New research from the University of Georgia has revealed a fascinating dimension of how we engage with news online: it’s not always the subject of the article that compels us to click, but rather the digital footprints of those who came before us. This behavioural tendency — where we rely on cues from our fellow readers to decide what’s worth our attention — becomes particularly salient in the context of popularity labels, such as “most read” and “most shared,” prominently displayed by many news outlets. These labels, far from being mere add-ons, wield a subtle but powerful influence over our choices — and, by extension, over news consumption patterns, advertising revenue, and public discourse itself.

According to the study, led by Assistant Professor of Marketing Tari Dagogo-Jack at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business, these labels tap into a psychological phenomenon known as social proof. When people are unsure of what to choose, they often look to others for guidance. In the world of online journalism, this translates into following cues that suggest what other readers are doing, especially when articles are marked as popular. Dagogo-Jack argues that such popularity indicators are unlikely to disappear, as they satisfy a deeply ingrained human desire to conform, to be part of a group, and to feel validated in our choices.

However, not all popularity labels carry the same meaning or effect. Through nine separate surveys and experiments involving hundreds of participants, the research team uncovered a nuanced distinction in how readers interpret the terms “most read” and “most shared.” While both labels imply a high level of engagement, they send different signals about the content’s perceived quality and purpose. Articles labelled “most read” are generally interpreted as being more informative and serious. In contrast, those marked “most shared” tend to be associated with entertainment or superficial content — the digital equivalent of a funny cat video going viral. This suggests that the same article might attract very different levels of attention depending on how it is framed.

Dagogo-Jack explains that the fundamental motivation for reading news is informational: readers want to learn, understand, and stay informed. Consequently, the label “most read” functions as a stronger indicator of information value and thus earns more clicks. On the other hand, “most shared” might arouse suspicion that the content is trivial or sensationalistic. This distinction has profound implications for news organisations, particularly those seeking to optimise reader engagement. Editors who want to boost visibility for substantial, thoughtful journalism might be better served by adopting the “most read” label. Meanwhile, lighter fare — celebrity gossip, sports banter, or quirky lifestyle features — might thrive under a “most shared” banner.

The study’s implications stretch beyond editorial choice and into the realm of social media strategy. In experiments using mock news posts, educational content labelled as “most shared” consistently underperformed when compared to the duplicate content labelled “most read.” In more entertainment-focused categories, however, the “most shared” label was just as effective. This underscores a broader lesson in media strategy: audience context and content tone must be considered together when deciding how to package and promote news. For marketers, headline writers, and platform designers, it is no longer sufficient to make content accessible simply; it must also be framed in a way that aligns with the reader’s psychological expectations.

In practical terms, journalists and web developers should think carefully about how they label and categorise their content. Generic phrases such as “trending” or “most popular” may be too ambiguous to be useful. Such labels might confuse readers rather than guide them, because they do not indicate what type of popularity is being signalled — is it the volume of clicks, the number of shares, the length of time spent reading, or something else entirely? The risk is that these vague markers could backfire, contributing to information overload or decision fatigue. As Dagogo-Jack puts it, these labels are meant to serve as a helpful crutch, but if misapplied, they might lead readers to abandon their search for meaningful content in favour of following the herd.

Ultimately, the findings prompt a deeper reflection on how we consume news and the unseen forces that shape our choices. In an era where digital platforms increasingly mediate what we read and how we think, small design elements like a label can wield disproportionate power. The study raises a critical question: Are we reading specific articles because they genuinely interest us or because others have done so before us? Dagogo-Jack suggests that we need to be more conscious of the mechanisms nudging our behaviour, and to interrogate our motives as consumers of information. At a time when trust in journalism and democratic discourse is more fragile than ever, understanding the psychology behind a simple click may be more important than it first appears.

More information: Tari Dagago-Jack et al, Most Read Versus Most Shared: How Less (vs. More) Social Popularity Labels Influence News Media Consumption, Journal of Consumer Research. DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucaf017

Journal information: Journal of Consumer Research Provided by University of Georgia