ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper was supported in part by the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) Program at the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Athens, Ohio. Special thanks to my mentor Melissa K. Thomas, PhD, MSPH, MSA, MCHES, Assistant Professor, Department of Primary Care, OU-HCOM.

Sources for this and all other papers can be found in the combined “Sources” section that begins on page 134.

MISINFORMATION GONE VIRAL: HOW PAYWALLS IMPACT THE CONSUMPTION OF MISINFORMATION

Molly Izer

Major: Government and International Politics

Concentration: Public Policy

Minor: American Sign Language Class of 2023

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, in conjunction with ever increasing political polarization, the majority of the public deviated further into an online information environment, amplifying the volatility of digital sources. Given the prevalence of misinformation, it is vital to thoroughly understand the role this heightened transaction cost plays in its increased consumption. In evaluating the paths taken to misinformation, a key player has gone broadly unevaluated: paywalls — a barrier to information that, while allowing media companies to conduct business, also heightens the transaction cost in acquiring information. To what extent do paywalls in online content affect the consumption of misinformation? In this study, the author will examine the impact of paywalls in two parts; first, by constructing a statistical profile of demographics who are more likely to accept misinformation, and second by conducting a qualitative survey of various subjects’ responses to paywalls, noting each response outcome as either positive (successfully identified credible alternative) or negative (chose false or misleading information or abandoned search entirely). The twofold process allows susceptibility to misinformation and practical response to paywalls to be evaluated in conjunction, creating a critical bridge between the two areas of literature. By approaching the issue in both a quantitative and qualitative method, the findings will allow the complex psychological decision-making process to be more accurately captured and applied to the mitigation process. We expect to find significant correlation between those who are likely to believe misinformation and respondents with negative reactions to paywalls.

Introduction

In modern American life, hardly anyone is untouched by misinformation — it permeates our news, social media feeds, and daily interaction with others. The internet has become, for most Americans, the primary source of information (O’Brien et al., 2020), with 67% of people “substantially increasing” their online news consumption in 2020 alone (Flew, 2021, p. 12). This substantial deviation into an online information environment has failed to mitigate the framework by which citizens interact with content at a rate that adequately addresses the risks posed.

While online misinformation has always been abundant, the dominant presence of online news media is a relatively new concept (Flew, 2021, p. 13). In evaluating the paths taken to misinformation, a key player has gone broadly unevaluated: paywalls — a barrier to information that, while allowing media companies to conduct business, also heightens the transaction cost in acquiring information. While economic factors will clearly impact responses to paywalls, what has largely gone unexplored is the psychological barriers that paywalls impose on consumers, and, most critically, what results due to those barriers

The year 2020 best exemplified the visible effects of misinformation. The social withdrawal that came as a result from the COVID-19 pandemic not only reduced face to face interaction — it established the internet as more than just a source of information, but as a social hub. The rapid socialization of information created ideal conditions for misinformation. Socialized internet information is extremely volatile with potential for intense subjectivity, elevating sources with a lack of credibility to the same level as credibly renowned news outlets.

This transformative aberration occurred at a time in which information was more vital than ever. 2020 was a major year for American democracy, as the 2020 presidential race tested the norms of electoral politics and the institutional forbearance of American government. In addition, a raging pandemic made accessible and credible medical advice a resource that could determine, quite literally, if someone lives or dies. In this context, understanding misinformation environments is critical. Whether that be through the storming of the United States Capitol under the false belief of a stolen election, or through the denial of a lifesaving vaccine, misinformation is more than just conspiracy; it is costly, dangerous, and in many instances deadly.

In the following paper, the author will explore the existing literature on paywalls, misinformation, and the ways they interact. The academic and legislative community cannot propose solutions to reduce the consumption of misinformation without a thorough understanding of where it occurs; in a similar faction, media cannot provide alternative outlets without considering their business models. Thus, by exploring these concepts thematically, they can be compared in conjunction and association. The literature review will focus on the following areas in order: the demographics impacted by paywalls, the measurement of quality information, the concept of willingness to pay versus capacity to pay, and the psychological factors that distinguish these two from each other in the decision-making process.

Literature Review

Measuring Quality

As information rapidly deviated to online platforms, traditionally printed newspapers pivoted to digital content in order to remain accessible and profitable. The central dilemma with this transformation is determining how to continue profiting as a business without losing customers, who now have more options than ever before. Thus, newspapers have increasingly deployed what are known as “paywalls” before allowing consumers to read their content (Pattabhiramaiah et al., 2019). By imposing these barriers, media companies gain two things: a profitable business modal, and the perception of higher quality. Generally speaking, when information is guarded behind a paywall, it is perceived to be more credible (Pattabhiramaiah et al., 2019). However, context has begun to strain these models; “We observe that the institutional capacity to produce news through traditional channels is facing a resourcing crisis with the collapse of traditional business models, yet the demand for news remains high and has increased in the context of COVID-19, we can see a ‘news gap’ that can be filled by a range of outlets, including fake news” (Flew, 2021, p. 19). Further, the monetization of information means that news outlets have two viable options to maintain profits: use information perceived and verified as high quality to incentivize consumers, or use a strategy in which journalists “hunt for clicks by following what is out there online and what might get … readers’ attention” (Vobič & Milojević, 2014, p. 1032). Both strategies rely heavily on the judgement of the user in their outcome, placing the dilemma in each individual decision between transaction cost and perceived benefit.

Existing literature suggests that the best definition of misinformation would be “information considered incorrect based on the best available evidence from relevant experts at the time” (Vraga & Bode, 2020, p. 138). This is specifically applicable because it distinguishes the opinions of the public from that of experts in a field, an essential distinction considering that it is the public who are our case in this study. By placing more emphasis on the opinions of experts, deliberate and factual consensus defines the truth rather than the public, thus reducing chances of misidentifying misinformation

While news consumption increased in 2020, so did social media usage — with 44% of the global population “substantially increasing” their usage of social media (Flew, 2021, p. 12). In conjunction with this occurrence, English language fact checks increased by 900% (Luengo & García-Marín, 2020). The credibility of information circulated via social media lacks proper vetting — it essentially circumvents the previous definition by allowing the public to define truth for themselves, with little to no mitigation. Thus, the discrepancy in incentives can be seen as “emanating from the behavior of platforms, rather than the attitudes of users” (Flew, 2021, p. 15). In this way, identifying the most common alternative sources is vital to mapping the outlets through which individuals learn of misinformation; because quality varies by incentives, solutions must keep these incentives in mind to prevent further distortion.

Demographics

The most important outcome of this study lies in who is most susceptible to misinformation. Given that both explicit and implicit factors will contribute to decision making, demographics provide insight into implicit and identity-based choices, while explicit factors such as political orientation provide the other half of a person’s background.

Explicit factors, such as race, age, gender, education, and media use (including past payments or P.P), are generally easy to quantify and measure. A key gap in literature, however, lies in the more implicit and subjective factors that make up ones decision making path, such as paying intent (PI) and willingness to pay (WTP) (Flew, 2021). Demographics allow a key justification for the implicit psychological factors that stem from a person’s personality type, identity, and political orientation.

Ability Vs Willingness

The most key distinction in identifying the factors weighed in the decision-making process lies in the difference between ability to pay for journalism and the willingness to do so. Existing literature heavily explored the socioeconomic impacts of access to journalism but notes that conventional wisdom about the impact of economic factors places too much emphasis on the quantitative measure of economic security “because it relies on a few crude indicators that fail to capture how individuals perceive their personal economic situation” (Wroe, 2016, p. 3). The most effective factors in measuring willingness versus ability are the previously mentioned variables of paying intent (PI) and willingness to pay (WTP). Note that these variables do not rely on the economic capacity of an individual directly; while financial capabilities may play a role in decisions, it is ultimately the subjective subfactors that determine the outcome. One study identifies 17 factors that influence this decision, divided into subcategories of consumer-based, product-based, and economic factors, including age, gender, education, media use, news interest, experience, brand image, free mentality, format, personalization, ease of use, exclusiveness, perceived quality, specialization, paywall, income, and price (O’Brien et al., 2020). For the sake of a more thorough modal, this study will add two additional factors: race and political party.

Status quo suggests that “news consumption has grown faster than the market can match — resulting in a wide gap between availability of information and the demand for it” (Pattabhiramaiah et al., 2019, p. 16). Because of this discrepancy, news outlets must continue to compete to find a balance between their ability to offer information versus the willingness of their consumers to purchase it. Understanding this tradeoff is essential to proposing solutions.

Psychological Factors That Determine Ability And Capacity

Often left unsaid are the motivations of the perpetrators of misinformation – the acknowledgement that online platforms allow psychological reasoning factors to take a backseat to momentary whims is widely understood by figures and weaponized against their political opposition. With intense political polarization and national tension, information environments are already interpreted skeptically – but, in this context digital spaces seem to increase the “irrationality” of the public (Luengo & GarcíaMarín, 2020, p. 420). As a result, social media platforms become political tools for disseminating misleading information and polarizing audiences. In conjunction with this weaponization is a rapidly decreasing trust in traditional media outlets, with the United States citizens decreasing their trust in media outlets by an estimated 21% in 2020 (Flew, 2021, p. 13).

Platform abuse and misinformation amplification is especially relevant considering the widespread reach and influence of politicians, public figures, and celebrities. In a study conducted by the Reuters Institute and Oxford University in which 250 flagged posts involving COVID-19 misinformation, it was found that while these groups made up 20% of misinformation claims, they accounted for 69% of the total social media engagement (Brennen et al., n.d., p. 1). The faces and ethos associated with information — particularly, free information — creates an easily identifiable outlet through which consumers can weigh value with very little transaction cost, again emphasizing the role of this tradeoff in the psychological decision making process, and the implicit biases of the audiences.

The essential moment — when a person is seeking information, clicks on content, and is met with a paywall — becomes not one of intense calculation with the consideration of social susceptibility to misinformation, but rather a quick decision between several choices: 1) To increase transaction costs and take the time and resources to get through the paywall. 2) Seek information elsewhere. 3) Abandon the search entirely.

By viewing this critical juncture through a lens of demographics, we can then measure what groups view an increased transaction cost as a suitable tradeoff for higher quality information. The psychological implications of paywalls as impediments to quality information — and thus, a motivating factor in consumption of misinformation — is drastically under researched (O’Brien et al., 2020). The rationality behind news selection rests entirely on the psychological pathways a person may form. Without aiming to measure these factors, it is impossible to identify the true causes of an increased market for false information. By viewing all these factors in conjunction and interaction, we will begin to answer the question: To what extent do paywalls in online content affect the consumption of misinformation?

Methods

The most appropriate path to answering this question involves a twofold response; one of both qualitative and quantitative data. Using the 17-factor approach in the O’Brien study with the additional factors of race and party identification, creating a 19-factor profile of a case. Secondly, a survey approach will ask if the respondent agrees with certain statements, including a mix of true and false claims based on current events. Then, the 19 factors will be graphed as dependent variables, where the rate of correct identification of misinformation is the independent variable. This method will establish a quantitative profile of individuals who are more likely to believe false or misleading information at a statistically significant rate based on demographic features.

Once this profile has been established, the process of qualitative data begins. A second round of surveys will ask a different random sample about their various responses when faced with online paywalls in a variety of contexts, particularly the responses that occur at the point of interest, which was established during the literature review. Each response will fall in one of the three categories discussed — get through the paywall, seek information elsewhere, or abandon the search entirely, with the second option holding the most potential for misinformation to emerge. These responses can then be compared to the statistical profile of those who are most likely to accept misinformation — if the respondents who react to paywalls by consuming less credible news sources match with the statistically established profile, a clearer picture of the psychological pathways emerge by drawing connections between barriers and perceived solutions. The twofold process allows susceptibility to misinformation and practical response to paywalls to be evaluated in conjunction, creating a critical bridge between the two areas of literature. We expect to find significant correlation between those who are likely to believe misinformation and respondents with negative reactions to paywalls.

Implications

Addressing misinformation is vital to the long-term cohesion of society. Without a unified set of acceptable facts, there remains no foundation for collaboration, discussion, and development. As the “infodemic” continues to spread virally, scholars must act with deliberate speed to identify causes, outlets, and solutions to the significant increase in misinformation — as well as individuals’ susceptibility to it.

Paywalls, and the obstacles they impose to quality information, must be considered as viable catalysts of this problem. The context of inaccessible information, and the incentives it imposes to consume more easily accessible and possibly less credible information, is especially relevant in a time in which consumers have unlimited sources to select from. By establishing a clearer picture of the process that leads an individual to consume misinformation, scholars and policy makers can take considerable steps to prevent others from doing the same.