Suchergebnisse

An increasingly influential strand of research on social media relies on the concept of affordances to account for effects. However, hindering the possibility of a unified theory of affordances in social media is the conceptual blurring surrounding the concept. This article engages in a comprehensive review of the affordances literature in social media, aiming to provide an overview of the current state of the art and clarify the use of the concept. Through a systematic literature review, the characteristics of affordances research in social media are uncovered: the most prominent areas of application, research approaches, and dominant typologies and conceptualisations. Significant blurriness of the term 'affordance' is identified as well as an inconsistent use in research. To tackle these problems, a unified definition of affordances in social media is proposed based on the synthesis of knowledge on affordances in technology and social media. The suggested definition captures the core aspects of the concept to reduce ambiguity in the use of the concept and further the research on affordances of social media. The article provides the groundwork for future use of affordances theory in social media research.

AbstractIn information environments characterized by institutional distrust, fragmentation and the widespread dissemination of conspiracies and disinformation, citizens perceive misinformation as a salient and threatening issue. Especially amidst disruptive events and crises, news users are likely to believe that information is inaccurate or deceptive. Using an original 19‐country comparative survey study across diverse regions in the world (N = 19,037), we find that news users are likely to regard information on the Russian war in Ukraine as false. They are more likely to attribute false information to deliberative deception than to a lack of access to the war area or inaccurate expert knowledge. Russian sources are substantially more likely to be blamed for falsehoods than Ukrainian or Western sources – but these attribution biases depend on a country's position on the war. Our findings reveal that people mostly believe that falsehoods are intended to deceive them, and selectively associate misinformation with the opposed camp.