This study examines the effect of one of three sources of information: a politician (authority figure), a physician (expert), and an ordinary person (non-expert) who appeared in a personal story related to a controversial issue (COVID-19 vaccination) on Facebook, on the willingness to engage with it. Using a between-subjects experiment (N = 848) conducted among Israeli adults (18 and older), we found a higher likelihood of sharing the story in interpersonal conversations than in other types of communications, regardless of the source that appeared in the story. However, respondents with high levels of institutional trust preferred sharing a politician's story, while conspiracy believers tended to comment on an ordinary person's story. The findings of the different patterns of communication behavior among conspiracy believers and people with high trust in political institutes contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the spread of misinformation in the digital age and during times of crisis.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11352068 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs14080673 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Conspiracy narratives and vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review of prevalence, impact, and interventions.
BMC Public Health
November 2024
Institute for Planetary Health Behavior, Health Communication, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Believing conspiracy narratives is frequently assumed to be a major cause of vaccine hesitancy, i.e., the tendency to forgo vaccination despite its availability.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF: A social epistemology of misinformation, disinformation, and the limits of knowledge.
Transcult Psychiatry
October 2024
Division of Social & Transcultural Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Recent challenges to scientific authority in relation to the COVID pandemic, climate change, and the proliferation of conspiracy theories raise questions about the nature of knowledge and conviction. This article considers problems of social epistemology that are central to current predicaments about popular or public knowledge and the status of science. From the perspective of social epistemology, knowing and believing are not simply individual cognitive processes but based on participation in social systems, networks, and niches.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe fragility of truth: Social epistemology in a time of polarization and pandemic.
Transcult Psychiatry
October 2024
Division of Social & Transcultural Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
This essay introduces a thematic issue of presenting selected papers from the 2022 McGill Advanced Study Institute in Cultural Psychiatry on "The Fragility of Truth: Social Epistemology in a Time of Polarization and Pandemic." The COVID-19 pandemic, political polarization, and the climate crisis have revealed that large segments of the population do not trust the best available knowledge and expertise in making vital decisions regarding their health, the governance of society, and the fate of the planet. What guides information-seeking, trust in authority, and decision-making in each of these domains? Articles in this issue include case studies of the dynamics of misinformation and disinformation; the adaptive functions and pathologies of belief, paranoia, and conspiracy theories; and strategies to foster and maintain diverse knowledge ecologies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWhile research on the determinants of conspiracy beliefs has been growing, there is still limited attention given to the broader consequences of conspiracy theories. This study examines the effects of conspiratorial framing on outgroup evaluations in the context of societal crises. Using an experimental design and a large representative sample of the German population, we exposed participants to conspiratorial framings of health, economic, and security crisis scenarios.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJustifying an Invasion: When Is Disinformation Successful?
Polit Commun
May 2024
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Conventional wisdom suggests that social media, especially when used by authoritarian powers with nefarious aims, leaves citizens of democratic countries vulnerable to psychological influence campaigns. But such concerns overlook predispositions among recipients of false claims to reject (or to endorse) conspiratorial narratives. Analyzing responses from a survey fielded in 19 countries, we find that it is a preexisting conspiracy outlook at the individual level, more so than media diets, which consistently predicts rating Russia's pretenses for the invasion as more accurate.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!