An unavoidable convenience: How post-millennials engage with the news that finds them on social and mobile media

Abstract

The growing reliance on social media via mobile devices is changing how individuals obtain, engage with, and learn from news content. Based on the cognitive mediation model of learning from the news, this study qualitatively explores this three-step process of news exposure, engagement, and knowledge via digital media. Focus group discussions with post-Millennials (N = 60) and thematic analysis of the results reveal several tensions. Participants see social media as imperfect but unavoidably convenient ways to get news, and they find the personalised news content available to be both a benefit and a drawback. They show a general hesitation to engage publicly with news content, opting mostly to passively observe others’ discussions on social media. Finally, they feel that social media give them a sense of awareness of current events, but do not prompt deeper learning about news topics.

Keywords

Cognitive mediation model focus groups news engagement social media thematic analysis

News consumption continues to shift from ‘legacy’ media to digital platforms, having surpassed radio and newspapers as a primary news source, and are predicted to surpass television soon (Gottfried and Shearer, 2017). Today’s youngest adults in particular are turning primarily to social and mobile media for their news. In the U.S., 22% of adults aged 18-29 rely solely on their smartphones for Internet access (Pew Research Center, 2020a) which means they are increasingly using mobile-only platforms such as Snapchat for information (Pew Research Center, 2020b). The post-Millennial generation is differentiated from other adults by these technological and cultural shifts that define their upbringing. Specifically, social media and mobile devices have been part of their lives since childhood. These trends lead to questions about how young adults are being exposed to news content, how they are engaging with it, and how they are learning from it.

Recent investigations have characterised the news exposure and consumption habits of the current young adult generation (Antunovic et al., 2016; Bergström and Belfrage, 2018), but news consumption changes rapidly thanks to digital platforms, and further investigation on the effects of their use is necessary. Building upon these investigations, the purpose of this study is to extend our understanding of how young adults experience news content they encounter on social and mobile media. We use the cognitive mediation model of learning from the news (Eveland, 2001) as a framework for the research. We focus on three key parts of the model for social media news consumption: exposure and attention to news content, engagement with and elaboration about news content, and knowledge gained from news content. The goal of this study is to provide perspective on digital news engagement by the youngest adult users, which may lead to the development of new theories and theory-driven empirical research of news engagement in the mobile and digital world.

Exposure and attention to news content on social and mobile media

The first step of interest in the cognitive mediation model (Eveland, 2001) is news attention, following from surveillance gratifications. In traditional media, this may mean turning on the television or buying a newspaper to catch up on the latest news. In digital media, Thorson and Wells (2016) suggest that information reaches us in curated flows – ways of selecting, filtering, and organising content – through five curators: journalists, strategic communicators, individual media users, social contacts, and algorithmic filters. For exposure to news content on social media, the latter three are particularly relevant. First, exposure to news content on social media platforms is determined largely by algorithms programmed to show users content based on their previous interactions with content. Second, social media present a melding of user-generated and professionally-produced content, where users can obtain information from established news organisations or other users, and can even follow and interact with individuals from news organisations directly. Third, social media platforms are built on features for ‘engagement’, such as posting links to content, commenting on it, and ‘liking’ or ‘reacting’ to it. Together, these three aspects offer a highly customised, social news environment that differs fundamentally from watching television news or reading newspapers.

One effect of social and mobile media use for news is that news consumption for users of these media has become increasingly incidental, meaning that people encounter news information was when they had not been actively seeking it (Tewksbury et al., 2001). Given the wealth of news content on social media platforms, individuals hardly need to actively seek the news (Ahmadi and Wohn, 2018; Fletcher and Nielsen, 2018; Yadamsuren and Erdelez, 2011), and are generally satisfied with getting their news in this way (Yadamsuren and Erdelez, 2010). Wohn and Bowe (2016) find that specifically on social media, one’s social connections act as micro agenda setters, and heavily influence their exposure to and view of the news. Thanks to smartphones, individuals can now be constantly connected to this content, as a by-product of their regular use of these devices (Boczkowski et al., 2018).

This incidental exposure is a key source of news in Antunovic et al.’s (2016) three-stage process of news consumption, which also includes routine surveillance, incidental consumption, and direct consumption. They find that most news for this demographic is consumed incidentally, whereas more directed consumption generally only happens upon finding a story of interest. Bergström and Belfrage (2018) also find that news use by college students is primarily incidental, through social media and news app notifications on their phones. Furthermore, they have come to expect that major news will find them this way, and that they do not need to actively seek it. While it has been established that current young adults primarily get their news this way, with our first research question we seek to explore more in-depth how news content gets their attention in this context of exposure:

RQ1: What role do social and mobile media play in exposure and attention to news content?

Engaging with news content on social media

The second key piece of the cognitive mediation model (Eveland, 2001) is the act of cognitive elaboration, or connecting new information to other information one already has. New media has also expanded the concept to discussing information with others as a way of processing it more deeply (Shah et al., 2005). Related to elaboration is the concept of engagement, which has been defined in terms of social media as the use of interactive features of social media to respond to news content (Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2018). For news specifically, it is the close and attentive reading of an encountered news article (Kümpel, 2019). Social media allow engagement with news content through three basic functions: commenting, liking, and re-sharing. Social media users actively engage with information they find on social media sites (Lee and Ma, 2012), even when they are exposed to it incidentally (Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2018). On Facebook, likes are signals that content is worth promoting (Wohn and Bowe, 2016), while on Twitter, retweeting others’ tweets signals that information warrants attention (Choi and Toma, 2014).

Engagement with news content, broadly speaking, is not limited to using the interactive features of social media sites, but is also related to both cognitive and interpersonal processes of understanding and discussing information. Social media engagement offers the possibility to spark discussion about a given news story topic, which can influence the reader’s opinions and knowledge about the subject. Furthermore, engaging with content through these features is linked to cognitive elaboration (Choi, 2014; Nekmat et al., 2015; Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2018). Yet, Wohn and Bowe’s (2016) research indicates college students hold generally negative views about political news discussion on social media. This leads to our second research question, which seeks to understand how current young adults choose to engage with and thus elaborate on news content they see on social media:

RQ2: How do young adults engage with news content they see on social media, and to what extent do they elaborate on the information they are exposed to?

Learning from news content on social media

The final step of Eveland’s (2001) cognitive mediation model asserts that only after attention to news and cognitive elaboration of news, is knowledge obtained. Evidence for learning from news content on social media is mixed. Some research finds positive effects of using digital media for news, such as increased political learning (Dimitrova et al., 2014). Specifically, use of Twitter for news has positive effects on learning about current events (Bode, 2016), and exposure to news posts on Facebook is positively linked to political information (Anspach et al., 2019). Yet other research finds no link between Facebook use and political knowledge (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2017), or even a negative relationship between Facebook use and knowledge (Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2018; Yoo and Gil de Zúñiga, 2014).

This implies that mere exposure to news content on social media is not sufficient to lead to political knowledge, but that some form of cognitive elaboration must occur. In the case of social media, this elaboration may be linked to engaging with the news content through the site’s features. For instance, Facebook users feel more cognitively involved with a news topic after posting the story and discussing it with their network (Oeldorf-Hirsch and Sundar, 2015). Yet, research has not found support for the theorised link between cognitive elaboration about news content and knowledge on social media (Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2018). Thus, our final line of inquiry asks if current young adults feel they learn from news content on social and mobile media, and how they use features of the technology to facilitate this learning:

RQ3: What do young adults learn from social media news content, and what are the behaviors and technology features that enhance or inhibit this learning?

Methods

We conducted seven semi-structured focus group discussions with current post-Millennial college students (defined by Pew Research as those born after 1996; Dimock, 2018). Data were collected in Fall 2017. Focus group discussions are particularly beneficial for this type of research because they allow group members to build on each other’s response to create a collective experience (Lunt and Livingstone, 1996). The number of participants ranged from seven to 10 for each session, and data collection continued until we reached data saturation, meaning that no new information was obtained from additional sessions. Two researchers were present at all sessions, with one moderating the discussion and one taking notes.

Participants

After obtaining approval from the university’s institutional review board, we recruited participants from a general education course at a large public northeastern U.S. university, who received course credit for participating. In order to be eligible for the study, participants had to be 18 or older and should consider themselves active users of Facebook. Participants were only screened out if they were under 18, but not based on any answers to media use questions. The sample (N = 60) ranged in age 18–22 years (M = 19.03, SD = 0.86), and had an equal mix of females (52.4%) and males. This sample was specifically selected to represent the largest adult demographic on social media, which are young adults (Pew Research Center, 2020b).

Procedure

After consenting to participate, participants filled out a short survey that asked them to indicate their primary source(s) of news (television, newspapers, radio, news websites, search engines, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, other social media, e-mail, text, instant message, mobile apps, or in-person communication), to rate how frequently they get their news from each of those same sources (1 = never – 7 = several times per day), and to provide some basic demographic information (age, gender, college standing). The moderator then facilitated the focus group discussion, which lasted about 45 minutes.

We used a script of discussion prompts to address the research questions of the study, but participants were probed on particular questions based on the flow of the discussion in each session. Questions 1–3 address RQ1 about exposure and attention, questions 4–7 address RQ2 about engagement and elaboration, and questions 5 and 8 address RQ3, with some overlap across prompts and research questions.

Do you regard social media as your primary source of news?

Is reading a news story on social media different from reading it in a newspaper? In both cases, you have the option of skipping news stories that are not of interest, so how is using these media different?

How often do you find yourself reading the complete story on Facebook?

Do these stories prompt you find out more about a topic?

Do you think about stories you read on social media or do they disappear from your memory after a while?

If one of your Facebook friends shares a news story, would you comment on it?

Do you think commenting on articles has online changed over the years? If so, what could be some reasons for this?

How much do you think you learn from reading news stories on social media?

Data analysis

Audio recordings from all focus groups were transcribed, and transcripts were analyzed by both researchers using thematic analysis, based on standard procedures for identifying themes in qualitative data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Analysis of this data took a two-part approach, first to answer the specific research questions at hand and then to identify how the data connect to broader themes within the theoretical framework. Following analysis of the dataset, existing literature was reviewed for comparison of research findings. Direct quotes are given pseudonyms to ensure privacy of research participants.

Results

Survey results indicate that the majority (71%) of participants consider social media their primary source of news, while 17% consider mobile apps their primary source of news, with only 12% considering other forms of media (mostly websites) their primary source of news.¹ Of those who listed social media as a primary news source, 74% use Facebook for news at least weekly, while 71% use Instagram, 64% use Snapchat, and 52% use Twitter. Though our questions focused largely on Facebook – because it has served as the primary source of news among social media platforms over the years (Pew Research Center, 2020b) – participants talked about all social media platforms they use.

Exposure and attention to news content

Our first research question addressed the first step of the cognitive mediation model, focusing on attention or exposure to news content via social and mobile media. Overall, most participants prefer social and mobile media as their source of news because they offer effortless access to news. Reasons for this are because of convenience, partially due to lack of access to other media; news content that is tailored to them; and features that make online news more interactive, and thus easier to engage with.

Effortless exposure and access to news

Several participants indicated that exposure to news content on social media is convenient because the news ‘just finds them’ on devices and applications they are already using. One participant (Kristen, 19) summarised her social media news experience as: ‘I don’t go looking for news, it just kind of shows up’. In fact, social media is so woven into their lives that not all participants had consciously considered the role of social media in their news use, highlighting how effortless news exposure via social and mobile media is.

I actually didn’t really realize how I got all my news from social media until this study. Like, I don’t know where I thought I got it from . . . yeah, I guess it’s through social media and I never noticed that. (Jane, 19)

This preference for social/mobile media is at least partly attributable to the fact that many lack access to traditional forms of media. Most participants live on campus, away from their family home, and do not have a television set or a newspaper subscription. ‘I don’t even have a TV in my dorm room right now, so I can’t turn on the TV and watch the news. So I kind of rely on social media, and basically using my phone to Google things or Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat stories for the news’ (Alice, 18). Though even with access to or interest in more traditional media, some other participants noted the cumbersomeness of them compared to mobile media.

I feel like when you think of reading a newspaper, you think of waking up in the morning, and drinking morning coffee, and flipping through it. If you have extra time I guess. But our society is so on the go, that to just scroll through your phone and catch the latest news kind of, is just so much more easier. (Tina, 18)

This even extends to a lack of experience with older media compared to social media – ‘I don’t know what the difference would be, because I never read through a newspaper’ (Sara, 18) – or even the skills to efficiently use traditional media: ‘You have to actually search and know a newspaper to read it. I personally, haven’t seen a newspaper in a while so it takes me a while to find an article I actually want to read’ (Jack, 19). Instead, some participants noted a strong preference for the video-based content that dominates social media, also for its effortless access to news. Participants attributed this to shorter attention spans, and that videos seem to capture their attention more than static text, while providing easily digestible information.

Personalised news content helping and hurting exposure

Most participants expressed an understanding that social media provides news that is tailored to them, which was cited as both an advantage and a disadvantage in their exposure to news content. While some participants find this personalisation helpful – ‘My friends usually put post about news and things so I can see them’ (Jim, 20) – some view it as extremely limiting and recognise that their exposure to multiple sources is restricted. One participant (Sophie, 19) noted the need for news on social media to stand out, stating that ‘if you’re using a newspaper or watching the TV, you are looking for the news. But on social media, something has to attract you to see the news’.

However, bias and credibility were cited as disadvantages of tailored content on news exposure. Several participants felt that news on social media is biased, with one participant (Ria, 19) saying that ‘news is completely biased as well, but I feel like social media is just another complete filter of what the true and actual story usually is’. Source credibility was also identified as a potential issue by some mainly because of the ease of editability of content on social media.

Dynamic news format

Several participants noted that news content on social media has greater appeal due to features that offer interactivity, as well as enhanced graphics and images. Among other advantages of news presented in the video format, participants talked about the presence of subtitles making it easier to watch the video without any sound. One participant (Anna, 19) said, ‘Also on those videos they have words so you have to read the story along with, like, seeing graphics of what’s happening kind of, so that kind of grabs us in’.

Interactivity is also offered through hyperlinks, facilitating easier understanding of an issue by connecting different pieces of information from different sources, which is not possible with conventional media. ‘If you want to read more, go to the website,” and it will give you the link, or you can swipe up on Snapchat and get the whole article’ (Hannah, 19). It was also of importance that social media enable them to post, comment, like, and share to further their exposure. ‘I think the big difference on Facebook is that. . .you can comment on all things. So on the newspaper, you can’t comment things. And people can see your comment on Facebook and you relate to their influences’ (Will, 20).

Engagement with news content

Our second research question addressed the second aspect of the cognitive mediation model, focusing on engagement and elaboration. Although many participants had previously noted the importance of these engagement features, they expressed a hesitation to use them, as well as resistance to engaging with the news content more cognitively.

Hesitation to engage visibly

Most participants said that they would not comment on news stories posted by news organisations on social media, given that these posts are publicly visible. These participants stated that they do not really want to engage with such posts on social media for fear of who will see it: ‘If you have an employer in the future who disagrees with those political views, or something like that, it could come back to hurt you if you make comments in a certain direction’ (Ben, 19).

Another inhibition to engage with such articles freely was that a social media platform like Facebook is an ‘open space’ where not just one’s immediate network, but also one’s extended networks, can visibly see the others’ endorsements. With social media like Facebook, a snowball effect occurs with who can view posts, with friends of friends being able to view certain activities. They would rather share an article via private means rather than broadcast it to their networks and extended audiences: ‘Just because everyone else can see what you comment. I’d rather just talk to that person or text them about it, if it really irks me’ (Candace, 19). While comparing across platforms, these participants felt more at ease commenting on a post on Instagram than on Facebook due to the greater perceived privacy of the medium. Several participants also expressed more comfort in talking about the post over private means like text or messenger rather than commenting on a post or sharing a post on their own or someone else’s profile.

Most participants also agreed that by avoiding commenting visibly, they can avoid debates and controversies. A common observation was that there are too many people arguing and having charged debates on social media, and that participants do not want to visibly engage in these arguments. One participant noted that they would only comment on the things they agree with, and that in a case of disagreement, they would have a conversation over private means. Some participants also agreed that they would only comment on an article if it was to tag someone in it. Specifically, ‘I think one way I’ll comment is if I’m just tagging a friend in it or want my friend to see it. So, it’s not ‘sharing’ because it’s not having everyone that I’m friends with seeing it’ (Adam, 20). Likewise, some stated they would only comment on a post once a friend had tagged them.

Because most news articles on social media are inundated with comments, we were curious to understand participants’ perceptions of these comments. Most of them seemed to agree that commenting comes from an older demographic, not their own. This was mainly attributed to the changing demographic of Facebook, with older adults feeling more comfortable with using the site and younger adults turning to more personal media such as Snapchat and Instagram. One participant (Lydia, 19) stated ‘I typically see a lot of my older family members who abide by Facebook, and put all their info on Facebook.’ Another participant (Amanda, 22) added ‘I think we kind of understand that . . . I don’t know, you’re not going to change anybody’s mind on the Internet.’

There was a general agreement with the fact that commenting on social media has increased significantly over the last few years, which was attributed to the features that allow more direct interaction with others, such as direct replying to individuals’ comments on Facebook and the hashtag unifying people with similar interests or opinions. However, the general trend was that participants use these features to engage with friends (such as tagging them in a post) rather than to engage in discussion with a broader audience on the platform.

Motivation needed to elaborate

A general admission across focus group discussions was that reading content on social media is superficial; participants rarely read the complete news story. One participant (Tyler, 19) stated, ‘I don’t really retain much of what I see ‘cause I’m just scrolling through it’. Another said ‘I’ll almost never finish the article. Until I get the main point. Unless it’s for, obviously, a class or something, then I’ll finish it. But, usually now I just get the gist’ (Allison, 19).

Participants generally agreed that they rarely retain any of the information they do read on social media, but may be more likely to do so if it is personally interesting, visually appealing (with photos or videos), if it stimulates an emotion (e.g. anger, surprise, sadness), and if there are repeated discussions with others about the topic. We probed further by asking participants to think about instances in which they did go on to read the complete story. The following criteria were identified: The article must (1) have an enticing headline, (2) be of personal interest to the reader or have a direct effect on them or (3) be controversial or debatable.

First, several participants claimed that everything they need to know about the story is usually in the headline. Therefore, features and format of social media are key in motivating individuals to find out more. These participants said that often social media just contain snippets of stories that leave them wanting more information on the topic. Some participants also said that ‘cliffhangers’ are common on social media and that sometimes, short videos end without giving a solid conclusion to the story.

I also feel like a lot of things on Facebook can give you cliffhangers. It’s one of those like 60 second news videos. Sometimes I’m like I want to know more. So I’ll look it up online. But otherwise Facebook is pretty good, especially like she said, with putting other things in the bios. I don’t have to go far to look for other information. (Shireena, 19)

Second, popularity of the topic or familiarity with the source are also influential, with one participant (Nathan, 18) admitting, ‘I also almost never read the entire article, but if I see it popping up more than 3 or 4 times, then I’ll actually spend time to see what it is’. The source should either be a major news source or a close connection, such as family: ‘I see my dad shared something, then I’ll watch it. . .If it’s just some random friend on Facebook, I probably won’t watch the video or read the article’ (Teresa, 19). Some participants indicated that one reason they might read a full article is to stimulate meaningful discussions on the topic with peers and family. ‘Usually when I do read an article, it is with intention that I am able to bring it up, and I am able to argue my opinion on it later, so if I do commit to read a full article that I think is reliable, then, yes’ (Tom, 19).

Third, some participants noted that they are motivated to find out more information about a news story if the content is debatable, and looked up more information as a means of fact-checking, especially when they suspected a story’s source to be dubious. ‘A lot of times if I read an article or see something an article says and I think that doesn’t seem true, like that doesn’t seem right, then I’ll go to Google and look it up and see if any other articles can confirm it’ (Jonathan, 20). Together, these findings indicate that participants must be driven to elaborate on news content through incomplete information that spurs curiosity, a push from personal sources, or misinformation.

Learning from news content

Our third research question addressed the last part of the cognitive mediation model, which focuses on learning from news content. While some participants stated that they do actually learn from social media, others were strongly opposed to the idea that learning from social media news posts takes place.

Learning or just awareness

A key distinction that emerged during this discussion is between learning and awareness. Most participants seem to think that social media makes them more aware of things going on around them rather than leading to learning about that news content. One participant defined the two: ‘Aware, like I know what’s happening. Maybe, I don’t care about it; I know what’s going on. Learning, I’m actually wanting it to sink into my brain, and be able to take part in a discussion about it’ (Tracy, 19).

Many participants made clear that the abundance of information on social media fosters awareness on different issues going on across the world, though this comes with limitations:

Say you read one article in the newspaper, compared to five or six headlines on Facebook, and you might process that article way better than you do those five headlines. And, maybe you’re well-informed about one topic after reading a newspaper, but you’re not really informed about anything after reading five or six headlines. (Bryce, 21)

Conversely, this abundance can lead to fuller perspectives, if used differently:

You can look all the different headings, and each heading is a little bit different so sometimes that will catch my eye. I’m like, ‘Hmm, they describe it a little differently, let me click on that one.’ And that’s how it usually sticks in my head, because I’ve actually looked at it from other points of view, and researched it. (Katie, 19)

In either case, ‘learning’ was consistently discussed as awareness of information, rather than any deeper processing of it. Instead, participant tended to agree that they learn more from interpersonal discussion with others as a form of elaboration. For example, ‘I feel like when you can have a conversation with somebody, and you both have a similar basis platform when you’re talking. So we’re like, “our facts are good”’ (Stephanie, 20).

Learning through discussion

We asked participants to consider whether they learned more through discussion of news posts on social media. Despite not actively commenting themselves, most participants were in favor of reading comments for additional perspective. Participants also read through comments to reaffirm their own thoughts or ideas, or whether they are in agreement or disagreement with the opinions expressed. ‘Usually if I found the article interesting I will automatically scroll down to see the top three most liked just to see how other people are reacting to see if it’s like, “Oh, this is fake” or like just to see what other people reading it say about it too’ (Jane, 20).

However, only two participants seemed to feel like that they learn something from comments. More specifically, they said that these comments help them learn about finer details that they may have missed. Mostly, participants read comments because they think they are entertaining, as noted by one participant: ‘I do look at the comment because they’re mostly arguing about back and forth and they’re kind of funny. So, it’s entertainment for me to read it’ (Andrew, 19). Generally though, participants indicated limited value to these comments and felt that they add no new information to their knowledge. This was mainly attributed to the fact that anyone can post comments, thus raising serious questions about their credibility.

Discussion

Overall, the data highlight several tensions in how post-Millennials are exposed to, engage with, and learn from news on social and mobile media, within the framework of the cognitive mediation model (Eveland, 2001). Three broad themes emerged from the data that answer our research questions: (1) social media as unavoidable convenience (exposure), (2) hesitation to engage visibly with social media news content (engagement), and (3) a limited view of learning from news content on social media (learning).

First, in terms of news exposure, social and mobile media are generally the most favorable sources because they are the most effortless ways to be exposed to news content. Yet, even when they are not the most favorable option, due to misinformation or their propensity to be distracting, they are unavoidable. The cognitive mediation model (Eveland, 2001) states that attention to news comes from a need for surveillance, but generally presumes that this need drives active seeking of news content. In the case of social media and mobile media, users do still have this need, but their exposure to news can be more passive. This provides further evidence of the ‘news-finds-me’ perception uncovered in previous research (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2017). This also supports the incidental consumption pattern found by Antunovic et al. (2016), though it provides less support for their findings of directed consumption and routine surveillance. Thus, this routine may already be shifting, with individuals moving further into more frictionless news consumption through feeds and alerts. This is in line with findings from Boczkowski et al., (2018) that state that incidental exposure to news on social media tends to be superficial wherein people focus only on headlines, images, and graphics.

What drives attention to news in this landscape are the interactive features and affordances of various social media platforms, particularly those which reduce attentional effort. Participants mentioned videos with subtitles, headlines that tell the full story, and links to relevant articles. Most importantly, the lack of these same features in traditional media – as well as a lack of access all together – are what keep young adults from paying as much attention to them, as highlighted by the limitations that participants gave for using newspapers or television as their news sources. This helps explains why college students have increasingly adopted mobile forms of news (Chan-Olmsted et al., 2013; Weiss, 2013), and are avoiding traditional forms of news media such as newspapers (Lewis, 2008; Zerba, 2011). Based on the present discussions, this may be less avoidance and more lack of access or skill. Young adults have converged on one device as an effortless, interactive news source and have little reason to diversify their media formats to include those that require more active attention.

Second, in terms of engagement, young adults are generally hesitant to engage with news content through visible social media features such as liking or commenting on news posts, as also demonstrated by Newman et al. (2018). Engagement is key on social media, but news content may stifle this experience due to the serious and often political nature of the content. Other qualitative (Wohn and Bowe, 2016) research on social media news engagement reveals a similar discomfort with sharing or commenting on news stories on Facebook. Individuals seem to crave discussion about current events, but through more limited access such as tagging, or entirely private means such as direct messages. The concern is partly one of self-presentation on social media, where one’s online identity is constructed by a combination of all shared content (e.g. Hayes et al., 2015). Participants mainly express inhibitions to engage with content on social media due to fear of ‘who’ sees this content, revealing a focus on the ‘imagine audience’ (Litt, 2012). Research on online self-presentation clearly indicates that more sensitive topics are best disclosed more privately (Bazarova and Choi, 2014), and this may include controversial news topics.

If individuals are hesitant to engage with news content, they are also not likely to elaborate further on the information. The results presented here indicate that they are generally not thinking more deeply about news content, given that they are often not even reading the full news stories they encounter. Karnowski et al. (2017) find that interest in the topic and prior knowledge are significant predictors of intentions to read a story, indicating that, not surprisingly, individuals primarily read what they already know about. Participants stated they are spurred to greater elaboration about news when headlines leave them hanging, when information seems problematic, or when they are encouraged to read a story by personal sources. Thus, the best answer for achieving the important step of cognitive elaboration may still be personal recommendation and discussion of news, such as through the use of tagging friends in comments to alert them to news of interest. This corroborates Kümpel’s (2018) research which underscore the importance of issue salience to individuals when selecting to read news stories.

Third, in terms of gaining knowledge, learning from news content on social media is not seen as an in-depth process of understanding information, but rather as being made aware of information. This is consistent with previous research that finds that Facebook users learn some information from a news headline presented in Facebook news posts, but less than they would reading the full news story, and only minimally more than those not exposed to the same Facebook news post at all (Anspach et al., 2019). Many participants admitted that they only read headlines or only skim stories, which immediately limits their opportunity to learn about a news event. On most social media platforms, news stories appear as a large image, a headline, and a link, which by some reports are left unclicked in the majority of shared news stories (Gabielkov et al., 2016). Instead, these posts are designed to be brief, visually stimulating, and simple to interact with via paralinguistic digital affordances (Hayes et al., 2016) such as likes or other reactions. This provides insight into recent research that has found limited support for the learning aspect of Eveland’s (2001) cognitive mediation model on social media. The use of social media for news may limit users to simply a greater awareness of current events, unless they take steps to seek out additional information.

Social media as a unique news space

Social media news engagement differs from older media formats. First, incidental exposure also exists in older formats such as television or radio, where one can happen to catch news content without seeking it. However, the convergence of communication on mobile phones makes incidental exposure to news more likely here than in content-specific legacy media. Second, the rules of engagement are different. Newspapers allow letters to the editor, for instance. Yet, older media formats still employ a level of gatekeeping that social media do not. When a news organisation posts a story on their social media platforms – barring moderation – anyone is free to react to, comment on, or share this content in a way that is immediately visible to the rest of that content’s audience. This offers more opportunities, but also more tensions for engaging with content. Finally, in terms of learning, legacy can also be ignored, skipped over, or consumed superficially. However, in these formats, if content is missed, it is not likely to be seen again (e.g. television news shows air just once). Social media content is algorithmic, and may be shown to the user multiple times. This shifts what content that user is likely to ‘stumble upon, ’ creating additional opportunities for learning, but also information overload.

Revising the cognitive mediation model for social media

The cognitive mediation model (Eveland, 2001) starts with surveillance needs, which does not appear to be the starting point for social media news consumption. Participants noted the entertainment value of reading comments, and worked towards a definition of news as information that is interesting or controversial. Furthermore, the curated flows of social media (Thorson and Wells, 2016) complicate exposure to news on a social media platform, even when one is looking. Given this, an updated model of learning from news for social media must start from a news-finds-me perspective (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2017). The processes that drive elaboration may also need reconsideration. Newer media initially promised increasingly interactive ways to discuss the news that should spark greater elaboration about its content (Shah et al., 2005). Yet, the results of this study indicate that social media may go too far, causing users to turn to more private spaces for discussion. Thus, an enhancement to the model would be to further consider the features of newer media that both enhance but also inhibit the paths to elaboration.

Limitations and future research

The sample was specifically selected to focus on young adults at the cusp of the post-Millennial generation, though future research should continue the study of how individuals of all demographics are engaging with news in shifting ways. Also, our results are not representative of all individuals of this generation, but are limited to the experience of college students of this generation. Furthermore, this research was conducted in the U.S. and thus only focuses on the U.S. news experience, which may differ greatly from news consumption and engagement in other countries. Additionally, how news content is presented on social media sites, particularly Facebook, has undergone drastic changes since the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Future research should further investigate the effects of social media platform changes on news consumption.

Conclusion

It is no surprise that this generation relies on social and mobile media for their news, but the focus group discussions reveal how nuanced this reliance is. Users have conflicting views on how they get news, whether to engage with it, and what they learn. They are aware of the limitations of their news consumption, but without clear options for other approaches. This study highlights how their relationship to news is shaped both by their own behaviors, but also the design of the technology, and how both can change to improve the news engagement experience.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the graduate research assistants who helped conduct the focus groups for this study.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch

Notes

Author biographies

Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch (PhD, The Pennsylvania State University) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Connecticut, where she conducts research in the Human-Computer Interaction lab. Her research focuses broadly on the use of social media for information sharing as a form of communication. Specifically, her work investigates the effects of using social and mobile media to engage with news, health, and science content. She teaches courses on media effects, communication technology, and social media.

Preeti Srinivasan (MA, University of Mumbai) is a Doctoral student in the Department of Communication at the University of Connecticut. Her research interests lie at the intersection of social media and human-computer interaction, and she studies the impacts of social and mobile media from a usability perspective. More specifically, she researches how social and mobile media impact news consumption patterns, relationships, and well-being.

References

Ahmadi

Wohn

(2018) The antecedents of incidental news exposure on social media. Social Media + Society 4(2): 205630511877282.

Anspach

Jennings

Arceneaux

(2019) A little bit of knowledge: Facebook’s News Feed and self-perceptions of knowledge Research and Politics 6(1): 205316801881618.

Antunovic

Parsons

Cooke

(2016) ‘Checking’ and googling: Stages of news consumption among young adults. Journalism 19(5): 632–648.

Bazarova

Choi

(2014) Self-disclosure in social media: Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Journal of Communication 64(4): 635–657.

Bergström

Belfrage

(2018) News in social media: Incidental consumption and the role of opinion leaders. Digital Journalism 6(5): 1–16.

Boczkowski

Mitchelstein

Matassi

(2018) “News comes across when I’m in a moment of leisure”: Understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social media. New Media and Society 20(10): 3523–3539.

Bode

(2016) Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society 19(1): 24–48.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Chan-Olmsted

Rim

Zerba

(2013) Mobile news adoption among young adults: Examining the roles of perceptions, news consumption, and media usage. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 90(1): 126–147.

10.

Choi

(2014) The two-step flow of communication in Twitter-based public forums. Social Science Computer Review 33(6): 1–16.

11.

Choi

Toma

(2014) Social sharing through interpersonal media: Patterns and effects on emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior 36: 530–541.

12.

Dimitrova

Shehata

Strömbäck

, et al. (2014) The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research 41(1): 95–118.

13.

Dimock

(2018) Defining generations: Where Millennials end and post-Millennials begin. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

14.

Eveland

(2001) The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research 28(5): 571–601.

15.

Fletcher

Nielsen

(2018) Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media and Society 20(7): 2450–2468.

16.

Gabielkov

Ramachandran

Chaintreau

, et al. (2016) Social clicks: What and who gets read on Twitter? In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on measurement and modeling of computer science – SIGMETRICS ’16, Vol 44, pp 179–192) New York, NY: ACM Press.

17.

Gil de Zúñiga

Weeks

Ardèvol-Abreu

(2017) Effects of the news-finds-me perception in communication: Social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22(3): 105–123.

18.

Gottfried

Shearer

(2017) Americans’ online news use is closing in on TV news use. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/07/americans-online-news-use-vs-tv-news-use/

19.

Hayes

Smock

Carr

(2015) Face[book] management: Self-presentation of political views on social media. Communication Studies 66(5): 549–568.

20.

Hayes

Carr

Wohn

(2016) One click, many meanings: Interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 60(1): 171–187.

21.

Karnowski

Kümpel

Leonhard

, et al. (2017) From incidental news exposure to news engagement. How perceptions of the news post and news usage patterns influence engagement with news articles encountered on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 76: 42–50.

22.

Kümpel

(2019) The issue takes it all? Digital Journalism 7(2): 165–186.

23.

Lee

(2012) News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior 28(2): 331–339.

24.

Lewis

(2008) Where young adults intend to get news in five years. Newspaper Research Journal 29(4): 36–52.

25.

Litt

(2012) Knock, knock Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 56(3): 330–345.

26.

Lunt

Livingstone

(1996) Rethinking the focus group in media and communications research. Journal of Communication 46(2): 79–98.

27.

Nekmat

Gower

Zhou

, et al. (2015) Connective-collective action on social media: Moderated mediation of cognitive elaboration and perceived source credibility on personalness of source. Communication Research 46(1): 1–26.

28.

Newman

Fletcher

Kalogeropoulos

, et al. (2018) Digital news report 2018. Reuters Institute.

29.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

(2017) The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Communication and Society 21(2): 1–23.

30.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

Sundar

SSS

(2015) Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 44: 240–249.

31.

Pew Research Center (2020a) Mobile fact sheet. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/(accessed 28 December 2020).

32.

Pew Research Center (2020b) Social media fact sheet. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/

33.

Shah

Cho

Eveland

, et al. (2005) Information and expression in a digital age. Communication Research, 32(5): 531–565.

34.

Tewksbury

Weaver

Maddex

(2001) Accidentally informed: Incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78(3): 533–554.

35.

Thorson

Wells

(2016) Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory 26(3): 309–328.

36.

Weiss

(2013) Exploring news apps and location-based services on the smartphone. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 90(3): 435–456.

37.

Wohn

Bowe

(2016) Micro agenda setters: The effect of social media on young adults’ exposure to and attitude toward news. Social Media + Society 2(1): 205630511562675.

38.

Yadamsuren

Erdelez

(2010) Incidental exposure to online news. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47(1): 1–8.

39.

Yadamsuren

Erdelez

(2011) Online news reading behavior: From habitual reading to stumbling upon news. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 48(1): 1–10.

40.

Woo Yoo

Gil de Zúñiga

(2014) Connecting blog, Twitter and Facebook use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Communication and Society 27(4): 33–48.

41.

Zerba

(2011) Young adults’ reasons behind avoidances of daily print newspapers and their ideas for change. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 88(3): 597–614.