4.7 Review

Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
Volume 124, Issue -, Pages 329-341

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.037

Keywords

Fake news; Social media; Systematic review; Misinformation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Policy makers, managers, and academic researchers are increasingly concerned about the role of social media in spreading "Fake News". While research has focused on the implications of fake news for political communication, there is less focus on its impact on marketing and consumers. Understanding of fake news through a consumer lens is lacking, and an interdisciplinary systematic review of relevant literature identifies five themes explaining the phenomenon. A theoretical framework proposing relationships between themes and research propositions is suggested to guide future research in this area.
There is growing concern amongst policy makers, managers and academic researchers over the role that social media plays in spreading misinformation, widely described as 'Fake News'. However, research to date has mainly focussed on the implications of fake news for political communication and debate. There has been less focus on the implications of social media misinformation upon marketing and consumers. Given the key role of social media as a communication platform, there is a gap in our understanding of fake news through a consumer lens. We address this gap by conducting an interdisciplinary systematic review of the relevant literature. Through critical evaluation and synthesis of the literature, we identify five themes that explain the fake news phenomenon: the dissemination process, spreading channel features, outcomes, fabricated legitimacy and attitudes. Finally, we propose a theoretical framework that highlights themes' relationships and research propositions to guide future research in this area.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available