Smartphones and PCs. One of them is more intended for "fun" and the other is preferred for work. A new study finds that the way we process deceptive online messages depends largely on the device we use to view them.
Smartphones give us access to vast amounts of information relevant to many areas of life, from communication and entertainment to work. Smartphones differ from personal computers (PCs) not only due to obvious physical differences such as screen size, input modes, and portability, but also because of how they are used.
Research has found that the larger screen of a PC makes content more visually appealing and allows users to feel a greater sense of control, thereby promoting better information processing. In contrast, research on smartphones shows that smaller screens require touch controls - like scrolling with your finger - to make technology "personalized" and more relevant to life. In terms of usage, PCs are considered less distracting than smartphones due to fewer push notifications and apps. Additionally, research has found that PCs are generally better suited for performing more important, complex, and longer tasks related to work and productivity.
With these differences in mind, researchers at Pennsylvania State University asked the question: "Do people process information differently on smartphones and PCs?"
S. Shyam Sundar, one of the study's co-authors, said: "Many people say they habitually use their phones for everything from entertainment to work, and that their phones serve them well, but that habitual use of their phones makes them let their guard down."
The researchers conducted two online, between-subjects field experiments to compare the information processing capabilities of smartphones and personal computers.
Liao Mengqi, the first author and corresponding author of the study, said: "Usually, we try to control external factors when conducting research, but this time we conducted a field experiment because we wanted to test the difference in information processing between two different devices in a natural way, including all the noise and interference that people encounter in daily use."
The first study randomly assigned 116 participants from Amazon MechanicalTurk to use their phones or computers to view emails, spam and 'tricky images' from trusted sources. One example is a sign that seems to say "Free Beer!", but upon closer inspection, it says "Free Wi-Fi, Cold Beer!". They recorded how long participants spent viewing the messages, measured their recall of details in the emails and pictures, and asked them how likely they were to act on the information in the emails.
In the second study, 241 college students were asked to use their smartphones or personal computers to view misinformation contained in fake news and phishing emails. Again, the researchers recorded how long participants viewed the material and whether they clicked on the malicious link in the phishing email. The researchers also asked participants questions to understand how they processed and interacted with the material and whether they were suspicious of the deceptive content presented to them.
"In our first study, we didn't find any difference in information processing between the two devices, except that phone users processed information faster," Liao said. "In the second study, we focused more on deceptive content and recorded actual behavioral measures, such as whether participants clicked on malicious links. In this regard, we are more likely to observe harmful effects of people processing information in a shallow way, because with deceptive content, the consequences of letting down their guard and being less suspicious of misinformation can be quite dangerous."
Data from the second study showed that smartphone users tended to spend less time processing false content than those using PCs. Mobile phone users also pay less attention to news than computer users. There were no significant differences in perceptions of news credibility. Regarding phishing emails, subjects using smartphones spent significantly less time processing these emails than those using computers. However, there were no differences between the two groups of users in self-reported levels of concern or suspicion of suspicious emails. Interestingly, computer users are more likely to click on malicious email links than mobile phone users.
The researchers looked at smartphone usage habits as a moderator. They found that habitual smartphone users were less likely to be suspicious of phishing emails, but this tendency was amplified when they used their phones to process the emails. The moderating effect of habitual use on processing fake news was not significant.
Researchers say these results may be due to certain devices being associated with specific types of content, such as reading news on a smartphone and checking email on a computer.
"The stance [related to] mobile [phones] seems to be that people are less likely to pursue information further if they have to do more work, like going from one app to another to another, whereas when reading email on a PC, it's like being in work mode and might want to dig deeper," Sundar said. "This may be why mobile users are quick to share misinformation without being willing to verify the information first, while computer users are prone to clicking on links they shouldn't."
The researchers say their findings highlight the need for vigilance no matter what device is used.
"With the emergence of various misinformation on the Internet, it becomes increasingly urgent that we communicate these risks to users. When it comes to personal computers, don't click on new links just because it's convenient, because this can lead to dangerous results. Given that mobile phones can make people less alert, perhaps slow down a little and be more careful when using these devices to process information," Liao said.
The research was published in the journal New Media & Society.