Search

The current study has three main purposes: to examine 1) the impact of theory-driven corrective messages using individual vs. collective frames on information-seeking intention 2) the mediating role of risk perceptions and 3) the moderating role of reflection and gender. Our findings from a randomized experimental study and Hayes' moderated, moderated mediation model show collective frames were associated with high-risk perceptions among women, which in turn led to higher information seeking intention. The second moderator reveals that people who scored higher on reflection were more willing to seek information. Our findings have critical implications for misinformation research by demonstrating the importance of theoretically driven messages in understanding misperceptions as well as people's information seeking behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mounting uncertainties regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the popularity of social media created fertile grounds for conspiracy theories to flourish, leading to a global "infodemic." We examine information sources used to support five popular COVID-19-related conspiracy theories on Twitter to identify (1) their primary building blocks, (2) similarities and dissimilarities across COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and (3) the relationship between type of message content and content distribution. Findings show that statements of belief and of malicious purpose were most popular, followed by conspirators, authentication, and secretive actions. However, only malicious purposes and secretive actions messages successfully predicted higher distribution of content, while, for instance, content authentication showed a negative relation. Furthermore, the type of conspiracy theories matters. Mega-theories, such as Agenda 21 and QAnon, incorporated less statements of Belief. COVID-19 vaccine–related theories focused more on authentication, while QAnon highlighted the conspirators behind the pandemic. Conceptual and practical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the relationship between partisan media consumption and changes in democratic values during the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. By integrating self-reported news consumption data with the partisan slant of news outlets, we explore how different media environments shape voters' attitudes about democracy. Our analysis of a two-wave panel survey conducted before and after the election reveals significant changes in democratic values among general voters, including both Biden and Trump supporters. The findings also highlight the complex effects of a polarized media ecosystem on political beliefs, demonstrating that partisan media flow influences democratic values beyond the traditional winner-loser dichotomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an ambient news environment, people often believe that they can be well-informed without actively seeking news, resulting in the "news-finds-me" (NFM) perception. Leveraging a two-wave panel survey in China (W1 N  =   1,465; W2 N  =   1,015), we examined the impact of the NFM perception on climate change knowledge. Findings showed that NFM did not influence climate change knowledge, while algorithmic news attitude (ANA) played a mediating role. Specifically, NFM was positively associated with ANA, which in turn facilitated knowledge. Furthermore, this relationship was moderated by discussion network heterogeneity. The positive effect of ANA and the positive indirect effect of NFM on climate change knowledge were stronger among those with a more heterogeneous discussion network. Implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After four years into the pandemic, we know that COVID-19 vaccines are effective, and it is crucial to increase public compliance with getting the COVID-19 vaccines. The current study examines the interplay of credibility perceptions, perceived benefits, and two different types of vaccine promotion messages: individual versus collective. Data was collected using an online randomized experiment. Findings demonstrated that individual versus collective frames did not influence everyone similarly. The results show a significantly moderated mediation model, such that the association between message frame and vaccine intention was mediated by the credibility of the message, and the relationship between message frame and perceived credibility was moderated by perceived benefits of the vaccine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misinformation and substance use both increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined potential links between misinformation beliefs and substance use among adults, along with the potential for media literacy to mitigate misinformation's influences on problematic use of widely available substances of misuse. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test a theoretical model of media literacy's effects on substance use, fully mediated by disinformation beliefs, with a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults recruited through a Qualtrics panel of adults using census-based quotas for geographic region, population density, ethnic diversity and gender (N = 1264). The sample was 51.5% male (N = 651); 46.7% female (N = 591); 1.1% nonbinary (N = 13); and 0.7% (N = 9) not reporting. Media literacy for source of news positively associated with media literacy for content of news (b = 0.814, p < 0.001). Media literacy for content of news then positively associated with science media literacy (b = 0.192, p < 0.001). Science media literacy then negatively associated with disinformation beliefs (b = −0.586, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 disinformation beliefs associated with an increase in substance use (b = 0.466, p < 0.001). Disinformation beliefs also associated with alcohol and sleep medication co-use (odds = 1.956, p < 0.05). Results demonstrate media literacy's value for substance misuse prevention and effective public health messaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the framing strategies and language features of U.S. news coverage surrounding sexual violence and gender issues across the ideological media spectrum at two pivotal phases of the #MeToo movement: (1) during its initial rise as a hashtag-driven social movement in 2017 and (2) during the Kavanaugh nomination and confirmation in 2018. Using structural topic modeling, community detection, and feature extraction, we reveal a heightened employment of political framing during the Kavanaugh accusations. Topical prevalence and language use in news treatment also showed clear partisan differences, consistent with theories of moral foundation and issue ownership. Implications for research on news coverage of gender rights and framing of social movements are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2020 election and its aftermath present an opportunity to understand how audiences' changing news consumption patterns within an expanded, digitized, and polarized media environment shape electoral judgments. This paper introduces measures that capture individuals' partisan slant, partisan extremity, and overall diversity of news media use to understand how people interact with the contemporary news ecology. The measures combine self-reported media use with the partisan slant of news outlets along the ideological spectrum. Using these measures, we analyze a two-wave panel survey conducted before and after the 2020 US election to investigate how slant, diversity, and extremity are related to post-election beliefs, including public confidence in the election and the acceptance of fraud claims. Our findings show that Republicans have more insulated news use behaviors in terms of slant and diversity. The analysis also reveals that the slant of people's news use is associated with post-election fraud beliefs, with right-wing news consumers more likely to believe such claims. However, a diverse news consumption style can moderate misinformation beliefs. Panel analysis points to the role of extreme-right news use in decreasing confidence in the legitimacy of the election. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beyond a consciousness-raising hashtag, #MeToo has become a transnational movement, crossing the borders of many societies. However, outsized attention has been paid to the manifestations of #MeToo in the US and on Twitter when the reach of this movement was not restricted to a single country, language, or platform. Drawing from the concept of hybridization, we seek to understand how the uses of #MeToo are contextualized across cultures, languages, and social media platforms. By establishing a macroscopic computational approach, we examine the global diffusion of #MeToo as a hybrid communicative process across different language groups (English, Spanish, and Korean) and social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram). Through time-series analysis and comparative descriptions of language groups and platforms, we demonstrate how discourse flows, language characteristics, and actors differ across cultural and platform contexts and how public discourse of #MeToo was reappropriated and re-signified in different parts of the world to localize connective action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political polarization surrounding the COVID-19 health crisis has been on the rise since the beginning of the pandemic. We combine prior research on motivated reasoning, selective exposure, and news framing to understand the association between partisan media use and social distancing behavior related to COVID-19. To do so, we collected media content data and national survey data during the onset of the pandemic. We employed structural topic modeling (STM), dependency parsing, word co-occurrence, and manual coding to examine the media coverage. Next, we analyzed survey data collected with a Qualtrics panel from a sample of U.S. residents for factors explaining social distancing behaviors. Results reveal coverage from the right leaning outlets downplayed the virus and highlighted the consequences of lockdowns on the economy. Our survey findings show that even after accounting for a range of demographic, political orientation, and COVID-19 awareness variables, conservative media use was linked, although modestly, with a lower likelihood of social distancing behavior. Our findings echo past research on media framing of pandemics and their association with public attitudes and behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More than 6 million people have died due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to slow down the spread of COVID-19, health authorities have created numerous guidelines. In the current study, we use survey data from the U.S. and social cognitive theory (SCT) to examine the associations among self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and willingness to perform recommended COVID-19 related health behavior. Considering the misinformation-filled information ecology during the pandemic, we also examine the moderating role of misperceptions in these relationships. Our findings show that in general the SCT hypotheses hold for COVID-19 related behavior willingness. The interaction effects with COVID-19 misperceptions show that self-efficacy is not enough to understand people's health behavior. Higher outcome expectancies are important and may be able to overcome even if people held high misperceptions. Our findings have direct implications for communication theory and for health organizations in the contemporary information ecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]