variance in authenticating news
before sharing and 36% variance in sharing fake news online (Fig. 2). In
The model consisted of five independent measures (online trust, this study, the relatively low value of R2 may be attributed to the field
self-disclosure, social comparison, fear of missing out, and social media of the study. The values are, however, acceptable in line with the re-
fatigue) and two dependent measures (authenticating news before commendation of Falk and Miller (1992), who argued that R2 of 0.10
sharing and sharing fake news online). The measurement model re- (i.e., 10% variance explained) or more would be adequate to judge
turned an acceptable model fit as suggested by prior literature (Kline, variance explained of a particular endogenous construct. The view is
2016; Wang and Wang, 2012) (Table 2). Also, the factor loadings of the supported by Hair et al. (2011), who contended that R2 value of 0.20
items related to each construct, as presented in Table 3, are above 0.60, should be considered high for studies related to consumer behavior.
which exceeds the conventional cut-off of 0.40, as suggested by Hair
et al. (2010). 6. Discussion

5.2. Validity and reliability The present study has empirically examined the association between
different aspects of social media use and fake news sharing behavior.
The validity of the study measures is confirmed using convergent Recent social media-based studies, interdisciplinary seminal literature

77
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

Table 3
Study measures and items factor loadings of measurement model.
Study Measure (Reference) Measurement items Factor loadings

a
Authenticating news before sharing I ask my friends to check the authenticity of any message before sharing 0.82
I ask my family/relatives to check the authenticity of any message before sharing 0.81
I rely on TV news channels to check the authenticity of any message before sharing it 0.63
Online trust (Fang et al., 2016) I trust the information that is shared on WA 0.78
I trust the news that is shared on WA 0.77
Self-disclosure (Krasnova et al., 2009) I reveal a lot of information about me on WA 0.77
My WA profile tells a lot about me 0.83
I have a detailed profile on WA 0.71
Social comparison (Cramer et al., 2016) I feel less motivated to use WA to avoid comparing myself to others 0.88
I feel less motivated to use WA as I compare myself to others through WA use 0.81
Fear of missing out (FoMO) (Przybylski et al., 2013) I fear others have more rewarding experiences than me 0.78
I fear my friends have more rewarding experiences than me 0.71
Social media fatigue (SMF) (Karasek, 1979) Due to WA use, I feel rather exhausted 0.76
After using WA, it takes effort to concentrate in my spare time 0.83
During WA use, I often feel too fatigued to perform other tasks well 0.83
Sharing fake news onlinea I often share fake news because I don't have time to check its authenticity 0.87
I share fake news because I don't have time to check facts through trusted sources 0.87

Note. WhatsApp = WA.

a
Measures developed based on qualitative study.

Table 4
Validity and reliability.
CR AVE MSV ASV ANO SFO OT SD SC FoMO SMF

Authenticating news before sharing online (ANO) 0.80 0.58 0.10 0.05 0.76
Sharing fake news online (SFO) 0.86 0.76 0.29 0.13 0.18 0.87
Online trust (OT) 0.75 0.60 0.29 0.14 0.04 0.54 0.77
Self-disclosure (SD) 0.82 0.60 0.25 0.15 0.31 0.39 0.50 0.77
Social comparison (SC) 0.83 0.71 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.18 0.34 0.31 0.85
Fear of missing out (FoMO) 0.71 0.55 0.28 0.16 0.22 0.42 0.37 0.45 0.32 0.74
Social media fatigue (SMF) 0.85 0.65 0.28 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.32 0.44 0.53 0.80

Note: Values in diagonal are the square root of AVE and the off-diagonal values are correlations.

and theories from psychology and communication were reviewed to media fatigue, and online social comparison as the possible antecedents
build a comprehensive research model which was analyzed using cross- of authenticating news before sharing and sharing fake news online.
sectional data collected from university students. This study proposed The outcome of hypotheses testing is presented here.
ten hypotheses to examine online trust, self-disclosure, FoMO, social H1 examined if negative association exists between online trust and

Fig. 2. The results of hypotheses testing.

78
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

authenticating news before sharing it online. The study findings support Greenfield (2017) and Logan et al. (2018). The finding suggest that
this hypothesis, which is consistent with the findings of Grosser et al. authentication of news adds to fatigue because a user might have to
(2010). This finding implies that social media users with high trust in browse several links to confirm if the news is real or fake.
the content shared on WhatsApp are likely to share it with others H10, hypothesizing a positive association of SMF with sharing fake
without authenticating. Similarly, H2 examined if a positive association news online, is supported by the study findings. This implies that, in
between online trust and sharing fake news online exists. This hy- their desire to use social media despite fatigue, users may share fake
pothesis is also supported. This is again consistent with Grosser et al. news online, since it might serve as a quick way of remaining active
(2010) as well as prior literature, which suggests that users with high without putting in much effort. Further, they might also share the news
online trust do not hesitate to take risks in sharing information without realizing that it is fake. This finding is in line with the results of
(Krasnova et al., 2010; Lin and Liu, 2012). the study by Logan et al. (2018), who argued that SMF leads to more
H3, which examined the negative association between self-dis- errors and confusion. Sharing of fake news by fatigued users is also as
closure and authenticating news before sharing it online, is not sup- anticipated by the sociotechnical model of media effects (Marwick,
ported. In comparison, the result indicating a significant positive as- 2018).
sociation between the two suggests that users who tend to engage in
more self-disclosure may have tendency to authenticate news before 7. Study implications
sharing it. The possible reasons could be: First, as suggested by the prior
literature, self-disclosure is motivated by a need to build connections 7.1. Theoretical implications
and relationships (Buglass et al., 2017; Whitty and Joinson, 2009) and
the sharing of unauthenticated news might adversely impact these The objective of this study is to investigate the association between
objectives, i.e., mutual understanding and strong relationships. Second, different aspects of social media use and the fake news sharing beha-
gossip sharing behavior in offline and online space may be different vior. This study has significant importance since it is one of the first to
(e.g., in an online forum, gossip can be recorded, unlike in offline model the behavior of social media users in sharing fake news and
channels), due to which findings of seminal work on gossip may not authenticating it before sharing online. The study has brought together
apply here (e.g., Eder and Enke, 1991). key constructs that have been identified by the prior studies as im-
H4, which examined the positive association between self-disclosure portant factors shaping social media usage. The important implications
and sharing fake news online, is supported by the study findings. The of the study for scholars are as follows. First, the study findings advance
finding is in line with the existing seminal work (Eder and Enke, 1991). the current limited understanding on online fake news sharing beha-
This suggests that users with high self-disclosure are likely to share fake vior. The findings will enable the scientific community to understand
news online. the factors that are positively and negatively associated with fake news
We hypothesized positive association between social comparison sharing behavior. Fake news is becoming a large threat, and new
and authenticating news before sharing online via H5. The study knowledge of its dynamics can catalyze the formulation of effective
findings did not support it, as no significant association was found. A strategies in protecting society and firms from the threat of fake news
possible reason could be that there is a more understandable link be- spread.
tween gossip and social comparison (Suls, 1977), such that users may Second, the study findings have brought newer understanding on
not see authentication of news as a way of enhancing self in comparison the association of the dark side of social media use and fake news
with others. However, the behavior may be much more complex and sharing behavior. It is important to mention that no prior empirical
needs to be evaluated further before any conclusion can be drawn. The study has examined such associations in the past. This new knowledge
fact is that nonsignificant association between social comparison and of the association of fake news, and social media use behavior can
authenticating news before sharing may indicate that there might be improve the understanding of marketers and analysts with regard to
other mediating variables, which must be examined in future studies. consumer behavior in the era of fake news and social media. The fear of
In comparison, H6, implying that social comparison is negatively the potentially damaging role of social media in spreading fake news
associated with sharing fake news online, is supported by the study about society and firms is alarming; making the current study findings
findings. A possible reason could be that social comparison is associated significant as they provide a foundational knowledge and under-
with the building of a positive image before others and sharing fake standing of the association between the two.
news can have damaging effect on the user's image. This behavior is Third, the study has grounded the antecedents and the dependent
anticipated as it has been argued by prior studies that social comparison variables in the existing seminal work, popular theories like self-de-
leads to a drive to enhance oneself (Wert and Salovey, 2004). In this termination theory, theory of rational choice, social comparison theory,
case, the users can be argued to be enhancing self by pursuing an image and related prior studies. Although prior literature on social media has
of a person who doesn't share fake news by endeavoring to not to share used some of these theories to explain various aspects of behavior, this
it. is the first time that these theories are being extended in connection to
H7 examined the negative relationship between FoMO and au- sharing fake news. By doing so, the study has opened the scope for the
thenticating news before sharing online and it is not supported by the application of the proven existing work to the research in the new area
study findings. This finding is contrary to the expectation of decrease in of fake news, which is raising concerns across the globe. The fact that
self-regulation and increase in undesirable behavior (Baumeister et al., most of the hypotheses, grounded in the existing work, are supported
2005) as a result of exclusion anxiety, which is one of the factors af- provides basis for taking the exploration of these constructs further.
fecting FoMO. Similar to social comparison, future investigations Scholars can extend the conceptual model by exploring more compli-
should examine the mediating variables in the association of FoMO and cated relationships of mediation and moderation to galvanize the re-
authenticating news before sharing online. In comparison, H8 is sup- search in the area further.
ported, thus suggesting that FoMO is positively associated with sharing Fourth, the dependent variable related to the authentication of news
fake news online. The findings of H8 are similar to a recent study which before sharing, which was identified as a result of the qualitative study,
argues that FoMO drives people to share gossip online (Nottingham requires deeper understanding. To this end, scholars can use the third-
Trent University, 2016). person effect hypothesis (TPE) (Davison, 1983) which argues that
H9, implying that SMF has a negative association with authenti- people believe that negative media messages influence others more and
cating news before sharing it online, is not supported by the findings of this perception causes them to act to protect others. The need to au-
the study. Rather, a significant positive association is found, which is thenticate may be interpreted to stem from the perception that others
contrary to the behavior anticipated in line with the findings of may be impacted by fake news and, hence, it needs to be authenticated

79
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

before sharing. Furthermore, in contrast to the hypothesized expecta- considered to be a limitation of the study, if interpreted in a general
tions, the study findings indicated the existence of positive association context where value of 0.75 is considered substantial (Hair et al., 2013).
of self-disclosure and SMF, respectively, with authenticating news be- However, this is not really a limitation, as much lower values of var-
fore sharing it online. This finding also needs to be evaluated. iance explained are acceptable in consumer behavior studies (Hair
Fifth, FoMO, social comparison and other constructs analyzed in et al., 2011). The low value of R2 can also be interpreted as an in-
this study are manifestations of some underlying emotion (e.g., fear). dication of the need to study asymmetrical relations amongst the con-
Past studies related to consumer behavior have also emphasized the structs analyzed by the present study.
importance of emotions and acknowledged that the same have re- We recommend that scholars should address the above limitations
mained understudied (Pappas et al., 2014, 2017). Hence, this study in future investigations. The study setup should be examined and va-
contributes to the extant literature in the related areas. lidated by recruiting social media users from other countries. In addi-
Sixth, limited prior empirical literature on fake news is mainly fo- tion, the dynamic and causal nature of relationship among these vari-
cused on social media users from the Western world. In contrast, the ables should be examined through longitudinal and experimental
current study is based on samples drawn from Asian social media users. studies. Further, future research could examine the association of fake
Emerging economies based in Asia have evolved into an important news sharing behavior with other social media use measures. Future
geography for marketers worldwide, but studies related to their social research can also focus on uncovering the mediating and moderating
media behavior remain limited. This study is expected to divert the effects of the independent variables and cultural differences, respec-
attention of scholars to less-developed countries that represent mass tively, on authenticating news and sharing fake news online.
market, as social media usage is diffusing rapidly there. In view of the limitation regarding the low value of R2, future re-
searchers may study asymmetrical relations among these constructs by
7.2. Practical implications performing fuzzy set qualitative analysis (fsQCA) (Ragin, 2008), as
applied by many recent studies (e.g., Pappas, 2018; Pappas et al., 2016;
The current study has four main implications. First, this study has Woodside, 2014). The versatility of FsQCA lies in the fact that it gives
raised pertinent questions about the impact of the dark side of social multiple solutions to explain any outcome. Despite its limitations, the
media on sharing fake news online. The fake news shared online can study contributes insightful knowledge and provides better under-
have a potentially damaging impact on products and brands (e.g., standing of the association of dark side of social media use and fake
PepsiCo, New Balance) (Gupta, 2016). Consequently, understanding news sharing behavior.
how the socio-psychological aspects of interacting on online social
media are associated with fake news sharing can provide insightful Acknowledgement
knowledge to the marketers. For example, since FoMO stems from a
drive to seek belongingness and popularity (Beyens et al., 2016), We acknowledge the support received from the Academy of Finland
marketers can introduce star rating of users who share informative mobility grants (Decision No 326066, 318452, 311191, 326065,
reviews. Furthermore, study results suggest actionable alternatives for 317752)
firms to minimize the negative fallout of social media behaviors on
brands, e.g., focus on online trust and minimize fatigue, as these con- Appendix A. Supplementary data
tribute to fake news sharing behavior.
Second, since online trust is important in sharing information re- Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
ceived online, brands and firms should focus on utilizing WhatsApp doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026.
groups to fight the menace of fake news. They could possibly motivate
their loyal customers, who may also be influential members of a group, References
to share positive reviews about a brand or firm. This is important be-
cause group members are likely to trust the information they receive Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M., 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ.
from the trusted group and may also become positively disposed to- Perspect. 31 (2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211.
Alt, D., 2015. College students' academic motivation, media engagement and fear of
wards the brand. missing out. Comput. Hum. Behav. 49, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
Third, this study has found that the need for positive image and 2015.02.057.
popularity in social comparison prevents people from sharing fake Baccarella, C., Wagner, T., Kietzmann, J., McCarthy, I., 2018. SM? It's serious!
Understanding the dark side of SM. Eur. Manag. J. 36, 431–438. https://doi.org/10.
news; thus, marketers can run contests among social media users for 1016/j.emj.2018.07.002.
spotting and contradicting fake news related to their brands. Need for Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Ciarocco, N.J., Twenge, J.M., 2005. Social exclusion
popularity may prompt consumers to actively seek and denounce fake impairs self-regulation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88 (4), 589–604.
Baumeister, R.F., Tice, D.M., 1990. Point-counterpoints: anxiety and social exclusion. J.
news. This strategy will also create opportunities for self-enhancement
Soc. Clin. Psychol. 9 (2), 165–195. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.165.
for users, leading to upward social comparison (social comparison Baum, D., Spann, M., Füller, J., Thürridl, C., 2018. The impact of social media campaigns
theory (Festinger, 1954)). on the success of new product introductions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.003.
Fourth, since we found that social media fatigue causes users to
Bazarova, N.N., Choi, Y.H., 2014. Self-disclosure in social media: extending the functional
share fake news, apps tracking screen time, and generating warnings approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. J.
can be made mandatory by policy makers in the interest of society as a Commun. 64 (4), 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12106.
whole. Further, campaigns with testimonials can be run to educate Becker, G.S., 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London.
social media users on the dark side of social media uses to boost public Bessi, A., 2017. On the statistical properties of viral misinformation in online SM. Phys.
wellbeing and protect the potential targets of fake news. Stat. Mech. Appl. 469, 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.11.012.
Beyens, I., Frison, E., Eggermont, S., 2016. I don't want to miss a thing: adolescents' fear of
missing out and its relationship to adolescents' social needs, Facebook use, and
8. Limitations and further research Facebook related stress. Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2016.05.083.
The current study has two main limitations. First, the study sample Bhattacharya, A., 2018. Cut it out: WhatsApp is limiting message forwarding in a country
where fake news can kill. available at:https://qz.com/india/1332652/whatsapp-
was selected from only one country, so generalizing the findings of the limits-forwarding-in-india-to-curb-fake-news-and-lynching/ .
study to other geographies or cultural settings is difficult. Second, the Blackwell, D., Leaman, C., Tramposch, R., Osborne, C., Liss, M., 2017. Extraversion,
study methodology was influenced by the cross-sectional design, which neuroticism, attachment style and fear of missing out as predictors of social media
use and addiction. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 116, 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
is prone to methodological biases. Furthermore, in cross-sectional de- 2017.04.039.
sign, causality is difficult to examine. Also, the low value of R2 may be

80
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

Bond, R.M., Fariss, C.J., Jones, J.J., Kramer, A.D.I., Marlow, C., Settle, J.E., Fowler, J.H., across-social-media-platforms-2016/.
2012. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Grabner-Kräuter, S., Bitter, S., 2013. Trust in online social networks: a multifaceted
Nature 489 (7415), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11421. perspective. Forum Soc. Econ. 44 (1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.
Boyer O'Leary, M., Wilson, J.M., Metiu, A., 2014. Beyond being there: the symbolic role of 2013.781517.
communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically Greenfield, A., 2017. Radical Technologies: the Design of Everyday Life. Penguin Random
dispersed colleagues. MIS Q. 38 (4), 1219–1243. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/ House, London, UK.
2014/38.4.13. Grosser, T.J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., Labianca, G., 2010. A social network of positive and
Bright, L.F., Kleiser, S.B., Grau, S.L., 2015. Too much Facebook? An exploratory ex- negative gossip in organizational life. Group Organ. Manag. 35 (2), 177–212.
amination of social media fatigue. Comput. Hum. Behav. 44, 148–155. https://doi. Guerin, B., 2003. Language use as social strategy: a review and an analytic framework for
org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.048. the social sciences. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 7 (3), 251–298.
Buglass, S.L., Binder, J.F., Betts, L.R., Underwood, J.D.M., 2017. Motivators of online Gupta, S., 2016, December 6. Trump supporters call to boycott Pepsi over comments the
vulnerability: the impact of social network site use and FoMO. Comput. Hum. Behav. CEO never made [News]. Retrieved from. http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/16/
66, 248–255. news/companies/pepsi-fake-news-boycott-trump.
Caplan, R., Hanson, L., Donovan, J., 2018, February 21. Dead reckoning: navigating Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis a Global
content moderation after “fake news”, Data and Society. Available at: https:// Perspective, seventh ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
datasociety.net/pubs/oh/DataAndSociety_Dead_Reckoning_2018.pdf. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark.
Chayko, M., 2017. Superconnected: the Internet, Digital Media, and Tecno-Social Life. Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139–151.
Sage, Los Angeles, LA. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2013. Partial least squares structural equation
Christofedes, R., Muise, A., Desmarais, S., 2009. Information disclosure and control on modelling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long. Range
Facebook: are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? Plan. 46, 1–12.
Cyberpsychol. Behav. 12 (3), 341–345. Heiphetz, L., Spelke, E.S., Harris, P.L., Banaji, M.R., 2013. The development of reasoning
Coffee, P., 2013, September 26. PR fail: barilla Chairman says he will ‘never’ include gays about beliefs: fact, preference, and ideology. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49 (3), 559–565.
in ads. Retrieved from. https://www.adweek.com/digital/pr-fail-barilla-chairman- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.09.005.
says-he-will-never-include-gays-in-ads/. Hennig-Thurau, T., Hofacker, C.F., Bloching, B., 2013. Marketing the pinball way: un-
Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 2008. Basics Of Qualitative Research: Techniques And Procedures derstanding how social media change the generation of value for consumers and
for Developing Grounded Theory, third ed. Sage research methods. companies. J. Interact. Mark. 27 (4), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.
Cramer, E.M., Song, H., Drent, A.M., 2016. Social comparison on Facebook: motivation, 2013.09.005.
affective consequences, self-esteem, and Facebook fatigue. Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, Hesse-Biber, S.N., Leavy, P., 2010. The Practice of Qualitative Research. Sage
739–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.049. Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Davison, W.P., 1983. The third-person effect in communication. Publ. Opin. Q. 47, 1–15. Immordino‐Yang, M.H., Christodoulou, J.A., Singh, V., 2012. Rest is not idleness: im-
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human plications of the brain's default mode for human development and education.
Behavior. Plenum Press, New York, NY. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7 (4), 352–364.
Dewan, S., Ramaprasad, J., 2014. SM, traditional media, and music sales. MIS Q. 38 (1), Jang, S.M., Geng, T., Queenie Li, J.-Y., Xia, R., Huang, C.-T., Kim, H., Tang, J., 2018. A
101–121. computational approach for examining the roots and spreading patterns of fake news:
Dewey, C., 2016. Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think Donald Trump is in the White House evolution tree analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 84, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.
because of me.’ the Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost. 1016/j.chb.2018.02.032.
com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fakenews-writer-i-think-donald- Jin, Z., Cao, J., Zhang, Y., Luo, J., 2016. News verification by exploiting conflicting social
trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?tid=sm_tw. viewpoints in microblogs. In: AAAI. Proceeding AAAI'16 Proceedings of the Thirtieth
Dhir, A., Chen, S., Nieminen, M., 2015. Predicting adolescent Internet addiction: the roles AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Pages 2972-2978 Phoenix, Arizona —
of demographics, technology accessibility, unwillingness to communicate and sought February 12 - 17, 2016.
Internet gratifications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Karasek, R.A., 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications
chb.2015.04.056. for job redesign. Adm. Sci. Q. 24 (2), 285. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498.
Dhir, A., Yossatorn, Y., Kaur, P., Chen, S., 2018a. Online social media fatigue and psy- Keefer, S.M., 1993. Portrait of the Gossip as a Young (Wo)man: Form and Content of
chological wellbeing—a study of compulsive use, fear of missing out, fatigue, anxiety Gossip Among Junior High School Students. Doctoral thesis. Temple University,
and depression. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 40, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt. Philadelphia, PA.
2018.01.012. Kline, R.B., 2016. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, fourth ed.
Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Chen, S., Lonka, K., 2016a. Understanding online regret experience in Guilford, New York , NY.
Facebook use - effects of brand participation, accessibility & problematic use. Kohli, C., Suri, R., Kapoor, A., 2015. Will social media kill branding? Bus. Horiz. 58 (1),
Comput. Hum. Behav. 59, 420–430. 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.08.004.
Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Lonka, K., Nieminen, M., 2016b. Why do adolescents untag photos on Konnikova, M., 2011, June 23. The power of negative gossip: coloring how we see the
Facebook? Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 1106–1115. world, one rumor at a time [Blog]. Retrieved from. https://bigthink.com/artful-
Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Rajala, R., 2018b. Why do young people tag photos on social net- choice/the-power-of-negative-gossip-coloring-how-we-see-the-world-one-rumor-at-
working sites? Explaining user intentions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 38 (1), 117–127. a-time.
Dhir, A., Khalil, A., Kaur, P., Rajala, R., 2018c. Rationale for “liking” on social networking Krasnova, H., Kolesnikova, E., Günther, O., 2009. It Won't happen to me!": self- disclosure
sites. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318779145. in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Americas Conference on
Dhir, A., Chen, G.M., Chen, S., 2017. Why do we tag photographs on Facebook? Proposing Information System, August, San Francisco, California.
a new gratifications scale. New Media Soc. 19 (4), 502–521. Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., Hildebrand, T., 2010. Online social net-
DuBois, T., Golbeck, J., Srinivasan, A., 2011, October. Predicting trust and distrust in works: why we disclose. J. Inf. Technol. 25 (2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1057/
social networks. In: 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, jit.2010.6.
Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing. Lee, A.R., Son, S.-M., Kim, K.K., 2016. Information and communication technology
IEEE Computer Society, Boston, MA, pp. 418–424. https://doi.org/10.1109/passat/ overload and social networking service fatigue: a stress perspective. Comput. Hum.
socialcom.2011.56. Behav. 55, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.011.
Dunbar, R.I.M., 1996. Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. Faber and Faber, Lewis, G., Wessely, S., 1992. The epidemiology of fatigue: more questions than answers.
London. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 46 (2), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.46.
Eder, D., Enke, J.L., 1991. The structure of gossip: opportunities and constraints on col- 2.92.
lective expression among adolescents. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56 (4), 494–508. Lin, R., van de Ven, N., Utz, S., 2018. What triggers envy on social network sites? A
Falk, R.F., Miller, N.B., 1992. A Primer Soft Modelling. University of Akron Press, Akron, comparison between shared experiential and material purchases. Comput. Hum.
Ohio. Behav. 85, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.049.
Fang, J., Shao, Y., Wen, C., 2016. Transactional quality, relational quality, and consumer Lin, S.-W., Liu, Y.-C., 2012. The effects of motivations, trust, and privacy concern in social
e-loyalty: evidence from SEM and fsQCA. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36 (6), 1205–1217. networking. Service Business 6 (4), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-012-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.08.006. 0158-6.
Festinger, L., 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7 (2), 117–140. Litsa, T., 2016, March 17. 12 times brands went viral for the wrong reasons. Retrieved
Fletcher, R., Nielsen, R.K., 2017. Are news audiences increasingly fragmented? A cross- from. https://www.clickz.com/12-times-brands-went-viral-for-the-wrong-reasons/
national comparative analysis of cross-platform news audience fragmentation and 95741/.
duplication. J. Commun. 67 (4), 476–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12315. Logan, K., Bright, L.F., Grau, S.L., 2018. Unfriend me, please!: social media fatigue and
Fox, J., Rooney, M.C., 2015. The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as predictors of the theory of rational choice. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 26 (4), 357–367. https://doi.
men's use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites. Pers. Indiv. org/10.1080/10696679.2018.1488219.
Differ. 76, 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.017. Loureiro, S.M.C., Cavallero, L., Miranda, F.J., 2018. Fashion brands on retail websites:
Garcia, D., Sikström, S., 2014. The dark side of Facebook: semantic representations of customer performance expectancy and e-word-of-mouth. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 41,
status updates predict the Dark Triad of personality. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 67, 92–96. 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.12.005.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.001. Lyons, M.T., Hughes, S., 2015. Malicious mouths? The Dark Triad and motivations for
Gibbs, J.L., Ellison, N.B., Heino, R.D., 2006. Self-presentation in online personals, the role gossip. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 78, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.009.
of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure and perceived success in internet Mahapatra, S., Mishra, A., 2017. Acceptance and forwarding of electronic word of mouth.
dating. Commun. Res. 33 (2), 152–177. Market. Intell. Plan. 35 (5), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1108/mip-01-2017-0007.
Gottfried, J., Shearer, E., 2016, May 26. News use across social media platforms 2016 Marwick, A.E., 2018. Why do people share fake news? A sociotechnical model of media
[Analysis]. Retrieved from. http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use- effects. Georget. Law Technol. Rev. 2 (2), 474–512.

81
S. Talwar, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51 (2019) 72–82

Matousek, M., 2018, October 19. The 32 most outrageous things Elon Musk has said. Popat, K., Mukherjee, S., Strötgen, J., Weikum, G., 2017. Where the Truth Lies: Explaining
Retrieved from: https://www.businessinsider.in/The-32-most-outrageous-things- the Credibility of Emerging Claims on the Web and SM. WWW. International World
Elon-Musk-has-said/articleshow/66286130.cms. Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2), published under Creative Commons CC
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., 1995. An integrative model of organizational BY 4.0 License. WWW 2017 Companion, April 3–7, 2017, Perth, Australia ACM 978-
trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995. 1-4503-4914-7/17/04. https://doi.org/10.1145/3041021.3055133.
9508080335. Przybylski, A.K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C.R., Gladwell, V., 2013. Motivational, emo-
McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., Wineburg, S., 2018. Can students tional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29 (4),
evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theor. 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014.
Res. Soc. Educ. 46 (2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320. Ragin, C.C., 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and beyond. Wiley Online
Movsisyan, S.A., 2016. Social media marketing strategy of Yerevan brandy company. Library.
Ann. Agrar. Sci. 14 (3), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aasci.2016.08.010. Ravindran, T., Yeow Kuan, A.C., Hoe Lian, D.G., 2014. Antecedents and effects of social
Munzel, A., 2016. Assisting consumers in detecting fake reviews: the role of identity in- network fatigue. J. Assoc. Infor. Sci. Technol. 65 (11), 2306–2320. https://doi.org/
formation disclosure and consensus. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 32, 96–108. https://doi. 10.1002/asi.23122.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.002. Rost, K., Stahel, L., Frey, B.S., 2016. Digital social norm enforcement: online firestorms in
Mustafaraj, E., Metaxas, P.T., 2017. The Fake News Spreading Plague: Was it SM. PLoS One 11 (6), e0155923. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155923.
Preventable? Cornell University Library Retrieved from arXiv:1703.06988 [cs.SI]. Rubin, V.L., Chen, Y., Conroy, N.J., 2015. Deception detection for news: three types of
Nesi, J., Prinstein, M.J., 2015. Using social media for social comparison and feedback- fakes. Proceed. Assoc. Infor. Sci. Technol. 52 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.
seeking: gender and popularity moderate associations with depressive symptoms. J. 2015.145052010083.
Abnorm. Child Psychol. 43 (8), 1427–1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015- Shin, J., Jian, L., Driscoll, K., Bar, F., 2018. The diffusion of misinformation on SM:
0020-0. temporal pattern, message, and source. Comput. Hum. Behav. 83, 278–287. https://
Newhoff, D., 2018. Why do we share fake news? Available at: https://illusionofmore. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.008.
com/why-do-we-share-fake-news/. Shu, K., Sliva, A., Wang, S., Tang, J., Liu, H., 2017. Fake news detection on SM. ACM
Nisar, T.M., Prabhakar, G., Ilavarasan, P.V., Baabdullah, A.M., 2019. Up the ante: elec- SIGKDD Explor. Newslett. 19 (1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137597.
tronic word of mouth and its effects on firm reputation and performance. J. Retail. 3137600.
Consum. Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.12.010. Suls, J.M., 1977. Gossip as social comparison. J. Commun. 27 (1), 164–168. https://doi.
Nottingham Trent University, 2016. FOMO’ a vicious circle for social media users [News]. org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01812.x.
Retrieved from. https://www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/news/news-articles/2016/10/ Tacchini, E., Ballarin, G., Vedova, M.L., Moret, S., Alfaro, L.D., 2017. Some like it Hoax:
fomo-a-vicious-circle-for-social-media-users. Automated Fake News Detection in Social Networks. CoRR abs/1704.07506.
O’brien, R.M., 2007. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Torres de Oliveira, R., Indulska, M., Steen, J., Verreynne, M.-L., 2019. Towards a fra-
Qual. Quantity 41, 673–690. mework for innovation in retailing through social media. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
Okazaki, S., Rubio, N., Campo, S., 2013. Do online gossipers promote brands? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.017.
Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 16 (2), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber. van Zoonen, W., Verhoeven, J.W.M., Vliegenthart, R., 2017. Understanding the con-
2012.0283. sequences of public social media use for work. Eur. Manag. J. 35 (5), 595–605.
Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., Raita, E., 2011. Habits make smartphone use more https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.07.006.
pervasive. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 16 (1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Wert, S.R., Salovey, P., 2004. A social comparison account of gossip. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8
s00779-011-0412-2. (2), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.122.
Pace, S., Balboni, B., Gistri, G., 2014. The effects of social media on brand attitude and Whitty, M., Joinson, A., 2009. Truth, Lies and Trust on the Internet. Routledge, London/
WOM during a brand crisis: evidences from the Barilla case. J. Mark. Commun. 23 New York, NY.
(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.966478. Winter, S., Neubaum, G., Eimler, S.C., Gordon, V., Theil, J., Herrmann, J., et al., 2014.
Pappas, I.O., 2018. User experience in personalized online shopping: a fuzzy-set analysis. Another brick in the Facebook wall – how personality traits relate to the content of
Eur. J. Market. 52 (7/8), 1679–1703. status updates. Comput. Hum. Behav. 34, 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
Pappas, I.O., Kourouthanassis, P.E., Giannakos, M.N., Chrissikopoulos, V., 2014. Shiny 2014.01.048.
happy people buying: the role of emotions on personalized e-shopping. Electron. Wang, W.Y., 2017. Liar, liar pants on fire: a new benchmark dataset for fake news de-
Mark. 24, 193–206. tection. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational
Pappas, I.O., Kourouthanassis, P.E., Giannakos, M.N., Chrissikopoulos, V., 2016. Linguistics, vol. 2https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p17-2067. Short Papers.
Explaining online shopping behavior with fsQCA: the role of cognitive and affective Wang, J., Wang, X., 2012. Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus.
perceptions. J. Bus. Res. 69 (2), 794–803. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Pappas, I.O., Kourouthanassis, P.E., Giannakos, M.N., Chrissikopoulos, V., 2017. Sense Woodside, A.G., 2014. Embrace• perform• model: complexity theory, contrarian case
and sensibility in personalized e-commerce: how emotions rebalance the purchase analysis, and multiple realities. J. Bus. Res. 67 (12), 2495–2503.
intention of persuaded customers. Psychol. Market. 34 (10), 972–986. https://doi. Yadav, M., Joshi, Y., Rahman, Z., 2015. Mobile social media: the new hybrid element of
org/10.1002/mar.21036. digital marketing communications. Procedia - Social Behav. Sci. 189, 335–343.
Potthast, M., Kiesel, J., Reinartz, K., Bevendor, J., Stein, B., 2017. A Stylometric Inquiry https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.229.
into Hyperpartisan and Fake News. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05638.

82

View publication stats