“Who is gullible to political disinformation?” : predicting susceptibility of university students to fake news

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Table 1. Likert scale, mean range, and its verbal interpretation

Rating	Mean Range	Variables
		Freq/Fact	Satisfaction	Confirmation	Trust	Prevalence	Knowledge	Importance	Attention
1	1.00– 1.50	Never	Very dissatisfied	Strongly disagree	Strongly disagree	Not probable	Not at all	Not important	Not at all
2	1.51– 2.50	Rarely	Dissatisfied	Disagree	Disagree	A little chance	Little knowledge	Of little importance	Very little attention
3	2.51– 3.50	Sometimes	Neutral	Slightly agree	Slightly agree	Most probably there is	Quite knowledgeable	Of average importance	Some of my attention
4	3.51– 4.50	Most of the time	Satisfied	Agree	Agree	Highly probable there is	Knowledgeable	Important	Much of my attention
5	4.51– 5.00	Always	Very satisfied	Strongly agree	Strongly agree	Very highly probable	Very knowledgeable	Very important	All of my attention

Legend:

Freq – Frequency of visit

Fact – Fact-checking strategies

Satisfaction – Satisfaction on information received from social media platforms

Confirmation – Confirmation bias

Trust – Trust toward news sharers

Prevalence – The perceived prevalence of fake news

Knowledge – Knowledge of national political issues

Importance – Importance of knowing national political issues

Attention – Amount of attention dedicated to knowing national political issues

Table 2. ICT access of students

ICT Access	frequency	Percentage
Device Ownership
Desktop/Laptop	538	78
Cellphone	678	98
Tablets	158	23
Number of Devices Owned
One device	160	23
Two devices	384	55
Three devices	144	21
Four devices	5	0.7
Type of Internet Access
Wired	101	15
WiFi installed at home	540	78
Mobile data	487	70
Pocket WiFi	51	7
Number of Internet Access
One type of access	303	44
Two types of access	304	44
Three types of access	74	11
Four to five types of access	12	2
Internet access location
At home	611	88
In school	523	75
In a coffee shop	120	17
In a mall	166	24
Through my mobile data	503	73
Number of Internet Access Location
One access location	115	17
Two access locations	165	24
Three access locations	247	36
Four access locations	83	12
Five to six access locations	83	12

Table 3. Fake news exposure and level of awareness

Fake News Exposure	Mean	Verbal Interpretation
Social Media Usage
Frequency of Facebook use	4.13	Most of the time
Frequency of Instagram use	3.27	Sometimes
Frequency of Twitter use	3.25	Sometimes
Frequency of YouTube use	4.07	Most of the time
Frequency of visit for Politics Update (Politics_Update)	3.14	Sometimes
Overall mean	3.57	Most of the time
Satisfaction	3.34	Neutral
Prevalence of Fake News	2.97	Most probable there is
Level of Awareness
Knowledge	3.07	Quite knowledgeable
Importance	4.12	Important
Attention	3.20	Some of my attention

Table 4. Confirmation bias and trust toward news sharers

Confirmation Bias	Mean	Verbal Interpretation
When I see a post of a friend about politics which is similar to my opinion, I tend to share it. (Bias1)	3.09	Slightly agree
When I see a post of a friend about politics which is similar to my opinion, I tend to hit the like button. (Bias2)	3.35	Slightly agree
When I see a post of a friend about politics which is similar to my opinion, I tend to hit the react button. (Bias3)	3.30	Slightly agree
When I see a post of an unknown person about politics which is similar to my opinion, I tend to share it. (Bias4)	2.81	Slightly agree
When I see a post of an unknown person about politics which is similar to my opinion, I tend to hit the like button. (Bias5)	2.95	Slightly agree
When I see a post of an unknown person about politics which is similar to my opinion, I tend to hit the react button. (Bias6)	2.89	Slightly agree
When I see a post of a political party about politics that is similar to my opinion, I tend to share it. (Bias7)	2.73	Slightly agree
When I see a post of a political party about politics that is similar to my opinion, I tend to hit the like button. (Bias8)	2.92	Slightly agree
When I see a post of a political party about politics that is similar to my opinion, I tend to hit the react button. (Bias9)	2.88	Slightly agree
Overall mean	2.99	Slightly agree
Level of Trust
When I see a political post of a friend, I tend to believe it. (Trust1)	2.58	Slightly agree
When I see a political post of a respected person, I tend to believe it. (Trust2)	2.91	Slightly agree
When I see a political post of a political party, I tend to believe it. (Trust3)	2.62	Slightly agree
When I see a political post of a person I do not know, I tend to believe it. (Trust4)	2.39	Slightly agree
Overall mean	2.63	Slightly agree

Table 5. Fact-checking strategies

Strategies	Mean	Verbal Interpretation
Searching Google (Search_Google)	3.88	Most of the time
Seeking the opinion of teachers (Opinion_Teachers)	2.90	Sometimes
Seeking the opinion of experts (Opinion_Experts)	3.07	Sometimes
Seeking the opinion of authorities (Opinion_Authorities)	3.00	Sometimes
Seeking the opinion of friends (Opinion_Friends)	3.51	Most of the time
Seeking the opinion of family members (Opinion_Family)	3.58	Most of the time
Searching materials in the library (Search_Library)	2.51	Sometimes
Consulting print newspapers (Consult_Print_Newspaper)	2.67	Sometimes
Consulting online newspapers (Consult_Online_News)	3.25	Sometimes
Consulting fact-checking websites such as VeraFiles, Poynter, etc. (Consult_Fact_Sites)	3.03	Sometimes

Table 6. Logistic regression analysis of susceptibility of students on fake news

Variables	β	p-value
Intercept	−0.949	0.178
Number of Devices Owned	0.079	0.575
Number of Internet Access	−0.015	0.912
Number of Internet Access Location	0.019	0.807
Facebook	0.042	0.680
Instagram	0.260	0.001
Twitter	−0.028	0.680
YouTube	−0.074	0.448
Knowledge	0.000	1.000
Importance	−0.023	0.831
Attention	−0.028	0.852
Bias1	0.273	0.043
Bias2	−0.057	0.672
Bias3	0.006	0.968
Bias4	0.201	0.153
Bias5	−0.160	0.338
Bias6	−0.023	0.891
Bias7	−0.376	0.022
Bias8	0.536	0.005
Bias9	−0.240	0.223
Trust1	0.232	0.134
Trust2	0.121	0.369
Trust3	−0.254	0.131
Trust4	0.025	0.851
Politics_Update	0.016	0.881
Satisfaction	−0.065	0.528
Prevalence	−0.019	0.812
Search_Google	0.134	0.154
Opinion_Teachers	0.114	0.282
Opinion_Experts	−0.412	0.000
Opinion_Authorities	0.215	0.056
Opinion_Friends	−0.007	0.945
Opinion_Family	0.009	0.922
Search_Library	−0.035	0.734
Consult_Print_Newspaper	−0.040	0.708
Consult_Online_News	−0.055	0.561
Consult_Fact_Sites	0.093	0.238

Model accuracy: 64%; Cox & Snell R² = 0.08; Nagelkerke R² = 0.11