Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan;9(1):156-168.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-02067-4. Epub 2024 Nov 19.

Sharing without clicking on news in social media

S Shyam Sundar  1 , Eugene Cho Snyder  2 , Mengqi Liao  3 , Junjun Yin  4 , Jinping Wang  5 , Guangqing Chi  4
Affiliations

Sharing without clicking on news in social media

S Shyam Sundar et al. Nat Hum Behav. 2025 Jan.

Abstract

Social media have enabled laypersons to disseminate, at scale, links to news and public affairs information. Many individuals share such links without first reading the linked information. Here we analysed over 35 million public Facebook posts with uniform resource locators shared between 2017 and 2020, and discovered that such 'shares without clicks' (SwoCs) constitute around 75% of forwarded links. Extreme and user-aligned political content received more SwoCs, with partisans engaging in it more than politically neutral users. In addition, analyses with 2,969 false uniform resource locators revealed higher shares and, hence, SwoCs by conservatives (76.94%) than liberals (14.25%), probably because, in our dataset, the vast majority (76-82%) of them originated from conservative news domains. Findings suggest that the virality of political content on social media (including misinformation) is driven by superficial processing of headlines and blurbs rather than systematic processing of core content, which has design implications for promoting deliberate discourse in the online public sphere.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Chen, S. & Chaiken, S. in Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (eds Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y.) 73–96 (The Guilford Press, 1999).
    1. Gabielkov, M., Ramachandran, A., Chaintreau, A. & Legout, A. Social clicks: what and who gets read on Twitter? In Proc. 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Science (eds Eager, D. & Williamson, C.) 179–192 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016).
    1. Holmström, J. et al. Do we read what we share? Analyzing the click dynamic of news articles shared on Twitter. In Proc. 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (eds Spezzano, F. et al.) 420–425 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019).
    1. Schäfer, S. Illusion of knowledge through Facebook news? Effects of snack news in a news feed on perceived knowledge, attitude strength, and willingness for discussions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 103, 1–12 (2020). - DOI
    1. Ohme, J. & Mothes, C. News snacking and political learning: changing opportunity structures of digital platform news use and political knowledge. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 1–15 (2023).

LinkOut - more resources