The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Why Students Share Misinformation on Social Media: Motivation,

Gender, and Study-level Differences
Xinran Chen ⁎, Sei-Ching Joanna Sin, Yin-Leng Theng, Chei Sian Lee
Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, 31 Nanyang Link, 637718, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The increasing use of social media for information sharing has elevated the need for information literacy (IL) ed-
Received 4 May 2015 ucation to prepare students to be effective information creators and communicators. One concern is that students
Accepted 6 July 2015 sometimes indiscriminately forward misinformation. Understanding the reasons behind misinformation sharing
Available online 27 July 2015
would help the development of IL intervention strategies. Guided by the Uses and Gratifications approach and
rumor research, undergraduate and graduate students in Singapore were surveyed on why they share misinfor-
Keywords:
Misinformation sharing
mation on social media. Gender and study-level differences were investigated. Over 60% of respondents had
Social media shared misinformation. The top reasons were related to the information's perceived characteristics, as well as
Motivation self-expression and socializing. Accuracy and authoritativeness did not rank highly. Women had a higher preva-
Gender differences lence of sharing and intention to share misinformation. Undergraduate and graduate students differed in their
Study-level differences reasons for sharing misinformation. The former share (and intend to share) more misinformation than the latter,
Characteristics of information but the difference was not statistically significant. Because many of the reasons cited were social in nature, IL
training should address the social motivations propelling such behavior. Social media systems may also develop
features that encourage users to flag debunked postings and allow a correction to be displayed alongside the
misinformation.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
The rise of social media has not only changed how people stay con-
nected, but also brought about considerable opportunities and chal-
lenges in students' information behavior. The changing information
horizon and shifting information behavior patterns have implications
for information literacy (IL) education. College students are particularly
active users of various social media platforms (Duggan, Ellison, Lampe,
Lenhart, & Madden, 2015). They use social media for both academic
and everyday life information seeking (Head & Eisenberg, 2011; Kim,
Sin, & Yoo-Lee, 2014; Shao, 2009). While library and information
science (LIS) professionals recognize the collaborative information
seeking potential of social media, they are also cognizant of the varying
quality of social media information. Given the ease with which informa-
tion is posted and shared, misinformation—defined as information that
has been shown to be inaccurate (Karlova & Fisher, 2013)—can circulate
on social media quickly and widely (Mintz, 2012b). Misinformation can
cause suspicion and fear among the public. It can also have harmful ef-
fects on individuals' well-being (Ferrara, 2015). There is, therefore, a
pressing need to prepare students to be proficient social media users
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chen0872@ntu.edu.sg (X. Chen), joanna.sin@ntu.edu.sg (S.-C.J. Sin),
tyltheng@ntu.edu.sg (Y.-L. Theng), leecs@ntu.edu.sg (C.S. Lee).
who are careful and responsible when sharing information on social
media.
The efforts to develop an IL program suitable for the new information
environment are multi-pronged. These include reexamining the scope
and focus of IL (e.g., critical IL, IL 2.0, and meta-literacy), developing
standards and best practices, and conducting empirical investigations
on students' social media information behavior. In terms of the last cat-
egory, most studies have focused on perception and use of social media
(e.g., Kim, Sin, & Tsai, 2014; Lim, 2009; Morris, Teevan, & Panovich,
2010; Zhang, 2012), as well as on the criteria and strategies used in eval-
uating the credibility of social media information (e.g., Kim & Oh, 2009;
Kim & Sin, 2014a; Lim, 2013; Walsh, 2010). Extant studies are invaluable
in shedding light on students as consumers of social media information.
There is, however, a dearth of research on students as information
sharers. While there are malevolent misinformation-spreaders on social
media, misinformation would not have gone so viral without the partic-
ipation of regular social media users (i.e., those who do not have mali-
cious intent). Many regular users unwittingly propel the spread of
misinformation when they undiscerningly forward misinformation to
their own social networks (Ratkiewicz et al., 2010). Some of this misin-
formation sharing could be prevented. Different from rumor, which is
defined as information that is unverifiable at the moment (DiFonzo &
Bordia, 2007), misinformation is inaccurate information that has already
been refuted. Thus, users could conceivably take steps to discover the in-
formation to be inaccurate. Currently, the extent to which students

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.003
0099-1333/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
584 X. Chen et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592
share misinformation with their online friends is unclear; if they do
share misinformation, what motivates them to do so is also unclear.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
In light of the research gap, the main objectives of this exploratory
study are to understand the characteristics of students who share misin-
formation on social media and their reasons for doing so. The goals are
to provide insights for the development of IL intervention strategies
on reducing misinformation sharing among students, as well as to pro-
vide a basis for the development of further large-scale research on this
topic. The study explores two main research questions (RQ).
• RQ1a: What are students' perceptions of, and experiences with, misin-
formation sharing on social media?
• RQ1b: Are there differences in their perceptions and experiences by
(i) gender and (ii) different levels of higher education (hereafter,
study-level differences)?
• RQ2a: What are the reasons behind their misinformation sharing on
social media?
• RQ2b: Are there differences in their reasons by (i) gender and
(ii) study-level?
By examining the reasons behind students' social media misinfor-
mation sharing, a hitherto unexplored area, this study's findings will
contribute to IL education, and to IL and information behavior literature,
in three ways. First, the study goes beyond analyzing students' use of
traditional scholarly and web resources to examine their use of social
media—an increasingly popular source of information. Second, the
study investigates students as information sharers rather than as mere
information consumers. Lastly, the study moves beyond cognitive fac-
tors to include affective reasons for students' information behavior.
With greater understanding of the motivations behind students' misin-
formation sharing and the potential individual factors affecting such
behavior, IL educators can develop pertinent strategies to prepare stu-
dents to be responsible users of social media.
LITERATURE REVIEW
SOCIAL MEDIA AND INFORMATION LITERACY EDUCATION
Social media is “a group of Internet-based applications that build on
the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow
the creation and exchange of User Generated Content” (Kaplan &
Haenlein, 2010, p. 60). These social media applications include collabo-
rative projects, blogs, content communities, social networking sites, vir-
tual game worlds, and virtual social worlds (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
A key aspect of social media is that it lets users communicate, share in-
formation, and collaborate (Anttiroiko & Savolainen, 2011).
The potential for social media to play a role in collaborative informa-
tion seeking and social change is notable (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes,
2010; Shah, 2012). At the same time, inaccurate information is rampant
on social media (Mintz, 2012b). Given that students are active social
media users (Duggan et al., 2015), how they use this medium (where
information is of varying quality) is an area of concern. Research often
shows that people in general, and students in particular, are not partic-
ularly diligent in their information seeking (Connaway, Dickey, &
Radford, 2011; Kim & Sin, 2011). To illustrate, in a survey on students'
evaluation of social media information, almost 60% of respondents re-
ported that they never verified if sources were cited properly in the so-
cial networking site (SNS) messages they received (Kim et al., 2014b).
Even in situations where students do conduct a credibility assessment,
their evaluative strategies are faulty at times. For example, students
sometimes use ineffective peripheral cues (e.g., a site's design or the
nicknames of a Wikipedia article's editors) to evaluate the credibility
of related social media information (Kim & Sin, 2014b; Lim & Simon,
2011; Yaari, Baruchson-Arbib, & Bar-Ilan, 2011).
Cognizant of the changing information landscape, there has been
some discussion of broadening the scope of IL to cover non-academic in-
formation seeking and the use of social media (Farkas, 2011; Spiranec &
Zorica, 2010). For instance, IL educators are preparing students to
engage effectively with information in a collaborative environment.
What is more, some libraries have started to develop guidelines and re-
sources for the evaluation and use of social media information (Bridges,
2012; Mitrano, 2011; Witek & Grettano, 2012). Problematic actions
such as students' sharing of misinformation on social media are an
area that IL training has the potential to help tackle.
REASONS BEHIND MISINFORMATION SHARING ON SOCIAL MEDIA
MISINFORMATION SHARING ON SOCIAL MEDIA
There are notable incidents of crisis-related misinformation sharing
on social media. Examples include misinformation surrounding Ebola
(Anagnostopoulos et al., 2014; Oyeyemi, Gabarron, & Wynn, 2014)
and the 2011 riots in the United Kingdom (Guardian Interactive team,
Procter, Vis, & Voss, 2011). Other misinformation may take the form of
daily life advice that appears on social media sites repeatedly over a
long period of time (Frost, 2002). Notably, inaccurate messages often
continue to go viral even after being debunked, whereas the correct in-
formation does not receive as much attention (Friggeri, Adamic, Eckles,
& Cheng, 2014; Oyeyemi et al., 2014). Indeed, catchiness—rather than
truthfulness—often drives information (and misinformation) diffusion
on social media (Ratkiewicz et al., 2010).
Several characteristics of social media also may exacerbate the
spread of misinformation. First, unlike traditional media, social media
lacks rigorous quality control mechanisms. Furthermore, social media
applications make it easy to disseminate information, including misin-
formation. One can forward messages to many receivers quite effort-
lessly; it is often as simple as a mouse click. Misinformation on social
media can thus quickly reach many individuals, which can cause confu-
sion and unnecessary anxiety among the public (Budak, Agrawal, &
Abbadi, 2011). To help curb the spread of misinformation, it is impor-
tant to understand the motivations driving the sharing of misinforma-
tion on social media.
MOTIVATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA USE: THE USES AND GRATIFICATIONS
APPROACH
It remains unclear what motivates regular users to share misinfor-
mation on social media. However, factors that motivate social media
usage in general have been investigated in a number of studies. While
these usage studies have a different focus than the current research,
they can provide insights on potential motivational factors for misinfor-
mation sharing on social media. Previous studies have investigated the
motivations for using SNS and photo sharing sites (Dunne, Lawlor, &
Rowley, 2010; Kim, Kim, & Nam, 2010; Nov, Naaman, & Ye, 2009). The
reasons behind news sharing on social media (Lee & Ma, 2012) and in-
formation sharing on mobile gaming sites (Lee, Goh, Chua, & Ang, 2010)
were also studied. Oh and Syn (2015) investigated and compared the
factors motivating users to share information on different social media
platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, YouTube, and Flickr). Many
of these studies on individual motivations are based on the well-
recognized Uses and Gratifications (U&G) approach (Lee & Ma, 2012,
p. 332; Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009; Ruggiero, 2000; Shao, 2009),
and individual motivations are often found to be salient. For example,
a study about Facebook use found that an individual's motivation is sig-
nificantly related to the amount of time spent on Facebook, while per-
sonality is not shown to have as strong an impact (Ross et al., 2009).
Four main motivation categories are identified in social media liter-
ature informed by the U&G approach (Lee & Ma, 2012; Park et al., 2009).
They are: (1) entertainment, which is about using social media for
personal enjoyment; (2) socializing, which refers to relationship
 X. Chen et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592
development and maintenance with one's network on social media;
(3) information seeking, which focuses on meeting informational
needs with social media applications; and (4) self-expression and status
seeking, which refers to using social media to express oneself and gain
reputation. Because these four motivations have been found significant
in general social media usage, this study seeks to investigate their per-
tinence in the context of students' misinformation sharing on social
media.
PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTICS OF INFORMATION
Beyond investigating individual motivations as guided by the U&G
approach, this study also investigates another factor, the characteristics
of information, which may also influence students' decisions to forward
postings on social media. For example, some individuals might tend to
forward postings that they find entertaining, while others might prefer
to forward breaking news. IL training often highlights assessment
criteria such as accuracy and the authority of the information source.
It is thus of interest to investigate whether these characteristics also fac-
tor into people's social media information sharing decisions.
It has been suggested that when it comes to information sharing on
social media, users do not always feel that the authority of the informa-
tion is a key concern. People tend to consider information that “a friend
told them” to be reliable enough to share on social media (Mintz,
2012a). Studies on rumor (a phenomenon related to misinformation
sharing) also suggest that information characteristics are worth
examining. These studies indicate that people are more likely to spread
rumors when the rumors are consistent with their beliefs or are threat-
ening (Allport & Postman, 1947; DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007; Rosnow,
1991). On the other hand, some individuals consider rumor to be a
form of information that merely serves as a conversational topic in
daily life (Guerin & Miyazaki, 2006). Drawing from this body of litera-
ture, the current study examines the extent to which certain informa-
tion characteristics contribute to misinformation sharing on social
media.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
GENDER DIFFERENCES
Findings on gender differences in the broader information seeking
and use literature (e.g., studies on library anxiety and gender) have
been inconclusive (Onwuegbuzie, Jiao, & Bostick, 2004). Urquhart and
Yeoman's (2010) meta-synthesis showed the varying findings on gen-
der differences produced by different studies. While gender differences
concerning access to computer and the Internet have become less sig-
nificant over the years (Broos, 2005; Weiser, 2000), gender differences
may still exist in various online activities (Lim & Kwon, 2010). For exam-
ple, there were mixed results on the influences of gender on individuals'
perceptions toward information seeking on the web (Zhou, 2014).
Interestingly, gender differences seem to be more notable in social
media usage, especially in SNS use. Women are more likely to use SNS
in general, and particularly in terms of information seeking (Duggan
et al., 2015; Kim & Sin, 2014b; Sin & Kim, 2013). They are more likely
to frequently update their status as well as comment on others' postings
(Hampton, Goulet, Rainie, & Purcell, 2011). Despite being more active
users of SNS, female students were found to be less active on wikis,
blogs, and Internet forums compared to their male counterparts (Kim
& Sin, 2014b). Women also exercise more caution concerning the qual-
ity of information on online platforms such as Wikipedia (Lim & Kwon,
2010). Thus, it is interesting to investigate the nature and extent of gen-
der differences in social media misinformation sharing.
STUDY-LEVEL DIFFERENCES
When compared to studies on gender differences, there are
fewer studies investigating study-level differences (undergraduate vs.
graduate students) when it comes to social media usage. Nevertheless,
the research that has investigated study-level differences suggests that
585
graduate students are regular social media users, although they are
not as active as undergraduates in terms of social media use (Lampe,
Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006; Park, 2010; Sin & Kim, 2013). It is possible
that the graduate students' additional years of education and experience
with information evaluation and use may help them reduce problematic
online behaviors such as misinformation sharing on social media, when
compared to undergraduates. Nevertheless, because of the dearth of
empirical research on this topic, it is unclear whether such a proposition
is accurate. More empirical studies are needed to investigate potential
study-level differences.
METHOD
RESEARCH METHOD AND INSTRUMENT
The study used data collected through a survey questionnaire, which
is a frequently used method suitable for collecting self-reported data
about attitudes and behaviors (Neuman, 2011). The questionnaire
comprised mainly closed-ended questions that were answered via a
Likert-type scale. A few open-ended questions were also included so
that respondents could express their opinions freely.
In order to give respondents a clear understanding of misinforma-
tion (i.e., information that is commonly known to be false or is scientif-
ically proven to be incorrect), concrete examples of misinformation
were provided in the questionnaire. These examples showed realistic
scenarios of misinformation that were currently being communicated
on social media. There were six misinformation examples, all of which
were selected from the Internet and have been scientifically proven to
be untrue (Agranoff, Davis, & Brink, 1966; Batellier, Couty, Picard, &
Brillard, 2008; Emery, 2012; Goldenberg, 2006; Saner, 2011; Saquete,
2010; The University of New Hampshire, 2000). To represent the
various forms of misinformation typically seen on social media, the six
examples represented a combination of news, factoids, photos, and
daily life advice.
To answer RQ1, the questionnaire asked respondents about their
perceptions of, and behavior toward, misinformation sharing on social
media. On a 7-point scale, respondents rated the frequency of misinfor-
mation sharing on social media by themselves and by others. For RQ2,
respondents answered questions about their reasons for sharing misin-
formation on social media. Twenty-nine items were used in total. Indi-
vidual motivations were measured with a list of 16 motivation items
(see Table 1), representing the four main motivational categories of
the U&G approach (i.e., entertainment, socializing, information seeking,
and self-expression and status seeking) (Kim et al., 2010; Lee & Ma,
2012; Park et al., 2009). For information characteristics, a list of 13 char-
acteristics was developed, drawing from the literature on information
quality and rumor research, discussed above (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007;
Mintz, 2012a; Rieh, 2002; Rosnow, 1991). Demographic information,
including gender and study-level data, was also collected to address
RQ1b and RQ2b. The questionnaire was pilot-tested and revised before
distribution. It was available in both print and online versions, and it
took about 10 min to complete.
SAMPLING METHOD
The study population was comprised of students from two public
universities in Singapore who were social media users aged 18 to
29 years old. This age range was selected as it is comparable to other so-
cial media studies that use college student samples (Correa, Hinsley, &
de Zúñiga, 2010; Wyllie, Zhang, & Casswell, 1998). Similar to many de-
veloped countries, social media usage is high in Singapore. When com-
pared to 14 other nations including the United States and the United
Kingdom, Singapore respondents reported spending the most time on
social media (Firefly Millward Brown, 2010). The social media usage be-
havior of Singapore college students was found to be very similar to that
of U.S. students in a comparative study (Kim & Sin, 2014a).
586 X. Chen et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592

Table 1
Students' perceptions and behaviors related to misinformation sharing

Mean SD Categories Frequency Percentage

Extent to which the friends of respondents 3.97 1.38 1: No one 9 5.26%

share misinformation on social media 2: Very few people 13 7.60%
3: Some people 51 29.8%
4: Neutral 16 9.36%
5: Many people 69 40.4%
6: Nearly everyone 9 5.26%
7: Everyone 4 2.34%
Frequency in which respondents themselves 2.70 1.63 1: Never shared 55 32.2%
share misinformation on social media 2: Hardly share 32 18.7%
3: Sometimes share 41 24.0%
4: Neutral 9 5.26%
5: Regularly share 23 13.45%
6: Frequently share 9 5.26%
7: Always share 2 1.17%
Extent to which respondents intend to share 3.26 1.62 1: Surely will not share 26 15.2%
misinformation on social media in the future 2: Probably will not share 47 27.5%
3: Maybe will not share 21 12.3%
4: Neutral 26 15.2%
5: Maybe will share 37 21.6%
6: Probably will share 13 7.60%
7: Surely will share 1 0.58%

As a beginning study on a seldom-investigated topic, this explorato-
ry study aimed to propose and investigate possible reasons behind mis-
information sharing and analyzed potential differences between groups
among the sample. The study was not intended for population general-
ization. The questionnaires were disseminated to students around the
campuses of the two universities using a convenience sampling ap-
proach, which is an effective approach when population generalization
is not a focus (Neuman, 2011). Because data were collected through a
non-probability sampling method, the sample cannot be considered a
representation of all students. The findings should be interpreted with
this caveat in mind.
DATA ANALYSIS METHOD
Descriptive statistics and inferential testing were conducted with
SPSS. Descriptive statistics were used for all research questions. For
RQ1b and RQ2b, which involve inferential testing of gender and
study-level differences, independent sample t-tests were used (Field,
2009). An independent sample t-test is a commonly used statistical
technique for comparisons between two unrelated groups (Field,
2009), which fit the characteristics of the study (i.e., women vs. men;
undergraduate vs. graduate student). Assumptions diagnostics such as
Levene's tests for equality of variances were conducted to confirm that
the data were suitable for t-test analyses.
undesirable aspects of their behavior are being observed, they might
alter their natural behavior to look as good as possible to observers
(Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008). As sharing inaccurate information might
not be perceived as a socially desirable behavior, it is possible that
some respondents underreported the degree to which they shared mis-
information. We thus posit that the findings are a conservative estima-
tion of the prevalence of misinformation sharing. A non-reactive
method (e.g., content analysis) could be employed in future studies to
facilitate method triangulation with survey findings.
FINDINGS
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Two hundred questionnaires were distributed, from which 171
complete responses were received and analyzed. This resulted in a re-
sponse rate of 85.5%. Of all respondents, 57.3% were women (n = 98),
more than men (n = 73, 42.7%). A majority of the respondents were
between 21 and 25 years of age (71.3%); the average age was 24
(SD = 2.1). There was an almost equal share of undergraduates
(n = 85, 49.7%) and graduate students (n = 86, 49.7%). All respondents
(n = 171) were social media users, and 81.3% of the respondents used
social media every day.

LIMITATIONS
As this exploratory study used a non-probability sampling tech-
nique, the resultant sample is not representative of all university stu-
dents. Future studies could test these relationships again with larger
sample sizes using probability samples, which could buttress the exter-
nal validity of the findings. Multiple testing of the same population
using the same instrument would help verify the stability reliability of
the instrument, as is the case with testing different populations to
gauge the instrument's representative reliability. In terms of internal va-
lidity, the survey instrument was developed based on previous studies
and was pilot-tested. This provided support for face validity. Neverthe-
less, research on the current topic is at its nascent, formative stage.
There is room to further improve the validity and reliability of the in-
strument. Another limitation is that the study used self-reported data.
Similar to all studies that involve human participants, respondents'
subjectivity and reactivity are potential methodological limitations
(Neuman, 2011). When participants are aware that some socially
RQ1A: PERCEPTIONS AND BEHAVIORS RELATED TO MISINFORMATION
SHARING
Nearly all respondents (n = 162, 94.7%) reported having seen their
friends share misinformation on social media (Table 1); on a 7-point
scale (with 1 indicating “no one” and 7 indicating “everyone”), the
mean was 3.97 (SD = 1.38). About two-thirds of the respondents
(n = 116, 67.8%) reported that they themselves had shared misinforma-
tion on social media. The frequency with which they shared such misin-
formation was 2.7 on a 7-point scale (SD = 1.63), with 1 indicating they
never shared misinformation and 7 indicating they always share it.
Respondents also indicated their intention to share misinformation in
the future; the sample mean was 3.26 on a 7-point scale, with 1 indicat-
ing “will surely not share” and 7 indicating “will surely share” misinfor-
mation in the future (SD = 1.62). Notably, only 15.2% of respondents
(n = 26) reported that they would surely not share misinformation in
the future.
 X. Chen et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592 587

RQ1B: GENDER AND STUDY-LEVEL DIFFERENCES

Female students on average scored higher on all three misinforma-

tion perception and behavior variables than their male counterparts
(Fig. 1). The independent sample t-tests show that gender differences
are statistically significant for two of the three variables: the frequency
in which respondents themselves share misinformation on social
media, t(169), p = .014 (MMen = 2.34, SD = 1.44; MWomen = 2.96,
SD = 1.72) and the extent to which respondents intend to share misin-
formation on social media in the future, t(169), p = .029 (MMen = 2.95,
SD = 1.58; MWomen = 3.49, SD = 1.62).
In terms of study-level differences, undergraduates scored higher on Fig. 2. Study-level differences in perceptions and behaviors related to misinformation
all three variables than graduate students (Fig. 2). However, of the three sharing. Note: answer scales of the questions are as follows: extent friends share misinfor-
variables, only one of them—the extent to which their friends share mis- mation (left image): 1 (no one) to 7 (everyone). Frequency respondents themselves share
information on social media—is shown to be statistically significant in misinformation (middle image): 1 (never) to 7 (always). Extent respondents intend to
share misinformation (right image): 1 (will surely not share) to 7 (will surely share).
the independent sample t-tests, t(169), p = .012 (MUndergrad = 4.24,
SD = 1.32; MGrad = 3.71, SD = 1.40).

RQ2A: REASONS BEHIND MISINFORMATION SHARING

On a 7-point scale (1 as “completely disagree” to 7 as “completely
agree”), respondents indicated to what extent they agreed that each
of the 29 items matched their reasons for sharing misinformation on so-
cial media (Fig. 3). The mean scores of all items are presented in Table 2
in descending order. The top three reasons were: “The information can
be a good topic of conversation,” “The information is interesting,” and
“The information is new and eye-catching,” all of which were related
to information characteristics. Some individual motivations also ap-
peared as top reasons for sharing misinformation. For example, the
ranked fourth was “Sharing helps me get other people's opinions re-
garding the information/event,” which was a motivation based on the
U&G information seeking category; additionally, the reason ranked
fifth was a motivation in the U&G self-expression category: “I can ex-
press my opinion by sharing that information.”
On the other hand, accuracy ranked 24th out of the 29 reasons.
While accuracy is an important factor when evaluating the credibility
of information, and is often taught in IL training, it was not prominent
in respondents' sharing behaviors. The authority of information sources,
another important factor for assessing information credibility, ranked
even lower at 26th out of 29 reasons.
RQ2B: GENDER AND STUDY-LEVEL DIFFERENCES IN THE REASONS BEHIND
MISINFORMATION SHARING
GENDER DIFFERENCES
The descriptive data suggest some gender differences in the reasons
behind misinformation sharing. Table 3 shows the top reasons by gen-
der. Both genders gave the reasons “The information can be a good
Fig. 1. Gender differences in perceptions and behaviors related to misinformation sharing.
Note: answer scales of the questions are as follows: extent friends share misinformation
(left image): 1 (no one) to 7 (everyone). Frequency respondents themselves share misin-
formation (middle image): 1 (never) to 7 (always). Extent respondents intend to share
misinformation (right image): 1 (will surely not share) to 7 (will surely share).
topic for conversation” and “The information is interesting” as the
first- and second-ranked reasons, respectively. The third-ranked reason
differed by gender. For men, “Sharing helps me get other people's opin-
ions regarding the information/event” was the third-ranked reason. For
women, it was “The information is new and eye-catching.”
Gender differences in the reasons for misinformation sharing on so-
cial media were investigated with independent sample t-tests (Table 4).
Significant gender differences were found in 10 of the 29 items, in which
women gave higher ratings to all 10 significant items in comparison to
men. “Sharing helps me bookmark useful information” had the largest
gender differences. This is followed by: “Sharing helps me enhance in-
terpersonal relations”; “Sharing helps me keep updated on the latest
happenings”; “Sharing helps me keep in touch with friends”; “Sharing
helps me get other related information”; “Sharing is a good way to
relax”; “The information is fun”; “Sharing is a culture and I share like
others do”; “I feel enjoyment while sharing”; and “Sharing helps me in-
teract with people.” Nine of the 10 significant reasons were related to
motivations, and only one reason belonged to the information charac-
teristics category.
STUDY-LEVEL DIFFERENCES
For undergraduates, the top three reasons for misinformation shar-
ing were a mix of motivational factors and information characteristics
(Table 5). They were: (1) “The information can be a good topic for
conversation”; (2) “Sharing helps me get other people's opinions re-
garding the information/event”; and (3) “I can express my opinion by
sharing that information”. For graduate students, the top three reasons
were all related to the characteristics of information. They were:
(1) “The information is interesting”; (2) “The information is new
and eye-catching”; and (3) “The information can be a good topic for
conversation”.
The descriptive differences between undergraduate and graduate
students can be found in Table 6 and Fig. 3. The independent sample
t-tests found eight statistically significant study-level differences
(Table 6). Six of the significant differences were related to motivations;
two were related to information characteristics. The significant reasons
(in descending order of mean study-level difference) were: (1) “Sharing
helps me bookmark useful information”; (2) “Sharing helps me get
other people's opinions regarding the information/event”; (3) “I can ex-
press my opinion by sharing that information”; (4) “The information
can be a good topic for conversation”; (5) “Sharing helps me keep
updated on the latest happenings”; (6) “The information is consistent
with my belief/assumption”; (7) “Sharing helps me get other related
information”; and (8) “Sharing makes me feel influential”. For all
eight reasons, undergraduates had a higher mean score than graduate
students.
588 X. Chen et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592

Fig. 3. Reasons behind misinformation sharing on social media, by gender and study-level.

DISCUSSION misinformation is not a socially desirable action, and based on the re-
search method literature, we posit that respondents might have
Sharing misinformation on social media was found to be relatively underreported their own misinformation sharing. It is thus noteworthy
common among the sample; indeed, a large majority of respondents that—potential social desirability issues notwithstanding—a majority of
(94.7%) have seen their friends doing so. Because the sharing of respondents (67.8%) still admitted to having shared misinformation
themselves. An even larger proportion (84.8%) indicated that they
might share misinformation in the future. This suggests that IL profes-
Table 2
Reasons behind misinformation sharing on social media
sionals need to proactively address students' tendency toward misinfor-
mation sharing. For example, IL educators may dedicate a segment of IL
Rank Reasons Mean SD sessions to ask students to reflect on their motivations in sharing misin-
1 The information can be a good topic for conversation. 5.25 1.34 formation, and to encourage them to critically revaluate and discuss the
2 The information is interesting. 5.13 1.31 negative consequence of misinformation sharing.
3 The information is new and eye-catching. 5.03 1.38
The reasons given for misinformation sharing shed light on possible
4 Sharing helps me get other people's opinions regarding the 5.02 1.46
information/event. areas of intervention. Not many of the reasons ranked near the top were
5 I can express my opinion by sharing that information. 4.95 1.44 informational; among the top five reasons, only one—ranked
6 Sharing helps me interact with people. 4.89 1.37 fourth—was related to information seeking. The other reasons reflected
7 The information is fun. 4.87 1.46 respondents' tendency to share information that they perceived fun and
8 Sharing helps me keep updated on the latest happenings. 4.83 1.61
9 Sharing helps me keep in touch with friends. 4.75 1.53
interesting, and being motivated by reasons that were social in nature.
10 Sharing helps me get other related information. 4.75 1.57 On the other hand, factors that are often discussed in IL education as
11 The information provides understanding of a particular 4.74 1.29
event/situation.
12 The information is current. 4.74 1.46 Table 3
13 The information seems useful. 4.71 1.42 Top five reasons of misinformation sharing on social media by gender
14 Sharing helps me bookmark useful information. 4.69 1.73
Rank Men Women
15 Sharing is good for keeping boredom away. 4.50 1.67
16 I feel enjoyment while sharing. 4.39 1.51 1 The information can be a good topic for The information can be a
17 Sharing is a good way to relax. 4.25 1.62 conversation.(M = 5.18) good topic for conversation.
18 The information seems important. 4.25 1.54 (M = 5.31)
19 Sharing is a culture and I share like others do. 4.24 1.61 2 The information is interesting. The information is interesting.
20 Sharing is a good way of killing time. 4.23 1.74 (M = 5.04) (M = 5.19)
21 Sharing helps me enhance interpersonal relations. 4.12 1.57 3 Sharing helps me get other people's The information is new and
22 The information is consistent with my belief/assumption. 4.09 1.60 opinions regarding the information/event. eye-catching.
23 The information comes from my close friends/family. 4.09 1.47 (M = 4.95) (M = 5.11)
24 The information seems accurate. 4.01 1.60 4 The information is new and eye-catching. Sharing helps me interact
25 Sharing makes me feel influential. 3.74 1.57 (M = 4.92) with people.
26 The information comes from authoritative sources. 3.58 1.62 (M = 5.10)
27 Sharing makes me look good to others. 3.48 1.58 5 The information is current. I can express my opinion by
28 I want to be the first one among others to share. 3.37 1.78 (M = 4.77) sharing that information.
29 The information looks frightening. 3.22 1.47 (M = 5.09)
 X. Chen et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592 589

Table 4 Table 5
Results of t-tests on gender differences in reasons behind misinformation sharing Top five reasons of misinformation sharing on social media by study-level

Reasons Mean T-tests Rank Undergraduates Graduate students

Men Women Mean t p 1 The information can be a good topic for The information is interesting.
diff. conversation.(M = 5.53) (M = 5.09)
2 Sharing helps me get other people's The information is new and
1. The information can be a good topic 5.18 5.31 −0.13 0.62 .537
opinions regarding the information/event. eye-catching.
for conversation.
(M = 5.40) (M = 5.00)
2. The information is interesting. 5.04 5.19 −0.15 0.72 .471
3 I can express my opinion by sharing that The information can be a
3. The information is new and 4.92 5.11 −0.19 0.87 .384
information. good topic for conversation.
eye-catching.
(M = 5.28) (M = 4.98)
4. Sharing helps me get other people's 4.95 5.08 −0.14 0.58 .565
4 Sharing helps me bookmark useful The information is fun.
opinions regarding the
information. (M = 4.81)
information/event.
(M = 5.20)
5. I can express my opinion by sharing 4.77 5.09 −0.32 1.41 .160
5 The information is interesting. Sharing helps me interact with
that information.
(M = 5.16) people.
6. Sharing helps me interact with 4.62 5.10 −0.49 2.18 .031⁎
(M = 4.78)
people.
7. The information is fun. 4.56 5.09 −0.53 2.27 .025⁎
8. Sharing helps me keep updated on 4.49 5.08 −0.59 2.34 .021⁎
the latest happenings. that respondents were motivated by reasons related to self-expression
9. Sharing helps me keep in touch with 4.44 4.99 −0.55 2.26 .026⁎ and social interaction. Thus, to deter misinformation sharing, IL educa-
friends.
10. Sharing helps me get other related 4.44 4.99 −0.55 2.22 .028⁎
tors could highlight the fact that misinformation sharing might hurt a
information. student's reputation (e.g., friends may view the misinformation sharer
11. The information provides under- 4.60 4.85 −0.24 1.18 .242 as being undiscerning and untrustworthy).
standing of a particular This study has found that more women than men share (and intend
event/situation.
to share) misinformation. This is a surprising and interesting finding, as
12. The information is current. 4.77 4.71 0.05 −0.23 .815
13. The information seems useful. 4.64 4.77 −0.12 0.55 .582 prior studies suggest that women are more cautious online and are
14. Sharing helps me bookmark useful 4.26 5.01 −0.75 2.71 .008⁎⁎ more critical of the quality of online information (Lim & Kwon, 2010).
information. Research on the selective model of information processing also suggests
15. Sharing is good for keeping bore- 4.22 4.71 −0.50 1.88 .062 that women tend to use a more holistic approach, and will evaluate
dom away.
16. I feel enjoyment while sharing. 4.11 4.60 −0.49 2.11 .037⁎
more cues, when processing information (Darley & Smith, 1995;
17. Sharing is a good way to relax. 3.95 4.48 −0.53 2.16 .032⁎ Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran, 1991). Thus, one would not have
18. The information seems important. 4.38 4.14 0.24 −0.98 .327 anticipated that women would be found to share misinformation
19. Sharing is a culture and I share like 3.95 4.46 −0.51 2.09 .038⁎ more frequently. Further research is needed to investigate whether
others do.
the aforementioned gender difference is a recurring pattern, and also
20. Sharing is a good way of killing 3.93 4.45 −0.52 1.86 .064
time. to identify the reasons behind the finding. We present a few possible ex-
21. Sharing helps me enhance inter- 3.78 4.38 −0.60 2.42 .017⁎ planations here for further examination. First, as noted earlier, women
personal relations. tend to post and share more messages on some platforms such as SNS
22. The information is consistent with 4.22 4.00 0.22 −0.86 .389 (Hampton et al., 2011). It is therefore possible that increased misinfor-
my belief/assumption.
23. The information comes from my 3.86 4.27 −0.40 1.74 .085
mation sharing is in part due to their higher rate of social media sharing
close friends/family. in general. This explanation is not entirely satisfactory, however, as it
24. The information seems accurate. 4.14 3.91 0.23 −0.92 .357 does not address the point concerning women being more cautious in
25. Sharing makes me feel influential. 3.60 3.85 −0.24 1.01 .316 terms of information evaluation.
26. The information comes from au- 3.68 3.51 0.17 −0.67 .501
A second explanation may have stronger implications for IL educa-
thoritative sources.
27. Sharing makes me look good to 3.21 3.68 −0.48 1.91 .058 tion. It is plausible that, when compared to men, women might find
others. the social aspects of social media sharing to be more salient than its in-
28. I want to be the first one among 3.40 3.36 0.04 −0.15 .885 formational aspects. Women were reported to have stronger social and
others to share. communicative intentions than men in the area of Internet use (Rodgers
29. The information looks frightening. 3.19 3.24 −0.05 0.23 .817
& Harris, 2003). The current findings provide some support for
this view. There were four social reasons in the list of 29 items
(i.e., “Sharing helps me interact with people”; “Sharing helps me keep
well as in information retrieval literature ranked rather low: accuracy in touch with friends”; “Sharing is a culture and I share like others
(24th); authority of sources (26th); perceived usefulness (13th), and do”; and “Sharing helps me enhance interpersonal relations”). Gender
importance of information (19th). All in all, these findings suggest a sig- differences were significant for all four social reasons, with women cit-
nificant difference between the considerations behind social media mis- ing them more often than men. Weber, Blais, and Betz (2002) found that
information sharing and those behind other information seeking and women are more risk-averse then men in various domains (finance,
evaluation behaviors. health/safety, recreational, and ethical), but not in the social domain.
In the broader information behavior literature, the importance of Along this line, we posited that women may not be fully perceiving
non-cognitive factors such as affect and motivation are increasingly their information/misinformation sharing as an informational activity,
being recognized (Nahl & Bilal, 2007). In regards to misinformation during which they are generally found to be more cautious (Lim &
sharing, this study suggests that notable numbers of non-cognitive Kwon, 2010). They might instead be perceiving their social media infor-
reasons (e.g., self-expression and socialization) are also at play. mation sharing as primarily a social activity, which is an area where
Consequently, IL education should not be limited to teaching the criteria they might not exercise the same level of caution. This tentative hypoth-
and strategies of credibility assessment. Rather, non-informational mo- esis requires more testing.
tivations should also be addressed. What is more, the negative conse- In the meantime, IL education could highlight that social media
quences of misinformation sharing should be included as topics in IL users' everyday online social communication still has informational
training. IL educators can tailor their messages based on students' rea- consequences (e.g., misinformation, if shared, might mislead or even
sons for misinformation sharing. For example, this study has found harm their friends). Students should thus be encouraged to be vigilant
590 X. Chen et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592

Table 6
Results of t-tests on study-level differences in reasons behind misinformation sharing

Reasons Mean T-tests

Undergrad. Grad. Mean diff. t p

1. The information can be a good topic for conversation. 5.53 4.98 0.55 2.75 .007⁎⁎
2. The information is interesting. 5.16 5.09 0.07 0.36 .722
3. The information is new and eye-catching. 5.06 5.00 0.06 0.28 .782
4. Sharing helps me get other people's opinions regarding the information/event. 5.40 4.65 0.75 3.46 .001⁎⁎
5. I can express my opinion by sharing that information. 5.28 4.63 0.65 3.04 .003⁎⁎
6. Sharing helps me interact with people. 5.01 4.78 0.23 1.11 .269
7. The information is fun. 4.92 4.81 0.10 0.46 .644
8. Sharing helps me keep updated on the latest happenings. 5.08 4.58 0.50 2.06 .041⁎
9. Sharing helps me keep in touch with friends. 4.74 4.77 −0.03 −0.11 .911
10. Sharing helps me get other related information. 5.00 4.51 0.49 2.05 .042⁎
11. The information provides understanding of a particular event/situation. 4.87 4.62 0.25 1.29 .200
12. The information is current. 4.84 4.64 0.20 0.88 .382
13. The information seems useful. 4.89 4.53 0.36 1.66 .098
14. Sharing helps me bookmark useful information. 5.20 4.19 1.01 3.99 .000⁎⁎
15. Sharing is good for keeping boredom away. 4.73 4.28 0.45 1.77 .078
16. I feel enjoyment while sharing. 4.35 4.43 −0.08 −0.37 .715
17. Sharing is a good way to relax. 4.08 4.42 −0.34 −1.36 .175
18. The information seems important. 4.34 4.15 0.19 0.81 .421
19. Sharing is a culture and I share like others do. 4.29 4.19 0.11 0.44 .662
20. Sharing is a good way of killing time. 4.14 4.31 −0.17 −0.65 .519
21. Sharing helps me enhance interpersonal relations. 4.00 4.24 −0.24 −1.02 .311
22. The information is consistent with my belief/assumption. 4.34 3.85 0.49 2.04 .043⁎
23. The information comes from my close friends/family. 4.22 3.97 0.26 1.15 .251
24. The information seems accurate. 4.14 3.87 0.27 1.10 .275
25. Sharing makes me feel influential. 3.99 3.50 0.49 2.05 .042⁎
26. The information comes from authoritative sources. 3.74 3.43 0.31 1.24 .218
27. Sharing makes me look good to others. 3.54 3.42 0.12 0.50 .614
28. I want to be the first one among others to share. 3.51 3.24 0.26 0.96 .339
29. The information looks frightening. 3.27 3.17 0.10 0.42 .672
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

and cautious in assessing information quality, both when they are
conducting academic tasks as well as when they are connecting with
friends on social media.
Descriptive statistics show that undergraduate students share (and
intend to share) misinformation more frequently than graduate stu-
dents. This may be attributed in part to undergraduates' higher social
media usage. It is also possible that graduate students are more circum-
spect in their social media behavior because of their additional years of
education and experience. It is thus worth noting that, while the study
found statistically significant study-level differences in the reasons be-
hind misinformation sharing (RQ2b), the prevalence of misinformation
sharing was statistically similar among undergraduates and graduate
students (RQ1b). This indicates that IL professionals should also pay at-
tention to graduate students' social media use. Table 3 shows that there
were five reasons given by graduate students that show higher descrip-
tive scores as compared to undergraduates. Three of these reasons re-
late to the U&G approach's entertainment category (i.e., “Sharing is a
good way to relax”; “I feel enjoyment while sharing”; and “Sharing is a
good way of killing time”). The other two reasons relate to the U&G's so-
cializing category (i.e., “Sharing helps me keep in touch with friends”;
and “Sharing helps me enhance interpersonal relations”). When devel-
oping IL training in social media for graduate students, then, the influ-
ence of these two U&G motivation categories may warrant more
attention.
The study also identifies some positive findings. Reasons related to
the U&G approach's information seeking category, such as “Sharing
helps me to obtain other people's opinions regarding the information/
event” and “Sharing helps me get other related information” ranked rel-
atively high (4 and 10, respectively). This suggests that respondents
were interested in gaining a better understanding of the information
at hand. Fortunately, students can gain knowledge through further
information gathering and discussion with other social media users.
Indeed, if used properly, discussion on social media can serve as a
question-and-answer negotiation process; such interactions can help
users to collectively make sense of happenings (Heverin & Zach,
2012). Further research could investigate questions such as the extent
to which students engage in such critical discussions on social media,
the ways in which they go about seeking information and clarification,
and whether their actions indeed help to debunk inaccurate informa-
tion. Therefore, IL training should encourage students to assess social
media information critically and collaboratively, as well as to rebut
false information on social media when they encounter it. Preferably,
students should conduct such collaborative information assessment
without forwarding the original misinformation to their networks.
This is because such actions add to statistical counts, including “number
of times shared”. Since undiscerning users sometimes do not read the
comments related to a posting (rather, they inaccurately interpret a
high number of shares as an indication of good information credibility),
it is preferable not to further broadcast the original misinformation.
In the same vein, the study's findings also have implications for the
design of social media systems and interfaces. For example, a system
with features that encourage individual users to flag officially debunked
postings would be helpful, as would features that allow correction infor-
mation to be displayed alongside the misinformation. Similarly, because
some respondents share misinformation as a way to bookmark a post-
ing (the reason ranked 14th), features that allow users to curate and
store postings in a private collection could be adopted.
CONCLUSION
The study found that college students sometimes share misinforma-
tion on social media, often for non-informational reasons such as to
share eye-catching messages or to interact with friends. The study also
indicates significant gender and study-level differences in the reasons
cited. The findings suggest that coordinated efforts are needed in IL
education and in the design of social media applications to curb the
 X. Chen et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592
spread of misinformation. For the former, the goal should be to not only
equip social media users with the ability to recognize misinformation,
but also to cultivate an aspiration to stop the forwarding of such mes-
sages. Better yet, students should be encouraged to challenge misinfor-
mation when they encounter it. From a system design perspective,
providing features that afford the flagging and rebuttal of misinforma-
tion would be helpful. Although it may not be possible to eradicate mis-
information on social media completely, proactive IL intervention can
help combat uncritical misinformation sharing. In light of the popularity
and reach of social media, as well as its collaborative information seek-
ing potential, it would be worthwhile to devote efforts to help students
reduce their misinformation sharing.
References
Agranoff, B.W., Davis, R.E., & Brink, J.J. (1966). Chemical studies on memory fixation in gold-
fish. Brain Research, 1(3), 303–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(66)90095-3.
Allport, G.W., & Postman, L. (1947). The psychology of rumor. New York: Holt, Rnehart &
Winston.
Anagnostopoulos, A., Bessi, A., Caldarelli, G., Del Vicario, M., Petroni, F., Scala, A., et al.
(2014). Viral misinformation: The role of homophily and polarization. Retrieved
from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.2893v1.pdf (arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.2893).
Anttiroiko, A. -V., & Savolainen, R. (2011). Towards library 2.0: The adoption of Web 2.0 tech-
nologies in public libraries. Libri, 61(2), 87–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/libr.2011.008.
Batellier, F., Couty, I., Picard, D., & Brillard, J.P. (2008). Effects of exposing chicken eggs to a
cell phone in “call” position over the entire incubation period. Theriogenology, 69(6),
737–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.12.006.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., & Grimes, J.M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparen-
cy: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for
societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.giq.2010.03.001.
Bridges, L.M. (2012). Librarian as professor of social media literacy. Journal of Library
Innovation, 3(1), 48–65.
Broos, A. (2005). Gender and information and communication technologies (ICT) anxiety:
Male self-assurance and female hesitation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 21–31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.21.
Brown, Firefly Millward (2010). The language of love in social media — New rules for
brand engagement. Retrieved from http://www.fireflymb.com/Libraries/Social_
Media_Study/2010_SocialMediaStudy_SummaryReport.sflb.ashx.
Budak, C., Agrawal, D., & Abbadi, A.E. (2011). Limiting the spread of misinformation in so-
cial networks. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web
(WWW '11) (pp. 665–674)http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963499.
Connaway, L.S., Dickey, T.J., & Radford, M.L. (2011). “If it is too inconvenient I'm not going
after it:” Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors. Library &
Information Science Research, 33(3), 179–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.
12.002.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A.W., & de Zúñiga, H.G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The inter-
section of users' personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(2), 247–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003.
Darley, W.K., & Smith, R.E. (1995). Gender differences in information processing strate-
gies: An empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response. Journal of
Advertising, 24(1), 41–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4188961.
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor psychology: Social and organizational approaches.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Duggan, M., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2015). Social media
update 2014. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_
SocialMediaUpdate20144.pdf.
Dunne, Á., Lawlor, M. -A., & Rowley, J. (2010). Young people's use of online social
networking sites — A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing, 4(1), 46–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17505931011033551.
Emery, D. (2012, May 22). Maggots on the brain/sushi worms. Retrieved from
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-brainworms.htm.
Farkas, M. (2011). Information literacy 2.0. American Libraries. Retrieved from
http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2011/11/01/information-literacy-2-0
Ferrara, E. (2015). Manipulation and abuse on social media. SIGWEB Newsletter. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1145/2749279.2749283 (Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.
03752).
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Friggeri, A., Adamic, L.A., Eckles, D., & Cheng, J. (2014). Rumor cascades. Proceedings of the
Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 101–110) (Re-
trieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/down-
load/8122/8110).
Frost, C. (2002). Source credibility: Do we really believe everything we're told? Aslib
Proceedings, 54(4), 222–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530210443320.
Goldenberg, D. (2006). How to cook an egg (and create a viral sensation). Retrieved from
http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/how_to_cook_an_egg_and_create_a_viral_
sensation.php.
Guardian Interactive team, Procter, R., Vis, F., & Voss, A. (2011). How riot rumours spread
on Twitter. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2011/dec/07/
london-riots-twitter.
591
Guerin, B., & Miyazaki, Y. (2006). Analyzing rumors, gossip, and urban legends through
their conversational properties. Psychological Record, 56(1), 23.
Hampton, K., Goulet, L.S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and our
lives. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP%20-%
20Social%20networking%20sites%20and%20our%20lives.pdf.
Head, A.J., & Eisenberg, M.B. (2011). How college students use the web to conduct every-
day life research. First Monday, 16(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i4.3484.
Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in
its defense. Ethics & Behavior, 18(1), 59–92.
Heverin, T., & Zach, L. (2012). Use of microblogging for collective sense-making during vi-
olent crises: A study of three campus shootings. Journal of the American Society for In-
formation Science and Technology, 63(1), 34–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21685.
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and oppor-
tunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2009.09.003.
Karlova, N.A., & Fisher, K.E. (2013). A social diffusion model of misinformation and disin-
formation for understanding human information behaviour. Information Research,
18(1) (Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/18-1/paper573.html).
Kim, J.H., Kim, M. -S., & Nam, Y. (2010). An analysis of self-construals, motivations, Facebook
use, and user satisfaction. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 26(11–
12), 1077–1099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2010.516726.
Kim, S., & Oh, S. (2009). Users' relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A
site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4),
716–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21026.
Kim, K. -S., & Sin, S. -C.J. (2011). Selecting quality sources: Bridging the gap between the
perception and use of information sources. Journal of Information Science, 37(2),
178–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551511400958.
Kim, K. -S., & Sin, S. -C.J. (2014a). Social media as information sources: Use and evaluation
of information from social media. 2013 OCLC/ALISE research grant report. Retrieved
from http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/grants/reports/2013/kim2013.pdf.
Kim, K. -S., & Sin, S. -C.J. (2014b). Use of social media in different contexts of information
seeking: Effects of sex and problem-solving style. Proceedings of the Information Be-
haviour Conference (ISIC) 2014 (Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/20-
1/isic2/isic24.html).
Kim, K. -S., Sin, S. -C.J., & Tsai, T.I. (2014a). Individual differences in social media use for
information seeking. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 171–178.
Kim, K. -S., Sin, S. -C.J., & Yoo-Lee, E.Y. (2014b). Undergraduates' use of social media as in-
formation sources. College & Research Libraries, 75(4), 442–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.
5860/crl.75.4.442.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs.
social browsing. Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work (CSCW '06) (pp. 167–170). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1963405.
1963499.
Lee, C.S., Goh, D.H. -L., Chua, A.Y.K., & Ang, R.P. (2010). Indagator: Investigating perceived
gratifications of an application that blends mobile content sharing with gameplay.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6),
1244–1257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21305.
Lee, C.S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and
prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 331–339. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002.
Lim, S. (2009). How and why do college students use wikipedia? Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2189–2202.
Lim, S. (2013). College students' credibility judgments and heuristics concerning
Wikipedia. Information Processing and Management, 49(2), 405–419.
Lim, S., & Kwon, N. (2010). Gender differences in information behavior concerning
Wikipedia, an unorthodox information source? Library & Information Science
Research, 32(3), 212–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.01.003.
Lim, S., & Simon, C. (2011). Credibility judgment and verification behavior of college
students concerning Wikipedia. First Monday, 16(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.
v16i4.3263.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (1991). Exploring differences in males' and females'
processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 63–70.
Mintz, A.P. (2012a). If it's on the Internet, it must be true. In A.P. Mintz (Ed.), Web of
deceit: Misinformation and manipulation in the age of social media. Medford, N. J.:
CyberAge Books, Information Today, Inc.
Mintz, A.P. (Ed.). (2012). Web of deceit: Misinformation and manipulation in the age of
social media. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Mitrano, T. (2011). “It takes only a generation:” Information literacy in the digital age. Re-
trieved from http://archive-edu.com/page/4840981/2014-10-30/http://www.it.
cornell.edu/policies/publications/generation.cfm.
Morris, M.R., Teevan, J., & Panovich, K. (2010). What do people ask their social
networks, and why? A survey study of status message Q&A behavior. Proceedings
of the 28th SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3.
(pp. 1739–1748).
Nahl, D., & Bilal, D. (2007). Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in in-
formation behavior research and theory. Medford: Information Today.
Neuman, W.L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches
(7th. ed. International ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Nov, O., Naaman, M., & Ye, C. (2009). Analysis of participation in an online photo-sharing
community: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 555–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.
21278.
Oh, S., & Syn, S. Y. (2015). Motivations for sharing information and social support in social
media: A comparative analysis of Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, Youtube, and Flickr.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/asi.23320.
592 X. Chen et al. / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 583–592
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Jiao, Q.G., & Bostick, S.L. (2004). Library anxiety : Theory, research, and
applications. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.
Oyeyemi, S.O., Gabarron, E., & Wynn, R. (2014). Ebola, Twitter, and misinformation: A
dangerous combination? Thes BMJ, 349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6178.
Park, J. -H. (2010). Differences among university students and faculties in social network-
ing site perception and use: Implications for academic library services. The Electronic
Library, 28(3), 417–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02640471011051990.
Park, N., Kee, K.F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environ-
ment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology
& Behavior, 12(6), 729–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0003.
Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M., Gonçalves, B., Patil, S., Flammini, A., et al. (2010).
Detecting and tracking the spread of astroturf memes in microblog streams. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1011.3768. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3768
Rieh, S.Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2),
145–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10017.
Rodgers, S., & Harris, M.A. (2003). Gender and e-commerce: An exploratory study. Journal of
Advertising Research, 43(03), 322–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021849903030307.
Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Inside rumor — A personal journey. American Psychologist, 46(5),
484–496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.46.5.484.
Ross, C., Orr, E.S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J.M., Simmering, M.G., & Orr, R.R. (2009). Personal-
ity and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior,
25(2), 578–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024.
Ruggiero, T.E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication
and Society, 3(1), 3–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0301_02.
Saner, E. (2011). How to pamper a panda. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/
world/2011/dec/05/how-to-pamper-a-panda.
Saquete, R. (2010). The myth of the antiradiation cactus. Retrieved from
http://www.computableminds.com/post/cactus/monitor/radiation/antiradiation/
ultraviolet.
Shah, C. (2012). Collaborative information seeking: The art and science of making the whole
greater than the sum of all. Berlin: Springer.
Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: A uses and grat-
ification perspective. Internet Research, 19(1), 7–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
10662240910927795.
Sin, S. -C.J., & Kim, K. -S. (2013). International students' everyday life information seeking:
The informational value of social networking sites. Library & Information Science
Research, 35(2), 107–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.11.006.
Spiranec, S., & Zorica, M.B. (2010). Information literacy 2.0: Hype or discourse
refinement? Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 140–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
00220411011016407.
The University of New Hampshire (2000). Kentucky fried chicken hoax. Retrieved from
http://www.unh.edu/BoilerPlate/kfc.html.
Urquhart, C., & Yeoman, A. (2010). Information behaviour of women: Theoretical per-
spectives on gender. Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 113–139.
Walsh, J. (2010). Librarians and controlling disinformation: Is multi‐literacy instruc-
tion the answer? Library Review, 59(7), 498–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
00242531011065091.
Weber, E.U., Blais, A. -R., & Betz, N.E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale:
Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 15(4), 263–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.414.
Weiser, E.B. (2000). Gender differences in Internet use patterns and Internet application
preferences: A two-sample comparison. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(2),
167–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109493100316012.
Witek, D., & Grettano, T. (2012). Information literacy on Facebook: An analysis. Reference
Services Review, 40(2), 242–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907321211228309.
Wyllie, A., Zhang, J.F., & Casswell, S. (1998). Positive responses to televised beer advertise-
ments associated with drinking and problems reported by 18 to 29-year-olds.
Addiction, 93, 749–760.
Yaari, E., Baruchson-Arbib, S., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2011). Information quality assessment of
community generated content: A user study of Wikipedia. Journal of Information
Science, 37(5), 487–498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551511416065.
Zhang, Y. (2012). College students' uses and perceptions of social networking sites for
health and wellness information. Information Research, 17(3), 523 (Retrieved from
http://www.informationr.net/ir/17-3/paper523.html).
Zhou, M. (2014). Gender difference in web search perceptions and behavior: Does it vary
by task performance? Computers & Education, 78, 174–184.