Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorBoulianne, Shelleyde
dc.contributor.authorTenove, Chrisde
dc.contributor.authorBuffie, Jordande
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-25T09:36:32Z
dc.date.available2023-07-25T09:36:32Z
dc.date.issued2022de
dc.identifier.issn2183-2439de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/87941
dc.description.abstractThe resilience model to disinformation (Humprecht et al., 2020, 2021) suggests that countries will differ in exposure and reactions to disinformation due to their distinct media, economic, and political environments. In this model, higher media trust and the use of public service broadcasters are expected to build resilience to disinformation, while social media use and political polarization undermine resilience. To further test and develop the resilience model, we draw on a four-country (the US, Canada, the UK, and France) survey conducted in February 2021. We focus on three individual-level indicators of a lack of resilience: awareness of, exposure to, and sharing of misinformation. We find that social media use is associated with higher levels of all three measures, which is consistent with the resilience model. Social media use decreases resilience to misinformation. Contrary to the expectations of the resilience model, trust in national news media does not build resilience. Finally, we consider the use of public broadcasting media (BBC, France Télévisions, and CBC). The use of these sources does not build resilience in the short term. Moving forward, we suggest that awareness of, exposure to, and reactions to misinformation are best understood in terms of social media use and left–right ideology. Furthermore, instead of focusing on the US as the exceptional case of low resilience, we should consider the UK as the exceptional case of high resilience to misinformation. Finally, we identify potential avenues to further develop frameworks to understand and measure resilience to misinformation.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcPublizistische Medien, Journalismus,Verlagswesende
dc.subject.ddcNews media, journalism, publishingen
dc.subject.otherUnited Kingdom; United States; comparative politics; misinformation; news mediade
dc.titleComplicating the Resilience Model: A Four-Country Study About Misinformationde
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5346de
dc.source.journalMedia and Communication
dc.source.volume10de
dc.publisher.countryPRTde
dc.source.issue3de
dc.subject.classozRundfunk, Telekommunikationde
dc.subject.classozBroadcasting, Telecommunicationen
dc.subject.classozWirkungsforschung, Rezipientenforschungde
dc.subject.classozImpact Research, Recipient Researchen
dc.subject.classozinteraktive, elektronische Mediende
dc.subject.classozInteractive, electronic Mediaen
dc.subject.thesozKanadade
dc.subject.thesozCanadaen
dc.subject.thesozFrankreichde
dc.subject.thesozFranceen
dc.subject.thesozGroßbritanniende
dc.subject.thesozGreat Britainen
dc.subject.thesozUSAde
dc.subject.thesozUnited States of Americaen
dc.subject.thesozpolitische Ideologiede
dc.subject.thesozpolitical ideologyen
dc.subject.thesozSoziale Mediende
dc.subject.thesozsocial mediaen
dc.subject.thesozDesinformationde
dc.subject.thesozdisinformationen
dc.subject.thesozResilienzde
dc.subject.thesozresilienceen
dc.subject.thesozNachrichtende
dc.subject.thesoznewsen
dc.subject.thesozRundfunkanstaltde
dc.subject.thesozbroadcasteren
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10048494
internal.identifier.thesoz10040791
internal.identifier.thesoz10042102
internal.identifier.thesoz10041244
internal.identifier.thesoz10047013
internal.identifier.thesoz10094228
internal.identifier.thesoz10063936
internal.identifier.thesoz10082747
internal.identifier.thesoz10052870
internal.identifier.thesoz10036730
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo169-182de
internal.identifier.classoz1080401
internal.identifier.classoz1080407
internal.identifier.classoz1080404
internal.identifier.journal793
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc070
dc.source.issuetopicEnlightening Confusion: How Contradictory Findings Help Mitigate Problematic Trends in Digital Democraciesde
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5346de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.dda.referencehttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/oai/@@oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/5346
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record