Thiên kiến nhận thức khi sử dụng mạng xã hội của sinh viên
Thiên kiến nhận thức khi sử dụng mạng xã hội của sinh viên
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1243/95req956Keywords:
Cognitive bias, Social network, StudentAbstract
Cognitive bias refers to the tendency to evaluate information based on personal experiences and emotions rather than logical thinking. Cognitive bias is likely to occur when people are exposed to fast and emotionally charged information on social media. This study focuses on four common types of cognitive bias on social media: Bandwagon bias, status bias, framing bias, and negativity bias. A questionnaire survey was conducted from December 2024 to January 2025 on 446 students (41.3% male, 58.7% female; Mage = 19.40) who frequently use social media, using self-assessment and vignette scales. The results showed that students were affected by all four types of bias, with framing bias and bandwagon bias being the most frequent, followed by negativity bias and status bias. Students preferred to receive positive, urgent (framing bias), and widespread (bandwagon bias) information over negative (negativity bias) or information shared by people with social status (status bias). These findings indicate that information reception on social media is not objective but influenced by cognitive bias. Therefore, media literacy programs are necessary to raise awareness and enhance students' critical thinking skills when processing information on social media.
References
Tài liệu tiếng Việt
1. Võ Thị Hiếu, Bùi Hữu Phước và Bùi Nhất Vương (2020). Tác động của các yếu tố hành vi đến quyết định và hiệu quả đầu tư của nhà đầu tư cá nhân trên thị trường chứng khoán Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. Tạp chí Kinh tế - Kỹ thuật, 3(31), 36-51.
2. Nguyễn Hải Ninh, Đinh Vân Oanh và Lê Bùi Quỳnh Như (2019). Nghiên cứu tác động của marketing sử dụng người có ảnh hưởng trên mạng xã hội tới thái độ của người tiêu dùng đối với thương hiệu ngành F&B Việt Nam. Kỷ yếu Hội thảo khoa học quốc tế Kinh doanh số và Marketing trong kỷ nguyên toàn cầu hóa, NXB Lao động - Xã hội, 284-301.
Tài liệu tiếng Anh
3. Baum, J., Frömer, R., & Abdel Rahman, R. (2024). Emotional content reduces the cognitive effort invested in processing the credibility of social (mis) information. Emotion, 24(6), 1468-1480.
4. Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992-1026.
5. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
6. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Co.
7. Di Domenico, G., Sit, J., Ishizaka, A., & Nunan, D. (2021). Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 124, 329-341.
8. Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225-256.
9. Eickhoff, C. (2018). Cognitive biases in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining. New York:
Association for Computing Machinery (pp. 162-170).
10. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Henry Holt and Company.
11. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
12. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
13. Lajnef, K. (2023). The effect of social media influencers' on teenagers Behavior: an empirical study using cognitive map technique. Current Psychology, 42(22), 19364-19377.
14. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
15. Modgil, S., Singh, R. K., Gupta, S., & Dennehy, D. (2024). A confirmation bias view on social media induced polarisation during COVID-19. Information Systems Frontiers, 26(2), 417-441.
16. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39-50.
17. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296-320.
18. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
19. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
20. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
21. We Are Social & Meltwater (2024). Digital 2024 Global Overview Report. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-global-overview-report.
