UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS SUGGESTIBILITY AND METHODS OF DEALING WITH RUMORS: A COMPARATIVE DESCRIPTIVE STUDY

Al-Mutawa, Ahmad, S^* and Prof. Yahya Mubarak Suleiman Khatabeh
^*Correspondence: Al-Mutawa, Ahmad, S, Department of psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia, Email:

Keywords

student attitudes, suggestibility, dealing with rumors.

Introduction

Research into rumors and attitudes reveals complex dynamics in their spread and reception. Negative attitudes increase the likelihood of sharing rumors, mediated by cognitive motivation related to the issue (Lee et al., 2021). Rumors serve psychological needs for fact-finding, relationship strengthening, and self-enhancement, helping individuals understand uncertainty. (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007) Unlike stereotypes, rumors are not necessarily perverted or inaccurate; they are routine social acts that identify ambiguous situations. (Miller, 2005) Classifying information as "truth" or "rumor" affects belief, as "truth" labels produce more significant shifts in belief than "common" labels. However, suspicion generally prevails, and attitudes based on degrees of belief influence (Smith, 1947). Organizational rumors tend to be very accurate and are influenced by various factors, including employee trust in management. (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007) These findings challenge common assumptions about the spread of rumors and highlight the importance of understanding the complex social and psychological processes involved in transmitting and receiving rumors.

Students who pass Universities are at a critical stage of cognitive and social development, where their vulnerability may affect their responses to social stimuli, including rumors. Vulnerability is the degree to which external suggestions or societal pressures affect an individual's attitudes, beliefs, or behaviours. (Gudjonsson, 2013) College students are exposed to social media, peer-to-peer interactions and academic contexts.؛ This may make them more vulnerable, especially regarding rumors. In academic settings, personal networks and online communication tools spread informal rumors that are not quickly verifiable. According to extensive research (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007), Rumors can cause fear, misinformation and social unrest.

Cognitive and social factors such as Peer influence, authority bias, and lack of experience in critical thinking may make young individuals, and even college students, more vulnerable. Group standards can affect their attitudes and behaviours, including acceptance of rumors (Nekmat & Kong, 2019). The rapid spread of information on social media blurs the distinction between truth and speculation؛ Which makes students more vulnerable to misleading or exaggerated claims. College students use many rumors management strategies. Social distancing from people or groups that promote rumors reduces exposure to misinformation. Students should also validate information before adopting or sharing it; critical thinkers and cognitively sophisticated people are more likely to validate information, which reduces rumors (Pennycook & Rand, 2019). The term vulnerability refers to the tendency of individuals to accept disinformation and incorporate it into their beliefs and memories. College students often exhibit different attitudes towards vulnerability influenced by Personality traits, social dynamics and cognitive patterns. Research suggests that students with higher levels of anxiety or a strong desire for social acceptance are more likely to have suggestive influences، (Smith, 1947). This can lead to acceptance of rumors and misinformation, especially in the highstress environments typical of college life.

University students are often exposed to several Myriad sources of information؛ Which makes them particularly vulnerable to being affected and spreading rumors. Vulnerability refers to the tendency of individuals to accept disinformation and incorporate it into their beliefs and memories, which can significantly affect their attitudes and behaviours (Rubin & Umanath, 2015)

This phenomenon is particularly relevant in university environments, where social interactions and peer influences are prominent. The portability To suggest critical psychological phenomena that affect the behaviour and decisions of individuals, especially in youth and Suggestibility refers to the extent to which an individual responds to external influences and content provided by others, suggestibility refers to the ability of individuals to accept thoughts, beliefs, and actions that are presented to them by others, whether these influences are positive or negative (Greely, 1998)The person who is able to To suggest they are more likely to adopt new opinions and beliefs based on external stimuli, susceptibility is affected To suggest several factors, including: Personal characteristics: such as intelligence, self-confidence, emotional orientation (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004)Social environment: includes social influences of peers and family, cultural context: culture plays a role in how individuals receive suggestions and directions (Hofstede, 2001)Portability can lead To suggest positive and negative effects on behaviour, they can be used to promote healthy and positive behaviours among students(Donnellan et al., 2015)They may lead to harmful behaviours or engage in negative social pressures, and to reduce adverse effects of susceptibility To suggest Must Adopting strategies to enhance students' critical thinking (Karlsson, 2016)

Research suggests that students with higher levels of anxiety or desire for social acceptance are more likely to exhibit susceptible behaviours, which may lead to the acceptance of unfounded allegations and rumors (Benedan et al., 2018). To address these challenges, Various methods can be used to help students deal with rumors and enhance their critical thinking skills. Moreover, for suggestibility, there is A crucial role in criminal psychology and legal contexts (Strika & Eglītis). Vulnerability research has evolved from early discussions about their nature as a unifying trait or multiple factors to more modern empirical and individual approaches. These approaches examine how they affect Misleading information on remembering and identifying personal characteristics associated with vulnerability (Strika & Eglītis, 2018). Enhancing media knowledge, encouraging open dialogues, and providing access to fact-checking resources are essential strategies that enable students to deal with the complexities of information in their academic and social lives. (Lewandowsky et al., 2017) By fostering a culture of critical evaluation and scepticism towards unconfirmed information, universities can better equip students to resist suggestive influences and reduce the impact of rumors on their beliefs and behaviours. A study indicated (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017) that College students are exposed to fake news or rumors on social media at least once a week, with 56% of respondents stating that they found it difficult to distinguish between accurate and false information. According to (Rosnow, 2001) ، 63% of college students admitted that they experienced adverse emotional reactions, such as fear, anger or frustration when they realized they were affected by false rumors. Emotional susceptibility is often associated with higher levels of suggestibility. As found (Johnson 2022), Students who participated in media literacy workshops aimed at critical thinking and factchecking showed a 28% reduction in rumors exposure and vulnerability. In addition, 85% of survey participants reported feeling more confident in their ability to detect false information after attending these programs. The study aimed by (Osman et al., 2023) to identify rumors in the student community in the era of social networking sites and coping mechanisms and the research community included a sample of experts who used new media and descriptive and statistical approaches (interviews and questionnaires) was used to analyze and understand rumors through social networking sites and how to confront them, and the study reached the most important results: 62% of the research community believes that the use of students (youth) of news networks through social networking sites affects the spread of rumors, while 63% of the research community believes that the quality of social networking sites used by young people helps spread rumors, and 43% of the research community agree that technology users are primarily young people, which helps spread rumors (Bordia & DiFonzo, 2017)

College students' attitudes toward rumors are greatly influenced by their use of social media, the categorization of information, and their beliefs. The spread of rumors facilitates the quality and type of social media platforms used, and students' vulnerability increases during crisis events when official information is unavailable. Understanding these dynamics can help develop strategies to mitigate the spread of rumors and effectively manage public mood.

Mythology

Participants

The study sample consisted of (300) students enrolled in the bachelor's stage, whose ages ranged from (18-23) years according to several scientific disciplines, where the number of participants from humanitarian colleges (210) by (70%), Sharia colleges (73) by (24.3%) and scientific colleges (17) by (5.7%), and different demographic variables such as housing, income level, were selected randomly with multiple stages—the faculty of the university Who met the conditions for participation in the study.

Instruments

Three tools were used in the current study

1. Moreover, the scale Multidimensional Suggestibility for university students Prepared by Alharbi, 2016) consists of (70) paragraphs distributed over six main dimensions, namely persuasibility, which includes (11) paragraphs; infection of temptation, which includes (9) paragraphs; psychological reaction, which includes (11) paragraphs; compatibility with comrades includes (12) paragraphs, psychological control includes (12) paragraphs, stubbornness and adherence to opinion include (15) paragraphs، to correct the scale, the answer to the paragraphs of the scale is to choose an alternative from the available alternatives, namely: (apply and give three degrees, apply to some extent and give two degrees, do not apply and give one degree). The instrument's psychometric properties were verified with an internal consistency coefficient of (0.710-0.824**), all statistically significant, and a total Cronbach stability coefficient (0.94).

2.A scale to measure the trend towards dealing with rumors prepared by Al-Harbi (1991), which consists of (36) items distributed over two main dimensions, namely, believing the rumor and including (17) paragraphs, and the second dimension repeating the rumor and includes (18) paragraphs. To correct the scale, the answer to the paragraphs of the scale is by choosing an alternative from the available alternatives, namely: (OK and given three degrees, neutral and given two degrees, disagree and given one score). The instrument's psychometric properties were verified where the internal consistency coefficient (0, 91-0.97**), all of which are statistically significant, and the overall Cronbach stability coefficient was (0.96).

RESULTS

1.Arithmetic averages and standard deviations of university students' attitudes are susceptible to suggestion and dealing with rumors.

The results of Table 1 showed that the level of suggestibility among university students came with an average score (of 1.98), and after stubbornness and adherence to opinion in first place with an arithmetic average (of 2.16), and in last place after the infection of temptation with an arithmetic average (1.57). The following are the arithmetic averages and standard deviations of the scale dimensions.

2.Arithmetic averages and standard deviations of students' attitudes in methods of dealing with rumors

The results of Table 2 showed that the level of believing rumors was average, as it came with an arithmetic average (1.69), and that the level of rumor repeating was average, where it came with an arithmetic average (1.73), and that the level of attitude towards rumors among university students came with an arithmetic average (1.78) (Figure 1).

3.Differences in dealing with rumors according to the variable of scientific specialization

It is clear from Table 3 that there are differences between all dimensions of the scale of dealing with rumors according to the variable of academic specialization (scientific colleges, Sharia colleges, applied colleges). To identify the significance of the differences, the dimensional tests were calculated to detect the least significant difference (LSD) as follows:

It is evident in Table 4 of the dimensional comparisons that the trend of differences came in favours of scientific colleges, followed by humanitarian colleges and Sharia colleges in all dimensions and the total degree of the tool, and to identify differences according to the variable of academic level.

4.Differences in dealing with rumors according to the variable of academic level

It is clear from Table 5 that there are differences in all dimensions of the scale of dealing with rumors according to the variable of the academic level. To identify the significance of the differences, the post-tests were calculated to detect the least significant difference (LSD) and the differences came after repeating rumors in favours of the sixth level, followed by the fifth level, and after believing the rumors, the differences came in favours of the third level, followed by the fifth and sixth levels, the differences were represented in the total degree of dealing with rumors in favours of the first level, followed by the third, sixth and fifth levels.

5.Differences in suggestibility according to the variable of scientific specialization.

It is clear from Table 6 that there are differences between all dimensions of the suggestibility scale according to the variable of academic specialization (scientific colleges, Sharia colleges, applied colleges) except for the first dimension (persuasiveness, the third dimension psychological reaction, the fifth dimension psychosomatic control, and the sixth dimension stubbornness and adherence to opinion). To identify the significance of the differences, the dimensional tests were calculated to detect the lowest significant difference (LSD) as follows:

Table 7 post-comparisons shows that the trend of differences in the dimension of seduction infection came in favours of humanitarian colleges, followed by Sharia colleges, and finally, medical colleges (applied). In contrast, the differences came after consensus with comrades in favours of scientific colleges, followed by humanitarian colleges and Sharia colleges, and about the direction of differences according to the total degree of the tool, the differences came in favours of scientific colleges, followed by humanitarian colleges and finally Sharia colleges.

6.Differences in suggestibility according to the variable of academic level

It is clear from Table 8 that there are differences between all dimensions of the suggestibility scale according to the academic level variable. To identify the significance of the differences, the dimensional tests were calculated to detect the lowest significant difference (LSD), where the differences in the total degree of the suggestibility scale came in favor of students at the sixth level, followed by the fifth and first levels. The differences in all dimensions were shown according to the academic levels.

Discussion

The level of suggestibility (1.98) indicates that students have an average susceptibility to respond to external suggestions and influences, whether from their peers, the media, or other sources. They are not highly vulnerable, but they can be affected in some circumstances. The level of rumors trend (1.78): This low average also indicates that students are not very inclined to believe or spread rumors. However, having this level may mean that there is still a category of students who could be affected by rumors under certain circumstances, especially if the sources are reliable or widely circulated. (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Ashurbagy & Alharbi, 2016; Lee et al., 2021; Miller, 2005; Osman et al., 2023). He explains apparent differences in how university students deal with rumors based on their major. Students in scientific faculties performed best when dealing with rumors. This is usually due to the nature of their study, which relies on critical thinking, analysis, and verification of information. These skills make them more cautious in accepting unreliable information. Students in humanitarian faculties came in second. They usually have a good background in analysis and criticism but to a lesser extent than in science colleges. They may be more affected by rumors if they relate to social or humanitarian aspects that interest them. (Benedan et al., 2018; Curran, 2024; DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007; Gudjonsson, 2013; Johnson, 2022; Lariscy et al., 2009) Differences in the dimensions of the rumors handling scale by academic level indicate that students in the third level showed a better ability to deal with rumors, followed by students of the fifth and sixth levels. Third-level students have acquired the basics of critical thinking and analysis while remaining highly motivated to learn and interact. While advanced-level students have more experience, they may be more preoccupied with subspecialties, making them less likely to be directly affected by rumors compared to students in the level.

Lowest (Lewandowsky et al., 2017; Miller, 2005; Osman et al., 2023; Pennycook & Rand, 2019). The differences in the dimensions of the suggestibility scale according to the academic specialization indicate that students of scientific colleges are the least affected by suggestion, followed by students of humanitarian colleges and then Sharia colleges. This disparity reflects the nature of study in scientific faculties that focus on critical thinking and information verification, which enhances students' ability to resist external influences. On the other hand, students of humanitarian faculties show greater susceptibility to suggestions due to the nature of their studies, which may be more interactive with social and psychological aspects. In contrast, students of Sharia faculties are most affected by suggestion, perhaps because of the focus on values and beliefs that may make them more open to external influences related to the religious or moral field.

(Pennycook & Rand, 2019; Rosnow, 2001; Rubin & Umanath, 2015; Smith, 1947). Differences in the dimensions of the suggestibility scale by academic level indicate that sixth-level students are the most affected by suggestion, followed by fifth-level and first-level students, reflecting the impact of academic experience and academic stage on students' susceptibility to external opinions and ideas. This may result from students at the advanced levels being preoccupied with graduation requirements and academic pressures, making them more likely to suggest when making decisions. On the other hand, firstlevel students also show high aptitude, perhaps due to a lack of experience and intellectual maturity at the beginning of their university career, which makes them more open to external influences. (Strika & Eglītis, 2018; Zubiaga et al., 2016)

Recommendations

1. I am preparing awareness programs to develop students' critical thinking skills to evaluate information before believing or publishing it.

2. Encourage students to rely on reliable sources to verify information and avoid spreading rumors on social media.

3. Include educational materials on how to deal with rumors and understand suggestions to enable students to make informed decisions.

4. We are organizing awareness campaigns within universities to curb the spread of rumors and teach students how to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University for funding and supporting this work through the Students Research Support Program.

References

Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives, 31(2), 211-236.

Ashurbagy, A. E., & Alharbi, N. M. (2016). The Standardization of “Iowa” Multidimensional Suggestibility Scale among Taibah University Students. Journal of Educational & Psychological Sciences, 17(03).

Benedan, L., Powell, M. B., Zajac, R., Lum, J. A., & Snow, P. (2018). Suggestibility in neglected children: The influence of intelligence, language, and social skills. Child abuse & neglect, 79, 51-60.

Bordia, P., & DiFonzo, N. (2017). Psychological motivations in rumor spread. In Rumor mills (pp. 87-102). Routledge.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55(1), 591-621.

Curran, J. M. (2024). CONSIDERING THE SOURCE OF DECEPTION: THE EFFECT OF GROUP AFFILIATION ON JUDGMENTS OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL MEDIA Wake Forest University].

DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor psychology: Social and organizational approaches (pp. x, 292). American Psychological Association. In.

Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (2015). Measures of self-esteem. In Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 131-157). Elsevier.

Greely, H. T. (1998). Legal, ethical, and social issues in human genome research. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27(1), 473-502.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2013). Interrogative suggestibility and compliance. Suggestibility in legal contexts: Psychological research and forensic implications, 45-61.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks.

Johnson, S. S. (2022). Knowing well, being well: Well-being born of understanding: The urgent need for coordinated and comprehensive efforts to combat misinformation. In (Vol. 36, pp. 559-581): SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.

Karlsson, S. (2016). The active university: Studies of contemporary Swedish higher education KTH Royal Institute of Technology].

Lariscy, R. W., Avery, E. J., Sweetser, K. D., & Howes, P. (2009). Monitoring public opinion in cyberspace: How corporate public relations faces the challenge. Public Relations Journal, 3(4), 1-17.

Lee, H., Kim, J., & Kim, J.-N. (2021). Mechanics of rumor mills and epistemic motivational processes of food-related rumor spread: Interplay between attitude and issue motivation. Health Communication, 36(6), 722-730.

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 6(4), 353-369.

Miller, D. E. (2005). Rumor: an examination of some stereotypes. Symbolic Interaction, 28(4), 505-519.

Nekmat, E., & Kong, D. (2019). Effects of online rumors on the attribution of crisis responsibility and attitude toward organization during crisis uncertainty. Journal of Public Relations Research, 31(5-6), 133-151.

Osman, N., Mohamed, T., & Badr, A. (2023). Exposure to the News Networks Through Social Media Sites and Their Reflections on Spreading Rumors among Students–Field Study.

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(7), 2521-2526.

Rosnow, R. L. (2001). Rumor and gossip in interpersonal interaction and beyond A social exchange perspective.

Rubin, D. C., & Umanath, S. (2015). Event memory: A theory of memory for laboratory, autobiographical, and fictional events. Psychological review, 122(1), 1.

Smith, G. H. (1947). Beliefs in statements labeled fact and rumor. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42(1), 80.

Strika, E., & Eglītis, R. THE ROLE OF SUGGESTIBILITY IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS: CASE REPORT.

Strika, E., & Eglītis, R. (2018). THE ROLE OF SUGGESTIBILITY IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS: CASE REPORT.

Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., Procter, R., Wong Sak Hoi, G., & Tolmie, P. (2016). They are analyzing how people orient to and spread rumors in social media by looking at conversational threads. PloS one, 11(3), e0150989.