  A great deal of empirical research has examined who falls for misinformation
and why. Here, we introduce a formal game-theoretic model of engagement with
news stories that captures the strategic interplay between (mis)information
consumers and producers. A key insight from the model is that observed patterns
of engagement do not necessarily reflect the preferences of consumers. This is
because producers seeking to promote misinformation can use strategies that
lead moderately inattentive readers to engage more with false stories than true
ones -- even when readers prefer more accurate over less accurate information.
We then empirically test people's preferences for accuracy in the news. In
three studies, we find that people strongly prefer to click and share news they
perceive as more accurate -- both in a general population sample, and in a
sample of users recruited through Twitter who had actually shared links to
misinformation sites online. Despite this preference for accurate news -- and
consistent with the predictions of our model -- we find markedly different
engagement patterns for articles from misinformation versus mainstream news
sites. Using 1,000 headlines from 20 misinformation and 20 mainstream news
sites, we compare Facebook engagement data with 20,000 accuracy ratings
collected in a survey experiment. Engagement with a headline is negatively
correlated with perceived accuracy for misinformation sites, but positively
correlated with perceived accuracy for mainstream sites. Taken together, these
theoretical and empirical results suggest that consumer preferences cannot be
straightforwardly inferred from empirical patterns of engagement.
