With fake information spreading rapidly on social networks, it is important to understand what stylistic and social signals determine its evaluation. The aim of this study was to investigate how headline sensationalism and social endorsement (notably, the number of likes) influence the perception of the credibility of real and fake news and behavioral intentions on social networks, as well as whether attitudes toward social network use moderate the effect of sensationalism. In an experimental study (N = 117; 18–29 years, M = 23.02, SD = 2.29), headline sensationalism (neutral/sensational) and social approval (low/high number of likes) were manipulated. Participants evaluated 5 real and 5 fake Facebook news posts, indicating their perceived credibility, intention to read the news, and intention to fact-check. The results showed that sensationalism did not influence the intention to read either real or fake news, but it did reduce the perceived credibility of fake news and increased the intention to fact-check it. Social endorsement had no significant effect on either credibility ratings or behavioral intentions. Attitudes toward social network use did not act as a moderating factor. The results show that sensationalism can act as a signal that activates skepticism when evaluating fake information, while fake information presented in a neutral manner may be more convincing. This has practical implications for media literacy education and information hygiene initiatives, emphasizing the need to critically evaluate not only overtly emotional content, but also the content presented in a neutral manner.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.