Suchergebnisse

This study examined how citizens select science information online based on their preexisting issue attitudes. Voluntary national samples browsed through an online news magazine featuring divergent viewpoints about four controversial science topics (stem cell, evolution, genetically modified foods, and global warming). Their online activities, including article selection and the length of exposure, were unobtrusively measured by behavior tracking software. Participants tended to choose science information that challenged rather than supported their views concerning stem cell and genetically modified foods. However, those who perceived that they had sufficient science knowledge and were religious exhibited confirmation-bias, preferring congruent to incongruent information.

The current research assessed whether political satire viewing could indirectly promote interpersonal talk about politics by eliciting emotions. The theoretical model was tested utilizing both experimental and survey designs. The findings indicated good agreement, demonstrating that negative emotions significantly mediate and reinforce the effect of political satire viewing on interpersonal talk. Conversely, the process wherein traditional news sources motivate interpersonal talk is mostly direct, with little development of affective responses. The results suggest that political satire can help to paint a sanguine picture of a healthy deliberative democracy mainly through an affective rather than cognitive route.

The literature on misinformation has not provided sufficient empirical evidence concerning its political consequences. To amend this trend, this study examines how widespread misinformation on social media elevates political cynicism, which has peaked over the past decade in the United States. Using two-wave survey data collected both before and after the 2020 US presidential election, we present evidence that social media use triggers political cynicism, which is mediated through exposure to misinformation. In addition, the results reveal that the mediating relationship only holds among nonpartisans. Implications for democracy are also discussed.

Although collective efforts are essential to fight COVID-19, public opinion in the United States is sharply divided by partisan attitudes and health beliefs. Addressing the concern that media use facilitates polarization, this study investigated whether social and traditional media use for COVID-19 information attenuates or reinforces existing disparities. This article focuses on two important areas where the public is highly polarized: partisan affect and vaccine attitudes. Contradicting the filter bubble claim, our survey ( n = 1106) revealed that social media use made people less polarized in both partisan affect and vaccine hesitancy. In contrast, traditional media use made people more polarized in partisan affect. These findings corroborate the growing evidence that social media provide diverse viewpoints and incidental learning.

This study uses the attention-allocation approach to examine the dynamics of media attention. Based on the assumption that media attention is limited, we tested the notion of zero-sum issue competition wherein increasing attention to one agenda decreases attention to existing agendas. Analyzing comprehensive data sets of Twitter, blogs, and online news for a four-month period after the 2014 Sewol ferry disaster in South Korea, this study finds displacing relationships between media attention to the Korean government and another target for blame: the ferry's owner, Byung-eun Yu. This zero-sum principle prevailed regardless of the media's political orientation, with mainstream and social media displaying similar patterns. Our follow-up time-series analysis hints at the intermedia influence from news coverage to Twitter posts.

This study used in-depth observations to investigate the differences in digital literacy among African American young adult Internet users. Sampled Internet users participated in one-to-one real-time observation sessions, in which each user completed Internet-related functions in two dimensions: (1) information search and (2) privacy protection. Observations recorded whether and how quickly each participant completed the assigned tasks. We found that few participants were able to complete assigned information tasks and could control basic features in browser settings. The findings also indicated that levels of digital literacy were more related with their online access experiences than with sociodemographic characteristics. We discussed policy implications of the findings and suggested potential areas of policy concern and remedies.

This study investigates how citizens select election news online. Voluntary national samples ( n = 372) browsed a news website featuring four types of election news (horserace, candidates' issue positions, campaign trails, and voters). Their online activities, including article selection and the length of exposure, were unobtrusively measured by behavior tracking software. The results revealed that participants tended to choose issue-based election coverage but avoided news stories about campaign trails. The horserace was not more popular than the other types of election news. The findings also supported negative bias by showing that participants preferred election news headlines that contained negative words.

Tests some propositions derived from Fischer's theory. Using data from the 1986 General Social Survey, focuses on the direct relationship between urban residence and an individual's embrace of nontraditional opinions and attitudes. Summarizes Fischer's subcultural theory and pertinent empirical findings as a way of providing a theoretical backdrop and a specification of the propositions being tested. With a reply by T. C. Wilson. (PFB)

Concerns over fake news have triggered a renewed interest in various forms of media literacy. Prevailing expectations posit that literacy interventions help audiences to be "inoculated" against any harmful effects of misleading information. This study empirically investigates such assumptions by assessing whether individuals with greater literacy (media, information, news, and digital literacies) are better at recognizing fake news, and which of these literacies are most relevant. The results reveal that information literacy—but not other literacies—significantly increases the likelihood of identifying fake news stories. Interpreting the results, we provide both conceptual and methodological explanations. Particularly, we raise questions about the self-reported competencies that are commonly used in literacy scales.

Despite a fast-growing body of literature on fake news and mis-/disinformation, there remains surprisingly little empirical work on the social/political consequences of exposure to false information. Addressing this issue, this study provides initial evidence that perceptions of false information exposure catalyze political cynicism. The findings from a two-wave panel survey during the 2018 US midterm elections reveal that perceptions of false information exposure 2 weeks before the election significantly predict the changes in political cynicism immediately after the election day. We also find that social media news use in Wave 1 significantly relates to political cynicism in Wave 2 indirectly through perceptions of mis-/disinformation exposure. The autoregressive regression model indicates that our findings are robust after controlling for prior levels of cynicism.