Why Are We Like This Why Are We Like This?
19 min
social media /
psychology /
news consumption /
misinformation

Why do we share news we haven't actually read?

The psychology behind the 'social news gap' reveals that sharing is often less about spreading information and more about performing identity.
Based on 88 scholarly sources

Most of us have done it: glancing at a provocative headline, feeling a surge of agreement or outrage, and hitting the “share” button without reading the article. This behavior has created a digital environment where the most popular articles are often the least read. Reading and sharing serve different functions. We treat reading as a private act of learning, but sharing as a public act of signaling.

Research into this “social news gap” shows that motivations for sharing often have little to do with the quality of the information.1 Sharing is a tool for self-presentation. We curate our feeds to look knowledgeable, politically engaged, or morally righteous to our peers. The content of the article matters less than the headline’s ability to signal our identity.

This habit is not evidence of malice or nihilism. Much of it stems from cognitive laziness and platform design. Our attention is limited, and social media feeds are built for rapid scanning, not deep engagement. The good news is that this appears to be a problem of inattention rather than an inability to discern truth. When people are nudged to pause and think about accuracy, their sharing habits improve significantly.2, 3

The Social News Gap#

What we read and what we share are strikingly different. In the pre-social media era, editors acted as gatekeepers, deciding what was newsworthy. Today, we are all gatekeepers, but we apply different criteria to different actions. We read articles that satisfy our personal curiosity, often entertainment or deeper analysis. We share articles that we think make us look good or that define our public stance on an issue.1

This creates a “social news gap.” Reading is private consumption. Sharing is public broadcasting. Because sharing is public, it carries social risks and rewards that reading does not. We are acutely aware that our shared links contribute to our online reputation. Users often share “hard” news (politics, economics) to signal civic engagement, even if they actually spend their time reading “soft” news or entertainment.1

This performative aspect of sharing can inflate our subjective sense of knowledge. The act of sharing news can make us feel like we know more about a topic, regardless of whether we absorbed the information.4, 5 This creates a feedback loop where the public signal of knowledge replaces the actual acquisition of it.

The Self-Presentation Trap#

Social media is a theater of self-presentation. We use news sharing to manage how others perceive us.

Users motivated by self-presentation are more active sharers. When the goal is to curate a specific persona, the accuracy of the content becomes less important than its alignment with that persona.6, 7 If a headline perfectly encapsulates a user’s political worldview, the incentive to verify the details inside diminishes.

This is compounded by the “News-Finds-Me” perception. This is the belief that one does not need to actively seek news because important information will naturally appear in one’s social feed. People who hold this belief tend to be less knowledgeable about politics and more susceptible to sharing misinformation.8, 9 They rely on their network to curate reality for them. They treat passive scrolling as a substitute for active information seeking.

By the numbers

The disconnect between reading and sharing is measurable. In an analysis of online news behavior, Bright 1 found that while entertainment news is frequently read, it is shared at much lower rates compared to its popularity. Conversely, political and general news is shared disproportionately to how much it is actually clicked.

Furthermore, the “News-Finds-Me” perception is not just a passive attitude but a predictor of behavior. High scorers on this scale are less likely to verify information and more likely to share fake news, mediated by the belief that their social circle acts as a sufficient filter.9, 10

Emotion and Identity Over Accuracy#

When we share without reading, we are often reacting to emotional triggers rather than intellectual ones. High-arousal emotions, particularly anger and moral outrage, are potent drivers of sharing behavior.

Framing news in terms of conflict or morality significantly increases the likelihood of it being shared.11 This explains why nuanced policy analysis often languishes while incendiary takes travel far. The emotional impact of a conflict-framed headline prompts an immediate social reaction. We share to validate our feelings and to rally our in-group against an out-group.

This is particularly true in political contexts. Partisanship is a robust predictor of sharing behavior, often overriding concerns about source credibility. The sharing of “fake news” is driven less by a complete inability to distinguish truth from fiction and more by partisan polarization. People share content that derogates their political opponents as a form of “cheerleading,” prioritizing their identity as a loyal partisan over their identity as a truthful person.12

It is important to distinguish between sharing despite knowing it’s false and sharing because one failed to check. The latter appears to be more common.

The Attention Economy and Design#

Most people do not want to spread lies. When asked directly, the vast majority of users rate accuracy as highly important. Yet they still share inaccurate information. This discrepancy is often due to an attention deficit induced by platform design rather than a moral deficit in the user.13

Social media platforms are designed for rapid, heuristic-based decision-making. We scroll quickly, looking for cues (likes, familiar sources, emotional headlines) rather than conducting deep audits of content. In this environment, our preference for accuracy remains latent. It is there, but it is not activated.

The debate: Malice or Inattention?

There is an ongoing debate in the literature about why people share misinformation.

One camp argues it is partisan malice: people know the news is dubious but share it anyway to signal loyalty or attack opponents.12

Another camp argues it is inattention: people value truth but are distracted by the social media environment. Supporting this view, Pennycook and colleagues have shown that simply asking people to rate the accuracy of a single non-political headline can “prime” the concept of accuracy, significantly reducing the subsequent sharing of fake news.13, 2, 3

This suggests that for many users, the failure to read or verify is a cognitive slip, not a deliberate strategy.

The effectiveness of simple interventions supports the inattention hypothesis. “Accuracy nudges” are prompts that remind users to think about truthfulness. They can reduce misinformation sharing intentions by shifting attention back to accuracy without reducing user engagement significantly.14, 15 This implies that the urge to share without reading is not an immutable trait. It is a product of an environment that encourages speed over reflection.

The Silent Majority#

It is easy to look at the flood of unread shares and assume everyone is doing it. But the distribution of sharing behavior is highly skewed. A small minority of “supersharers” accounts for the vast majority of shared news, particularly misinformation.16

Most users are actually quite reluctant to share. Many practice “deliberate news withholding,” choosing not to share news they find interesting because they fear social conflict, worry about their reputation, or simply do not want to annoy their friends.6, 17

These “under-the-radar” users often engage with news passively or in private channels, avoiding the public performance of the news feed entirely.18 For these users, the social risks of sharing (being wrong, starting a fight) outweigh the self-presentation benefits.

We share without reading because, on social media, news is not just information. It is a currency of social connection and identity. We use headlines to signal who we are, often at the expense of understanding what we are sharing. While this behavior is driven by the desire for status and the high-speed design of our platforms, it is not inevitable. The evidence suggests that we still value the truth. We just need to be reminded to look for it before we hit “post.”

References#

References (18 cited sources)

1. Bright, J. (2016). The social news gap: how news reading and news sharing diverge. Journal of Communication, 66(3), 343-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12232 ↗

2. Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592(7855), 590-595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2 ↗

3. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054 ↗

4. Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2016). Clicking vs. sharing: The relationship between online news behaviors and political knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 215-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.013 ↗

5. Dreston, J. H., & Neubaum, G. (2025). Navigating Social Media News Use: Exploring the Impact of Intentional and Incidental News Consumption on Objective and Subjective Political Knowledge. Communication Research, 00936502251317818. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502251317818 ↗

6. Ihm, J., & Kim, E. (2025). Why do news sharers choose not to share news? A self-presentation model of deliberate news withholding on social media. Social Media + Society, 11(4), 20563051251385441. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251385441 ↗

7. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024 ↗

8. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Srinivasan, P. (2022). An unavoidable convenience: how post-millennials engage with the news that finds them on social and mobile media. Journalism, 23(9), 1939-1954. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884921990251 ↗

9. Tian, Y., & Willnat, L. (2025). From news disengagement to fake news engagement: Examining the role of news-finds-me perceptions in vulnerability to fake news through third-person perception. Computers in Human Behavior, 162, 108431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108431 ↗

10. Yoo, J. J., Johnson, T. J., & Lacasa-Mas, I. (2024). The dynamics of misinformation sharing: the mediated role of news-finds-me perception and the moderated role of partisan social identity. Mass Communication and Society, 0(0), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2024.2401842 ↗

11. Valenzuela, S., Piña, M., & Ramírez, J. (2017). Behavioral effects of framing on social media users: how conflict, economic, human interest, and morality frames drive news sharing. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 803-826. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12325 ↗

12. Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Vahlstrup, P. B., Bechmann, A., & Petersen, M. B. (2020). Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind “fake news” sharing on Twitter. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/v45bk ↗

13. Pennycook, G., & 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 ↗

14. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022). Nudging social media toward accuracy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 152-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221092342 ↗

15. Chan, M., Yi, J., Vaccari, C., & Yamamoto, M. (2025). A cross-national examination of the effects of accuracy nudges and content veracity labels on belief in and sharing of misleading news. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 30(4), zmaf009. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaf009 ↗

16. Sun, Y., & Xie, J. (2024). Who shares misinformation on social media? A meta-analysis of individual traits related to misinformation sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 158, 108271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108271 ↗

17. Yang, F., & Horning, M. (2020). Reluctant to Share: How Third Person Perceptions of Fake News Discourage News Readers From Sharing “Real News” on Social Media. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 2056305120955173. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120955173 ↗

18. Tenenboim, O. (2025). Under-the-radar engagement: how and why news users limit their public expression. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 30(1), zmae024. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmae024 ↗

Additional Sources Consulted (70)

  • Ahmed, S., Bee, A. W. T., Ng, S. W. T., & Masood, M. (2024). Social media news use amplifies the illusory truth effects of viral deepfakes: a cross-national study of eight countries. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 68(5), 778-805. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2024.2410783 ↗

  • Ahmed, S., Ehab Rasul, M., Wei Ting Bee, A., & Tai, A. (2025). Understanding cross-platform variability in misinformation engagement: insights from meta-owned platforms. Sage Open, 15(3), 21582440251367907. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251367907 ↗

  • Amazeen, M. A. (2017). Journalistic interventions: The structural factors affecting the global emergence of fact-checking. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 146488491773021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917730217 ↗

  • Betakova, D., Boomgaarden, H., Lecheler, S., & Schäfer, S. (2025). I do not (want to) know! The relationship between intentional news avoidance and low news consumption. Mass Communication and Society, 28(3), 413-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2024.2304759 ↗

  • Bhandari, M. (2018). Social media cues and news site name: What do they mean for online news perception?. Newspaper Research Journal, 39(2), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532918775699 ↗

  • Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., & Troller-Renfree, S. (2017). Skipping politics: measuring avoidance of political content in social media. Research & Politics, 4(2), 2053168017702990. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017702990 ↗

  • Buyens, W., Van Aelst, P., & Paulussen, S. (2025). Curating the news. Analyzing politicians’ news sharing behavior on social media in three countries. Information, Communication & Society, 28(8), 1351-1367. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2317901 ↗

  • Capraro, V., & Celadin, T. (2023). “I Think This News Is Accurate”: Endorsing Accuracy Decreases the Sharing of Fake News and Increases the Sharing of Real News. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(12), 1635-1645. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221117691 ↗

  • Chan, M., Vaccari, C., & Yamamoto, M. (2025). Cognitive drivers of misinformation belief and sharing on social media: a cross-national comparison. Mass Communication and Society, 0(0), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2025.2577294 ↗

  • Choi, J. (2016). Why do people use news differently on SNSs? An investigation of the role of motivations, media repertoires, and technology cluster on citizens’ news-related activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 249-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.006 ↗

  • Choi, J. (2016). Differential use, differential effects: Investigating the roles of different modes of news use in promoting political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12176 ↗

  • Chung, M., & Kim, N. (2021). When I learn the news is false: how fact-checking information stems the spread of fake news via third-person perception. Human Communication Research, 47(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa010 ↗

  • Dreston, J. H., & Nanz, A. (2025). Incidental and intentional exposure in a mock election setting on social media: effects on subjective and objective political knowledge and aligned voting. Human Communication Research, hqaf023. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaf023 ↗

  • Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450-2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170 ↗

  • Frauhammer, L. T., & Dreston, J. H. (2025). How cognitive elaboration fosters knowledge acquisition on social media—a field experiment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 30(5), zmaf014. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaf014 ↗

  • Gearhart, S., Moe, A., & Zhang, B. (2020). Hostile media bias on social media: testing the effect of user comments on perceptions of news bias and credibility. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 140-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.185 ↗

  • Ghezae, I., Jordan, J. J., Gainsburg, I. B., Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., Willer, R., & Rand, D. G. (2024). Partisans neither expect nor receive reputational rewards for sharing falsehoods over truth online. PNAS Nexus, 3(8), pgae287. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae287 ↗

  • Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Diehl, T. (2019). News finds me perception and democracy: effects on political knowledge, political interest, and voting. New Media & Society, 21(6), 1253-1271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818817548 ↗

  • Goyanes, M., Ardèvol-Abreu, A., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2023). Antecedents of news avoidance: competing effects of political interest, news overload, trust in news media, and “news finds me” perception. Digital Journalism, 11(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1990097 ↗

  • Goyanes, M., & Demeter, M. (2022). Beyond positive or negative: understanding the phenomenology, typologies and impact of incidental news exposure on citizens’ daily lives. New Media & Society, 24(3), 760-777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820967679 ↗

  • Goyanes, M., Lee, S., Salgado, S., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2025). Enhancing self-perceived disinformation identification in democracy: the impact of fact-checking integration into daily news consumption practices. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 69(3), 331-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2025.2508767 ↗

  • Haugsgjerd, A., Karlsen, R., & Steen-Johnsen, K. (2023). Uninformed or Misinformed in the Digital News Environment? How Social Media News Use Affects Two Dimensions of Political Knowledge. Political Communication, 40(6), 700-718. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2222070 ↗

  • Jang, J. (2023). Proximate or primary source? How multiple layers of news sources on social media predict news influence. Social Science Computer Review, 41(1), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211032505 ↗

  • Johnson, B. K., Neo, R. L., Heijnen, M. E. M., Smits, L., & van Veen, C. (2020). Issues, involvement, and influence: Effects of selective exposure and sharing on polarization and participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.031 ↗

  • Johnson, N. R., Paal, K., Waggoner, E., & Bleier, K. (2021). Scales for assessing news literacy education in the digital era. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 76(2), 156-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695820930980 ↗

  • Kaiser, J., Keller, T. R., & Kleinen-von Königslöw, K. (2021). Incidental news exposure on facebook as a social experience: the influence of recommender and media cues on news selection. Communication Research, 48(1), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218803529 ↗

  • Kang, H., Lee, J. K., You, K. H., & Lee, S. (2013). Does online news reading and sharing shape perceptions of the internet as a place for public deliberations?. Mass Communication and Society, 16(4), 533-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2012.746711 ↗

  • Keib, K., & Wojdynski, B. (2019). Staying alive: TV news facebook posts, perceived credibility, and engagement intent. Electronic News, 13(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243118767733 ↗

  • Kim, H. S. (2015). Attracting views and going viral: how message features and news-sharing channels affect health news diffusion. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 512-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12160 ↗

  • Kraft, P. W., Krupnikov, Y., Milita, K., Ryan, J. B., & Soroka, S. (2020). Social Media and the Changing Information EnvironmentSentiment Differences in Read Versus Recirculated News Content. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84, 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa015 ↗

  • Kümpel, A. S. (2020). The Matthew Effect in social media news use: Assessing inequalities in news exposure and news engagement on social network sites (SNS). Journalism, 21(8), 1083-1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915374 ↗

  • Lane, B. E. W. (2020). The ecology of incidental exposure to news in digital media environments - Brian E Weeks, Daniel S Lane,. Journalism.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002 ↗

  • Lee, E., & Chung, M. (2025). Thinking hard, thinking smart: How news users’ cognitive traits guide their responses to Fact-Checks. Digital Journalism, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2492209 ↗

  • Liang, H. (2018). Broadcast versus viral spreading: the structure of diffusion cascades and selective sharing on social media. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 525-546. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy006 ↗

  • Luo, M., Hancock, J. T., & Markowitz, D. M. (2022). Credibility Perceptions and Detection Accuracy of Fake News Headlines on Social Media: Effects of Truth-Bias and Endorsement Cues. Communication Research, 49(2), 171-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921321 ↗

  • Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042-1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406 ↗

  • Millet, B., Tang, J., Seelig, M., Petit, J., & Sun, R. (2024). In Twitter we trust(ed): How perceptions of Twitter’s helpfulness influence news post credibility perceptions and news engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 155, 108185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108185 ↗

  • Molina, M. D., Wang, J., Sundar, S. S., Le, T., & DiRusso, C. (2023). Reading, Commenting and Sharing of Fake News: How Online Bandwagons and Bots Dictate User Engagement. Communication Research, 50(6), 667-694. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211073398 ↗

  • Morosoli, S., Goot, E. V. D., Resendez, V., Vreese, C. D., & Helberger, N. (2025). The transparency dilemma: an experiment on how AI disclosures affect credibility perceptions and engagement across topics. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 8(2), 1748-1757. https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v8i2.36671 ↗

  • Mosallaei, A., Wang, L., & Ognyanova, K. (2025). From politics to entertainment: exploring “news finds me” perceptions across news topics. Social Media + Society, 11(4), 20563051251382442. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251382442 ↗

  • Nee, R. C. (2019). Youthquakes in a Post-Truth Era: Exploring Social Media News Use and Information Verification Actions Among Global Teens and Young Adults. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 74(2), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695818825215 ↗

  • Nekmat, E. (2020). Nudge effect of fact-check alerts: source influence and media skepticism on sharing of news misinformation in social media. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 2056305119897322. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119897322 ↗

  • Neyazi, T. A., Kalogeropoulos, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2021). Misinformation Concerns and Online News Participation among internet Users in India. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 20563051211009013. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211009013 ↗

  • Noh, S., & Soroka, S. (2025). Engaging to oppose: cross-cutting patterns in hostile news commentary. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/mw8ch_v1 ↗

  • Park, S., & Lee, J. Y. (2023). Incidental news exposure on facebook and its relation to trust in news. Social Media + Society, 9(1), 20563051231158823. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231158823 ↗

  • Pearson, G. (2021). Sources on social media: information context collapse and volume of content as predictors of source blindness. New Media & Society, 23(5), 1181-1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820910505 ↗

  • Pearson, G. D., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2018). Perusing pages and skimming screens: exploring differing patterns of selective exposure to hard news and professional sources in online and print news. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3580-3596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818755565 ↗

  • Peifer, J. T., & Meisinger, J. (2021). The value of explaining the process: how journalistic transparency and perceptions of news media importance can (sometimes) foster message credibility and engagement intentions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(3), 828-853. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990211012953 ↗

  • Petit, J., Li, C., Millet, B., Ali, K., & Sun, R. (2021). Can We Stop the Spread of False Information on Vaccination? How Online Comments on Vaccination News Affect Readers’ Credibility Assessments and Sharing Behaviors. Science Communication, 43(4), 407-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211009887 ↗

  • Schäfer, S. (2023). Incidental News Exposure in a Digital Media Environment: A Scoping Review of Recent Research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 47(2), 242-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2023.2169953 ↗

  • Schulte-Cloos, J., & Anghel, V. (2024). Right-Wing Authoritarian Attitudes, Fast-Paced Decision-Making, and the Spread of Misinformation About COVID-19 Vaccines. Political Communication, 41(4), 608-626. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2291538 ↗

  • Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2021). Learning political news from social media: network media logic and current affairs news learning in a high-choice media environment. Communication Research, 48(1), 125-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217749354 ↗

  • Skurka, C., Liao, M., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2023). Tuning Out (Political and Science) News? A Selective Exposure Study of the News Finds Me Perception. Communication Research, 00936502231215528. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231215528 ↗

  • Soto-Sanfiel, M. T., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Saha, S. (2025). Deepfakes as narratives: Psychological processes explaining their reception. Computers in Human Behavior, 165, 108518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108518 ↗

  • Thorson, E. (2024). How News Coverage of Misinformation Shapes Perceptions and Trust.

  • Trilling, D., & Knudsen, E. (2025). Drivers of news sharing: How context, content, and user features shape sharing decisions on facebook. Digital Journalism, 13(4), 723-744. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2255224 ↗

  • Tu, F., Pan, Z., & Jia, X. (2023). Facts are hard to come by: discerning and sharing factual information on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(4), zmad021. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad021 ↗

  • Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520-535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127 ↗

  • Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A., & Kaiser, J. (2023). The Campaign Disinformation Divide: Believing and Sharing News in the 2019 UK General Election. Political Communication, 40(1), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2022.2128948 ↗

  • Vázquez-Herrero, J., Negreira-Rey, M., & López-García, X. (2022). Let’s dance the news! How the news media are adapting to the logic of TikTok. Journalism, 23(8), 1717-1735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920969092 ↗

  • Villi, N. K. (2020). Studying incidental news: Antecedents, dynamics and implications - Neta Kligler-Vilenchik, Alfred Hermida, Sebastián Valenzuela, Mikko Villi,. Journalism.

  • Weismueller, J., Gruner, R. L., Harrigan, P., Coussement, K., & Wang, S. (2024). Information sharing and political polarisation on social media: the role of falsehood and partisanship. Information Systems Journal, 34(3), 854-893. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12453 ↗

  • Wieland, M., & Kleinen-von Königslöw, K. (2020). Conceptualizing different forms of news processing following incidental news contact: A triple-path model. Journalism, 21(8), 1049-1066. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915353 ↗

  • Winter, S., Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2016). Selective use of news cues: A multiple-motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 669-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12241 ↗

  • Wu-Ouyang, B., Lu, S., & Chen, H. (2025). News avoidance or curation? Explicating the psychological process in news consumption on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14614448251351280. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251351280 ↗

  • Wu, Y. (2023). Predicting Fact-Checking Health Information Before Sharing Among People with Different Levels of Altruism: Based on the Influence of Presumed Media Influence. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 1495-1508. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S404911 ↗

  • Yamamoto, M., & Morey, A. C. (2019). Incidental News Exposure on Social Media: A Campaign Communication Mediation Approach. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 2056305119843619. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119843619 ↗

  • Yang, T., & González-Bailón, S. (2025). More platforms, less attention to news? A multi-platform analysis of news exposure across TV, web, and YouTube in the United States. New Media & Society, 14614448251341496. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251341496 ↗

  • Yun, G. W., Park, S., Lee, S., & Flynn, M. A. (2018). Hostile media or hostile source? Bias perception of shared news. Social Science Computer Review, 36(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316684481 ↗

Why do we share news we haven't actually read?
https://whyarewe.co/blog/not-reading
Author Why Are We Like This?
Published at January 15, 2026
Copyright CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Why does the news always feel biased against your side?

Do liberals have worse mental health than conservatives?