Beyond source vs. content: how people combine multiple cues in news credibility assessment

How do people combine relevant cues to distinguish between true and fake news? Here we test the contribution of news source and news content on the verification process of fake news. We address this question in a within-subject design (N = 82 first-year bachelor psychology students), where we cross 32 true and fake news headlines with 64 sources as an ecological way to test the separate role of news veracity and news source in news assessment. We find that both the truthfulness of news content and the reliability of news sources independently influence participants' credibility judgments. We also proved participants' self-reported reliance on the source and content of the news to make their assessment. Participants demonstrated the highest accuracy when using content alone, followed by both cues, and then source alone. This was qualified by a significant three-way interaction, indicating that the advantages of each strategy varied depending on the convergence between content and source. When content and source were congruent, participants achieved the greatest accuracy by relying on both cues and reported doing so more frequently. Conversely, when content and source diverged, participants were most accurate when relying exclusively on the source. Despite this, they reported relying equally on source, content, or both, except in the case of fake news, where there was a slight preference for relying on the source over content alone. This study suggests that while integrated content and source evaluation can enhance credibility assessment, media literacy interventions should consider both combined approaches and targeted single-component training depending on educational context and constraints.