Slow the scroll: Users less vigilant about misinformation on mobile phones
Habitual mobile phone users engage in less information processing, more likely to fall for misinformation on their mobile phones than on personal computers, researchers find
IMAGE:
ONE OF THE TRICKY PHOTOS THE RESEARCHERS USED IN THE STUDY. AT FIRST GLANCE THE SIGN APPEARS TO READ "FREE BEER!", BUT ON CLOSER INSPECTION IT READS "FREE WI-FI, COLD BEER!"
view moreCREDIT: IMAGE PROVIDED BY MENGQI LIAO AND S. SHYAM SUNDAR
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Mobile phones pack a lot of information into pocket-sized devices, which is why users may want to slow down the next time they’re scrolling through social media or checking email on a mobile app. People process information more efficiently but tend to be less vigilant about misinformation on their mobile phones compared to personal computers (PCs), according to a team led by Penn State researchers. This is especially true for users who have developed a routine or habit of using their mobile phones.
The research team also found that, counterintuitively, PC users are more likely to click on malicious links in phishing e-mails. The findings, published in the journal New Media & Society, have implications for cybersecurity and point to a need for additional alerts on mobile devices to combat misinformation and warnings on personal computers to combat susceptibility to phishing attempts.
“A good number of people report that they habitually use a mobile phone for everything from entertainment to work, and it serves them well, but habitual mobile phone usage leads them to let their guard down,” said principal investigator S. Shyam Sundar, the James P. Jimirro Professor of Media Effects at Penn State. “It’s important for them to recognize this behavior and to minimize their habitual use or their consumption of news on mobile devices, and for developers to create an alert system to remind them not to believe everything they read.”
To better understand how device type affects information processing, the team conducted two field experiments. Participants self-reported their habitual mobile phone usage and completed surveys using their own mobile phones and personal computers outside a laboratory setting, with all the push notifications and distractions that come with those devices and environments, giving the research team a better sense of how individuals use their devices and comprehend information in real-world settings.
“Usually when we conduct studies, we try to control as many extraneous factors as possible, but in this case, we ran field experiments because we wanted to test the differences in information processing between the two different devices in a natural way, by including all the noise and distractions that people encounter in their daily usage,” said Mengqi Liao, first author and doctoral candidate in mass communication at Penn State.
In the first study, the researchers asked 116 participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk to use their mobile phone or PC, including both desktop and laptop computers, to review normal emails, tricky pictures such as a copper-colored stainless-steel knife, and spam emails. The researchers recorded how much time participants spent reviewing the information. They also asked the participants questions to measure variables such as their recall of details from the emails and pictures, such as what material the copper-colored knife was made of and how likely they would be to act on the information in the emails.
In the second study, the researchers asked 241 university students to use their mobile phone or PC to review misinformation in news blurbs and phishing emails. The researchers again recorded the time participants spent reviewing the material and if participants clicked on the malicious links in the phishing emails, though the links took them to a post-questionnaire instead of an actual malicious website. The researchers also asked participants questions to gauge how they processed and interacted with the material and to indicate if they ever felt suspicious towards the deceptive content.
“In our first study, we did not find many differences across the two devices in terms of information processing other than the fact that mobile users processed information faster,” Liao said. “In the second study we focused more on deceptive content and recorded actual behavioral measures, like whether participants clicked on a malicious link. This is where we are more likely to observe detrimental effects from people processing information in a shallow manner, because with deceptive content, the consequences of people letting their guard down and being less skeptical towards misinformation can be quite dangerous.”
The way people have come to associate certain devices with specific types of content, such as processing news on mobile devices and emails on computers, may have driven the results, said Sundar.
“The stance in mobile seems to be that if you have to do more work, like go from one app to another to another, you’re less likely to pursue information further, whereas with email on a PC, you’re in work mode and may want to explore in depth,” he said. “That is perhaps why mobile users are quick to share misinformation without bothering to first verify information, and PC users are prone to click on links that they shouldn’t be clicking.”
Pop-up alerts are important for warning mobile users about potential misinformation and PC users about malicious links, he added.
Device-specific responses may also account for the counterintuitive finding that PC users are more likely to click on malicious links, according to the researchers. It seems more convenient or easier to click on links on a PC, which open in a new browser tab but give the appearance of opening on the same screen, than on mobile devices, where the user has to switch between apps, Liao said. PC users may also rely more on their antivirus software, letting their guard down when they see links in phishing emails, she added.
“It’s becoming more urgent, with all the misinformation on the internet, that we communicate these risks to users,” Liao said. “On the PC side, don’t click a new link just because it’s convenient, as it can lead to dangerous outcomes. And given that mobile phones can make you less vigilant, maybe slow down a bit and be more careful when processing information on these devices.”
Jinping Wang, University of Florida, and Cheng Chen, Elon University, also contributed to the work.
JOURNAL
New Media & Society
ARTICLE TITLE
Less vigilant in the mobile era? A comparison of information processing on mobile phones and personal computers
Sending emails during Zoom meetings? Binghamton research shows benefits of multicommunication at work, in the classroom
Binghamton University professor's research examines how to manage communication tasks on multiple screens at once
IMAGE:
MULTICOMMUNICATING CAN BE MOST BENEFICIAL WHEN PEOPLE CAN BALANCE THEIR DIVIDED ATTENTION AND EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE EXPECTATIONS OF WHOEVER THEY ARE COMMUNICATING WITH, ACCORDING TO NEW RESEARCH CO-CONDUCTED AT BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK.
view more
CREDIT: "GROUP OF DIVERSE PEOPLE HAVING A BUSINESS MEETING" BY RAWPIXEL LTD IS LICENSED UNDER CC BY 2.0.
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. -- In today’s digital age, the need for multicommunicating has increased as people frequently juggle different communication tasks using multiple devices. While that occasionally means your attention could be diverted from one task or another, new research including faculty from Binghamton University, State University of New York examines how multicommunicating could benefit the workplace or classroom, as long as it’s used properly.
Multicommunicating can be most beneficial when people are able to balance their divided attention and effectively manage the expectations of whoever they are communicating with, said Assistant Professor Jinglu Jiang, who conducted the research.
“On the surface, it’s easy to place a negative connotation on multicommunicating. But we need to focus on how people manage their multicommunicating rather than the behavior itself,” Jiang said. “Not everyone can be a ‘Superman’ at this, but if you’re messaging with a colleague to get some information that could be useful while you’re in the middle of a meeting, that could make your contribution to the meeting more effective.”
Previous research has shown how multicommunicating, such as using social media or texting during another conversation, could be distracting, especially in classroom or business settings. Studies also have shown that multicommunicating not only impairs task performance but also leads to unfavorable social judgments against the multicommunicator, causing them to be perceived as uncivil and unprofessional.
But Jiang’s research reveals that multicommunication may not always pose a hindrance when it is directly related to a person’s primary task or objective.
When performed properly, Jiang said, multicommunicators can harness information acquired from secondary conversations to enhance their primary task, bolstering a person’s contributions to a meeting and minimizing delays. This is especially true when the two media involved in the multicommunication can complement each other.
For example, if a person is listening to a lecture or discussion while reading related content on a separate screen, that can prove more effective than attempting to read from two separate screens simultaneously.
“Let’s say you’re listening to your teachers and looking at some materials on the side, even if it’s social media. That can work as long as those materials have some content related to what’s being taught in the class,” Jiang said. “In my own classes, I’ll talk about how websites like Amazon work, so the students will naturally want to look at the website’s design themselves during the lecture. They’re listening and learning something using their own perspective.”
Jiang’s research also shows that it matters who you’re communicating with, particularly when it comes to leveraging the information a person gains through side conversations. Effective management of communication partners’ expectations means ensuring that they are aware of and comfortable with the multicommunicating approach.
In most business or classroom settings, this can involve setting clear boundaries and explaining the purpose behind the multicommunication. Jiang said multicommunication will become more beneficial when everyone is “on the same page” and has realistic expectations of what it can accomplish.
Managers coordinating a meeting, Jiang said, must know when it’s necessary to disrupt multicommunicating. They could address it by clarifying to employees when it might not be acceptable or by giving examples of when it would be useful or allowed.
Jiang’s research also points out that further study of this topic could help shed light on how multicommunicating could influence brainstorming, negotiation, influencing and relationship formation.
“Properly managing this behavior at the individual and team levels makes the difference between multicommunication as a distraction and multicommunication as an asset,” she said.
The paper, "Toward a multilevel framework of multicommunicating: Insights from a systematic review," was published in Computers in Human Behavior Reports.
JOURNAL
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
ARTICLE TITLE
Toward a multilevel framework of multicommunicating: Insights from a systematic review
Early-life digital media experiences and development of atypical sensory processing
JAMA Pediatrics
Peer-Reviewed PublicationAbout The Study: Early-life digital media exposure was associated with atypical sensory processing outcomes in multiple domains in this study that included 1,471 children. These findings suggest that digital media exposure might be a potential risk factor for the development of atypical sensory profiles. Further research is needed to understand the relationship between screen time and specific sensory-related developmental and behavioral outcomes, and whether minimizing early-life exposure can improve subsequent sensory-related outcomes.
Authors: Karen F. Heffler, M.D., of the Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, is the corresponding author.
To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/
(doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.5923)
Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.
# # #
Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article This link will be live at the embargo time https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.5923?guestAccessKey=da05faa8-c283-493a-b461-c4a6f91a3f7d&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=010824
JOURNAL
JAMA Pediatrics
No comments:
Post a Comment