How Thai People Consider and Respond to Fake News

Abstract

This research study aims to investigate how people respond to and deal with fake news. It has employed survey research methodology using sample groups which are 18 years of age and older, in a total number of 1,120 people. The participants are derived from all regions of Thailand including Bangkok and metropolitan area as well as other provinces such as Rayong, Chiang Mai, Nakhon Sawan, Ubon Ratchathani, Songkhla, and Kanchanaburi. The survey was conducted in the middle of 2020. As a result, the research found that the participants have encountered fake news in the forms of news, informative content, and posts at the high level, while they have encountered fake news in the visual-based and stance-based forms at the moderate level. When considering each sample group, the research found that the 18-22-year-olds and the 36-45-year-olds have encountered fake news in all forms at the high level. The 23-35-year-olds and the 46-55-year-olds have encountered fake news in the forms of news, informative content, and posts at the high level. Finally, the 56-59-year-olds and those older than 60 have overall encountered fake news at the moderate level. In terms of the participants’ response to fake news, the research found that the subject groups have questioned the fake news, read it with objectivity, thought that it would cause harm, informed others of the fake news, checked facts, and shared their opinion that the news might be fake. However, they have experienced falling for the fake news when only reading the headlines or the leads and believed the fake news to be true. They have also selected only the news they were interested in and believed in it right away, even though it was also suggested to them that the news might be fake.

Finally, they have shared fake news and given their opinion supporting fake news. In terms of consideration of fake news, the sample group who correctly identified fake news in the forms of personal posts considered details in the message, possibly had bias against or intention to attack the post’s owner, and responded by “not sharing” the fake news. For the sample group who incorrectly identified fake news, they considered the featured images, details in the message, and the event situations. This group responded by “sharing” the fake news. Finally, the same group who was unsure of the legitimacy of the news considered the post’s owner’s account and featured images, possibly had bias against or intention to attack the post’s owner, and responded mostly by “not sharing,” followed by “checking the legitimacy.”