Unveiling the ethical decision-making process in rumor combating participation: a multi-method investigation in the USA and China

Purpose Social media rumors have increasingly become a prevalent and serious issue. Despite substantial efforts by governments and authoritative institutions, the effectiveness of combating rumors has not always been satisfactory due to the insufficient engagement of social media users. This study underscores the critical role of user participation in combating rumors and explores this issue from the perspective of ethical decision-making. Design/methodology/approach Employing a multi-method approach, Study 1 surveyed 508 respondents in the USA to investigate the ethical decision-making process in rumor combating participation (RCP). Study 2 replicated the main findings in the Chinese context through an experiment, while further exploring how social norms moderate the ethical decision-making process. Findings Study 1 not only reveals key ethical factors influencing RCP but also identifies two fully mediated chain effects. Study 2 first validates the findings reported in Study 1, and then highlights that injunctive norms exert a stronger influence on the decision-making process when normative appeals are framed using prescriptive rules. Conversely, when framed using proscriptive rules, the opposite effect is observed. Practical implications The findings suggest that social media platforms and policymakers can leverage normative appeals and tailored framing strategies to enhance user participation, thereby mitigating the negative impact of social media rumors. Originality/value This study represents one of the initial attempts to investigate RCP on social media from an ethical decision-making perspective. The integrated model provides empirical validation in both the USA and China, and the findings help resolve the contradictory results observed in prior research regarding the effects of social norms.