Snap Judgements: How Audiences Who Lack Trust in News Navigate Information on Digital Platforms

"People around the world have access to a variety and volume of information like never before."

This report, published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism's Trust in News Project, shares a range of findings about how generally untrusting individuals think about the news they encounter on platforms, the shortcuts they use in making quick judgements about news they come across, and how specific features of platforms shape these experiences. The report hopes to provide insight into what news consumption for untrusting audiences looks like, what strategies and tools they use in navigating information on platforms, and how this matters for news organisations and platforms alike.

As explained in the report, navigating the abundance of online information sources poses real challenges, especially amid widespread fears of misinformation and outright disinformation. "Some have clear, go-to news sources they generally trust to provide them with accurate information. For them, trust serves as an 'institutional economiser' of sorts, eliminating the need to independently verify information themselves. But less is known about how those who lack trust in most news sources - a sizeable and possibly growing percentage of the population in many countries - form assessments around which sources to attend to and which to ignore. Moreover, crowded digital information environments where platforms, especially big platforms such as Facebook and Google, loom large, pose unique challenges for news organisations that seek to stand out and sustain trusting relationships with audiences."

Drawing on a sample of 100 individuals in four countries - Brazil, India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) - the researchers focused on how these audiences use Facebook, WhatsApp, and Google, based on a unique interviewing approach anchored in their concrete everyday experiences. Participants were asked to describe and respond to what they actually saw on their screens as they navigated these platforms in real time while speaking to members of the research team. This research focused on individuals with minimal trust in most news sources and below-average interest in politics, which the report notes is a population often neglected in audience research, since these individuals tend to be least likely to consume news.

The report summarises several of the key results as follows:

• "Generally untrusting" audiences were mostly indifferent towards news they encountered on platforms, which only rarely occurred anyway. Many saw little news at all while using platforms, and when they did, the news they saw tended to be focused on "soft" news topics, such as stories about entertainment and celebrities, rather than news about public affairs.
• Because few tended to click through the links they did see, many made quick, in-the-moment judgements about the credibility of the information being reported. Most focused on the minimal information conveyed through the platforms themselves, in headlines or visuals, or fell back on what they already knew of brands' reputations, which, in many cases, could be quite limited and often negative.
• When encountering sources they were unfamiliar with, many said they took it with a "pinch of salt". Although they usually did not click on such links, when they did, they often described making a separate set of snap judgements rooted in how the website looked, its advertising, and other visible signals. Some also talked about using search engines as a tool for cross-checking information they encountered on other platforms.
• Topic relevance played a key role in how this group talked about trust. Many expressed scepticism generally of all news, but they often singled out political subjects and politicised stories as content they tried to avoid altogether. On other kinds of news stories, many did not profess to care much about trustworthiness because they saw such topics largely through the lens of entertainment or a way to pass time online.
• Interviewees paid attention to different indicators specific to each platform. On Facebook and WhatsApp, for example, many drew on social cues, such as who was sharing the information, and, on Facebook specifically, elements such as comments and likes, which helped contextualise news they encountered. On Google, the rank order of search results was especially salient. But on all three platforms, many struggled to identify where information was coming from.
• Many in this group saw platforms as, at the very least, helpful, and at best, essential tools for fulfilling important functions in daily life. This was in stark contrast to the very negative views these "generally untrusting" interviewees held about most news, which they tended to see as irrelevant and depressing.
• Many were unsure about how platforms determined what information to show them. Some expressed deep concerns about misinformation, commercial agendas, and privacy intrusions, but often they still placed their trust in platforms to verify, fact-check, or prioritise the most reliable sources. Some said they believed platforms employed experts who manually made such editorial determinations. Despite concerns about platforms, many in this group said they appreciated the way platforms offered access to a range of perspectives, allowing them to make up their own minds.

With regard to the in-the-moment judgements or snap decisions around news encountered on platforms - which are considered particularly important, since many of these users rarely clicked through to the original sources of news - the research highlights the following factors: (i) pre-existing ideas they held about news in general or specific news brands (where the information was coming from), but also several other factors: (ii) social cues from family and friends (who shared or engaged with the news), (iii) the tone and wording of headlines (whether or not it was perceived as clickbait), (iv) the use of visuals(which they often saw as important evidence for what could or could not be trusted), and (v) the presence of advertising (whether or not information appeared to be sponsored). Additional (vi) platform-specific cues also played a role in shaping judgements about what to trust. These involved design decisions around how information appears on platforms (e.g., what labels appear, what is given most prominence), which in turn affect many of these other cues.

In conclusion, the report makes the point that although the focus of the research was on a large minority who lack trust in most news in their country, these findings highlight considerations that the researchers believe are much more widely shared. "The snap judgements we observed people making when evaluating information on platforms will likely resonate with many readers, even those who access news much more regularly." In addition, while some of these factors lie outside the scope of what news organisations have influence over, there are indicators that are within the scope of publishers' control and could guide publishers in assessing how their content is exhibited in these digital spaces.

Click here to access the introduction and key findings in Portuguese.
Click here to access the introduction and key findings in Spanish.