The Influence of Communication Psychology Motivation Factors on COVID-19 Fake News Sharing Behavior on Social Media among Users in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to analyze the influence of eight communication psychology motivational factors on fake news sharing behavior regarding COVID-19 on social media in Thailand. The target population consisted of social media users aged 18 and older in Thailand. A sample of 400 respondents was selected using accidental sampling via an online questionnaire, which comprised three parts: 1) general demographic information, 2) eight communication psychology motivational factors and failure to detect fake news, and 3) fake news sharing behavior on Facebook and LINE group chats. Data were analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) via the AMOS program, as well as independent samples t-test and One-way ANOVA. The results revealed that the SEM model fit the empirical data at an excellent level (χ²/df = 1.06, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.01, SRMR = 0.03). All eight factors had statistically significant direct effects at the 0.05 level. The strongest negative predictor was analytical thinking ability (β = −0.29), while the positive predictors, ranked in descending order, were political identity (β = 0.26), social interaction (β = 0.21), altruism (β = 0.20), trust in online information (β = 0.19), information overload and status-seeking (β = 0.17), and social validation cues (β = 0.12). Together, all variables explained 68% of the variance. No statistically significant differences were found across six demographic characteristics (p > 0.05). The findings indicate that analytical thinking is the most powerful protective mechanism, while political identity and social interaction rooted in Thai cultural norms serve as primary accelerating factors. Fake news reduction measures should focus on developing critical thinking skills, raising awareness of political bias, and designing features that automatically introduce a delay before sharing.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ข้อเขียนหรือบทความใดๆ ที่ตีพิมพ์เผยแพร่ในวารสารวิจัยและพัฒนาอนุภูมิภาคลุ่มน้ำโขง (Online) ฉบับนี้ เป็นความคิดเห็นเฉพาะส่วนตัวของผู้เขียนและกองบรรณาธิการไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วย และวารสารวิจัยและพันาอนุภูมิภาค ลุ่มน้ำโขง (Online) ไม่มีข้อผูกพันธ์ประการใดๆ อนึ่งกองบรรณาธิการวารสารยินดีรับพิจารณาบทความจากนักวิชาการ นักศึกษา ตลอดจนผู้อ่าน และผู้สนใจทั่วไป เพื่อนำลงตีพิมพ์ สำหรับบทความจะผ่านการพิจารณาจากผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิสาขาวิชาที่เกี่ยวข้องทั้งภายในและภายนอกสถาบัน
References
Apuke, O. D. and Omar, B. (2021). Fake news and COVID-19: Modelling the predictors of fake news sharing among social media users. Telematics and Informatics, 56, 101475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101475
Bago, B., Rand, D. G. and Pennycook, G. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1608–1613. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729
Chen, X., Sin, S. C. J., Theng, Y. L. and Lee, C. S. (2015). Why students share misinformation on social media: Motivation, gender, and study-level differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.003
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A. and Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B. and Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science, 363(6425), 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Human Rights Watch. (2022). World report 2022: Thailand. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/thailand
Komin, S. (1991). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioral patterns. National Institute of Development Administration.
Laato, S., Islam, A. K. M. N., Islam, M. N. and Whelan, E. (2020). What drives unverified information sharing and cyberchondria during the COVID-19 pandemic? European Journal of Information Systems, 29(3), 288–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1770632
Lee, C. S. and Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002
Metzger, M. J., Hartsell, E. H. and Flanagin, A. J. (2020). Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research, 47(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215613136
Miller, V. (2008). New media, networking and phatic culture. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(4), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856508094659
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Noksri, P. and Rattanawiboonsom, V. (2022). Fake news sharing behavior on LINE application among Thai elderly users. Journal of Information Science, 40(2), 45–62.
Pennycook, G. and Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
Pennycook, G. and Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
Royal Thai Government. (2020, March 25). Thailand declared emergency decree from 26 March to 30 April 2020 to fight COVID-19.
Government Public Relations Department. https://thairesidents.com/local/thailand-declared-emergency-decree-from-26-march-to-30-april-2020-to-fight-covid-19/
Sinpeng, A. (2021). Hashtag activism: Social media and the #FreeYouth protests in Thailand. Critical Asian Studies, 53(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2021.1882866
Sombatpoonsiri, J. (2022). Labelling fake news: The politics of regulating disinformation in Thailand (ISEAS Perspective No. 2022/34). ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2022-34-labelling-fake-news-the-politics-of-regulating-disinformation-in-thailand-by-janjira-sombatpoonsiri/
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Zafar, N. and Alrasheedy, M. (2019). Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026
Van Bavel, J. J. and Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
World Health Organization. (2023). Statement on the fifteenth meeting of the IHR Emergency Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-ihr-emergency-committee-on-the-covid-19-pandemic
