Abstract
High levels of threat and uncertainty characterize the onset of societal crises. Here, people are exposed to conflicting information in the media, including disinformation. Because individuals often base their news selection on pre-existing attitudes, the present study aims to examine selective exposure effects in the face of a crisis, and identify right-wing ideological, trust-, and science-related beliefs that might influence the selection and sharing of disinformation. A representative survey of German internet users (N = 1101) at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak showed a confirmation bias in crisis-related news selection and sharing. It revealed right-wing authoritarianism and political mistrust as significant predictors of disinformation selection. The influence of social dominance orientation, mistrust in politics, and perceived certainty of knowledge were significant for sharing disinformation. The present results extend previous knowledge about people’s (dis)information behavior in times of crisis, and shed light on groups particularly vulnerable to disinformation.
References
Aichholzer, J. (2019). Kurzskala Soziale Dominanzorientierung (KSDO-3) [Short scale of social dominance orientation]. Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS). https://doi.org/10.6102/zis269Suche in Google Scholar
Aichholzer, J., & Zeglovits, E. (2015). Balancierte Kurzskala autoritärer Einstellungen (B-RWA-6) [Balanced short scale of authoritarian attitudes]. Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS). https://doi.org/10.6102/zis239Suche in Google Scholar
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. http://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.21110.1257/jep.31.2.211Suche in Google Scholar
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The “other” authoritarian personality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-210.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2Suche in Google Scholar
American National Election Studies (ANES). (2020). ANES 2020 Time series study. Pre-election and post-election. https://electionstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/anes_timeseries_2020_questionnaire_20210719.pdfSuche in Google Scholar
Bauer, P. C., & Clemm von Hohenberg, B. (2020). Believing and sharing information by fake sources: An experiment. Political Communication, 38(6), 647–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.184046210.1080/10584609.2020.1840462Suche in Google Scholar
Brennen, J. S., Simon, F. M., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020). Types, sources, and claims of COVID-19 misinformation. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/types-sources-and-claims-covid-19-misinformationSuche in Google Scholar
Buchanan, T. (2020). Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLoS ONE, 15(10), 1–33. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.023966610.1371/journal.pone.0239666Suche in Google Scholar
Burghartswieser, D., & Rothmund, T. (2021). Conservative bias, selective political exposure and truly false consensus beliefs in political communication about the ‘refugee crisis’ in Germany. PLoS ONE, 16(11), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.025944510.1371/journal.pone.0259445Suche in Google Scholar
Dohle, S., Wingen, T., & Schreiber, M. (2020). Acceptance and adoption of protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of trust in politics and trust in science. Social Psychological Bulletin, 15(4), Article e4315, https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.431510.32872/spb.4315Suche in Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840090302854010.1080/10478400903028540Suche in Google Scholar
Fischer, P., Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, J., Frey, D., & Crelley, D. (2011). Threat and selective exposure: The moderating role of threat and decision context on confirmatory information search after decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 51–62. http://doi.org/10.1037/a002159510.1037/a0021595Suche in Google Scholar
Fong, E., & Chang, L. Y. (2011). Community under stress: Trust, reciprocity, and community collective efficacy during SARS outbreak. Journal of Community Health, 36, 797–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9378-210.1007/s10900-011-9378-2Suche in Google Scholar
Frischlich, L., Hellmann, J. H., Brinkschulte, F., Becker, M., & Back, M. D. (2021). Right-wing authoritarianism, conspiracy mentality, and susceptibility to distorted alternative news. Social Influence, 16(1), 24–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2021.196649910.1080/15534510.2021.1966499Suche in Google Scholar
Fritsche, I., Cohrs, J. C., Kessler, T., & Bauer, J. (2012). Global warming is breeding social conflict: The subtle impact of climate change threat on authoritarian tendencies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.10.00210.1016/j.jenvp.2011.10.002Suche in Google Scholar
Guess, A. M., & Lyons, B. A. (2020). Misinformation, disinformation, and online propaganda. In N. Persily, & J. Tucker (Eds.), Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform (pp. 10–33). Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/978110889096010.1017/9781108890960.003Suche in Google Scholar
Hartman, T. K., Stocks, T. V. A., McKay, R., Gibson Miller, J., Levita, L., Martinez, A. P., Mason, L., McBride, O., Murphy, J., Shevlin, M., Bennett, K. M., Hyland, P., Karatzias, T., Vallières, F., & Bentall, R. P. (2021). The authoritarian dynamic during the COVID-19 pandemic: effects on nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7)1–12. http://doi.org/10.1177/194855062097802310.1177/1948550620978023Suche in Google Scholar
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi000003310.1037/pspi0000033Suche in Google Scholar
Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 378–405. http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.102610.1006/ceps.1999.1026Suche in Google Scholar
Imhoff, R., & Lamberty, P. (2020). A bioweapon or a hoax? The link between distinct conspiracy beliefs about the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak and pandemic behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1110–1118. http://doi.org/10.1177/194855062093469210.1177/1948550620934692Suche in Google Scholar
Islam, N. A. K. M., Laato, S., Talukder, S., & Sutinen, E. (2020). Misinformation sharing and social media fatigue during COVID-19: An affordance and cognitive load perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 159, 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.12020110.1016/j.techfore.2020.120201Suche in Google Scholar
Jedinger, A., & Burger, A. M. (2019). The ideological foundations of economic protectionism: Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and the moderating role of political involvement. Political Psychology, 41(2), 403–424. http://doi.org/10.1111/pops.1262710.1111/pops.12627Suche in Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.33910.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339Suche in Google Scholar
Kerwer, M., & Rosman, T. (2020). Epistemic change and diverging information: How do prior epistemic beliefs affect the efficacy of short-term interventions? Learning and Individual Differences, 80, 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.10188610.1016/j.lindif.2020.101886Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, J., Kim, J.-H., & Seo, M. (2014). Toward a person × situation model of selective exposure. Repressors, sensitizers, and choice of online news on financial crisis. Journal of Media Psychology, 26(2), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a00011110.1027/1864-1105/a000111Suche in Google Scholar
Kohring, M. (2004). Vertrauen in Journalismus. Theorie und Empirie [Trust in journalism. Theory and empiricism]. University Publishing House.Suche in Google Scholar
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Westerwick, A., & Johnson, B. (2015). Selective exposure in the communication technology context. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 407–427). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/978111842645610.1002/9781118426456.ch18Suche in Google Scholar
Lavine, H., Lodge, M., & Freitas, K. (2005). Authoritarianism, threat, and motivated reasoning. Political Psychology, 26(2), 219–244. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00416.x10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00416.xSuche in Google Scholar
Liang, H. (2018). Broadcast versus viral spreading: The structure of diffusion cascades and selective sharing on social media. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy00610.1093/joc/jqy006Suche in Google Scholar
Liao, Q. V., & Fu, W. (2013). Beyond the filter bubble: interactive effects of perceived threat and topic involvement on selective exposure to information. CHI ’13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2359–2368. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2470654.248132610.1145/2470654.2481326Suche in Google Scholar
Müller, P., & Schulz, A. (2021). Alternative media for a populist audience? Exploring political and media use predictors of exposure to Breitbart, Sputnik, and Co. Information, Communication & Society, 24(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.164677810.1080/1369118X.2019.1646778Suche in Google Scholar
Robert Koch Institute. (2020, April 15). COVID-19: Fallzahlen in Deutschland und weltweit [COVID-19: Case numbers in Germany and worldwide]. https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Fallzahlen.htmlSuche in Google Scholar
Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2021). Conspiratorial thinking, selective exposure to conservative media, and response to COVID-19 in the US. Social Science & Medicine, 291, 114480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.11448010.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114480Suche in Google Scholar
Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., & Dryhurst, S. (2020). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.20119910.1098/rsos.201199Suche in Google Scholar
Schultz, T., Jackob, N., Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., & Schemer, C. (2017). Erosion des Vertrauens zwischen Medien und Publikum? Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage [Erosion of trust between media and audience? Results of a representative survey]. Media Perspektiven, 5, 246–259. https://www.ard-werbung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/media-perspektiven/pdf/2017/0517_Schultz_Jackob_Ziegele_Quiring_Schemer.pdfSuche in Google Scholar
Shin, J. E., & Thorson, K. (2017). Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.1228410.1111/jcom.12284Suche in Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2004). Social dominance theory: A new synthesis. In J. T. Jost, & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology (pp. 315–332). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-1810.4324/9780203505984-18Suche in Google Scholar
Siegrist, M., & Zingg, A. (2014). The role of public trust during pandemics: Implications for crisis communication. European Psychologist, 19(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a00016910.1027/1016-9040/a000169Suche in Google Scholar
Sindermann, C., Elhai, J. D., Moshagen, M., & Montag, C. (2020). Age, gender, personality, ideological attitudes and individual differences in a person’s news spectrum: How many and who might be prone to “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” online? Heliyon, 6(1), article e03214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e0321410.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03214Suche in Google Scholar
Winter, S., Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2016). Selective use of news cues: A multiple motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 669–693. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.1224110.1111/jcom.12241Suche in Google Scholar
Wittenberg, C., & Berinsky, A. J. (2020). Misinformation and its correction. In N. Persily, & J. Tucker (Eds.), Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform (pp. 163–198). Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/978110889096010.1017/9781108890960.009Suche in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, F., & Kohring, M. (2020). Mistrust, disinforming news, and vote choice: A panel survey on the origins and consequences of believing disinformation in the 2017 German parliamentary election. Political Communication, 37(2), 215–237. http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.168609510.1080/10584609.2019.1686095Suche in Google Scholar
Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2017). Objects of political and social trust: Scales and hierarchies. In S. Zmerli, & T. W. G. van der Meer (Eds.), Handbook of political trust (pp. 104–124). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/978178254511810.4337/9781782545118.00017Suche in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Let’s talk about risks. Parental and peer mediation and their relation to adolescents’ perceptions of on- and off-screen risk behavior
- Television from the periphery – Slow television and national identity in Norway
- Extend the context! Measuring explicit and implicit populism on three different textual levels
- Bundles of trust? Examining the relationships between media repertoires, institutional trust, and social contexts
- Successive intertwining of young consumers’ reliance on social media influencers
- Visibility, solidarity, and empowerment via the internet: A case study of young Portuguese activists
- Crisis alert: (Dis)information selection and sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic
- Vaccine-related conspiracy and counter-conspiracy narratives. Silencing effects
- Book Reviews
- Kecskes, I. (ed.) (2023). The Cambridge handbook of intercultural pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 875 pp.
- Ritchie, L. D. (2022). Feeling, thinking, and talking: How the embodied brain shapes everyday communication. Cambridge University Press, 350 pp.
- Weiss-Blatt, N. (2021). The Techlash and tech crisis communication. Emerald Publishing. xxi + 185 pp.
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Let’s talk about risks. Parental and peer mediation and their relation to adolescents’ perceptions of on- and off-screen risk behavior
- Television from the periphery – Slow television and national identity in Norway
- Extend the context! Measuring explicit and implicit populism on three different textual levels
- Bundles of trust? Examining the relationships between media repertoires, institutional trust, and social contexts
- Successive intertwining of young consumers’ reliance on social media influencers
- Visibility, solidarity, and empowerment via the internet: A case study of young Portuguese activists
- Crisis alert: (Dis)information selection and sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic
- Vaccine-related conspiracy and counter-conspiracy narratives. Silencing effects
- Book Reviews
- Kecskes, I. (ed.) (2023). The Cambridge handbook of intercultural pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 875 pp.
- Ritchie, L. D. (2022). Feeling, thinking, and talking: How the embodied brain shapes everyday communication. Cambridge University Press, 350 pp.
- Weiss-Blatt, N. (2021). The Techlash and tech crisis communication. Emerald Publishing. xxi + 185 pp.