DANIEL FRED A.

DY-COK July 14, 2018

HU21

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2017). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of
fake news. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2958246

In this study, the researchers explored the possibility of using prior exposure as a means of assessing their
ability to discern the accuracy of news articles whether they are real or fake news as well as explain the
reason for the believability of fake news especially in the role that social media has in it. The study was
conducted on various demographics and controlled variables such as displaying whether the news source
was trusted or not. Using survey research design, the researchers discovered that persons who had prior
exposure to fake news were more likely to believe fake news than those who were not. Moreover, the results
were the same the next week after they were surveyed the first time. Also, it was discovered that the
“illusory truth effect” becomes stronger as repetition of statements occur. It was also found that prior
exposure did not have an effect on implausible statements. While the study may prove the link between
repetition and the believability of fake news, there are some notable limitations in the study. For example,
the study does not take into account whether the respondents have been educated or have knowledge relating
to the characteristics of fake news. Another limitation is on the reduction of the sample size in the second
test due to a lack of response the week after the first test. Nonetheless, this may be a good study in terms of
giving insight how fake news gains believability.

Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the
consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. European Research Council.
Retrieved from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf

The goal of the study was to describe how people selectively chose the information they consume to
reinforce their biases (echo chambers). In the study it also sought to statistically describe the amount of
fake news consumption each demographic had. As for the methodology, the researchers used unique data
combining survey and discovered that the respondents who had been exposed to fake news where more
likely to consume fake news and that Americans who had narrow political viewpoints were
disproportionately more likely to consume fake news. Also it was discovered that Facebook was an
effective platform in spreading fake news. As for the limitations of the study, one of its flaws is on the
disproportionate focus on Trump supporters as a primary consumers of fake news and not giving extensive
analysis of the news consumption habits of Clinton supporters. Moreover, another limitation is on how it
did not describe how other websites have contributed in spreading fake news. Nonetheless, this research
serves as a good explanation how fake news consumption is distributed across the ideological spectrum and
across various exposure levels.
DANIEL FRED A. DY-COK July 14, 2018
HU21

Nielsen, R. K., & Graves, L. (2017). ‘News You Don’t Believe’: Audience Perspectives on Fake
News. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Report. UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism

This study focuses on how audiences and news consumers view the contemporary news environment and
their perspectives on how reliable news sources are. The study made use of focus groups and surveys in
order to arrive at four key findings: first, the researchers found that the respondents believe the distinction
of fake and real news is a matter of degree which is to say that there is no clear boundary between fake and
real news and that some news may be more true than others. Second, the respondents identified fake news
based on their appearance as professional content. Third, the researchers found that there is a negative
association between fake news and publishers and politicians and that trusted sources may be used as a
form of correction. Lastly, the researchers discovered that there is a significant awareness among the people
that the term “fake news” was used as a political buzzword. Overall, the research concluded from the results
that on the whole, people are frustrated with the current media environment. One of the major limitations
found in the study is on the use of focus group discussion. Here, they did not state whether they included
people from various demographics or political views which leads us to question the balance of the study.
In conclusion, this study serves as a good reference in relation to the opinions and perspectives of people
relating to the phenomenon of fake news.