Correcting Fear-arousing Disinformation on Social Media in the Spread of a Health Virus: A Focus on Situational Fear, Situational Threat Appraisal, Belief in Disinformation, and Intention to Spread Disinformation on Social Media

Disinformation is prevalent in the current social media environment and circulated just as quickly as truthful information. Research has investigated what motivates the spread of disinformation and how to combat it. However, limited research focuses on how fear-arousing disinformation during crises affects individuals’ belief in disinformation and to what extent corrective information can subdue the persuasive effects of fear-arousing disinformation. To address this gap, this research tests the effects of fear-arousing disinformation and different types of corrective information (i.e., no corrective information, simple corrective information, or narrative corrective information) on belief in disinformation and intentions to spread disinformation on social media, during a crisis—the spread of an unknown health virus. Furthermore, adapting the important roles of situational fear and threat appraisal in predicting people’s health behavioral changes, this research examines the underlying psychological mechanisms of fear and threat appraisal of a crisis in the effects of fear-arousing disinformation and different types of corrective information on belief in disinformation and intentions to spread disinformation on social media. Study 1 tests the interaction between fear-arousing disinformation and the presence of corrective information. Therefore, a 2 by 2 experiment was conducted in Study 1: disinformation (fear-neutral disinformation vs. fear-arousing disinformation) × corrective information (no corrective information vs. simple corrective information). Study 2 advances Study 1 by testing whether narrative corrective information decreases belief in disinformation. Study 2 conducted a 2 by 2 experiment (disinformation: fear-neutral disinformation vs. fear-arousing disinformation × corrective information: simple corrective information vs. narrative corrective information). A total of 419 data collected between January and February 2019 from Amazon MTurk were analyzed (205 for Study 1 and 214 for Study 2). The current research notes several key findings: 1) Fear-arousing disinformation does not make people believe the disinformation under risky situations and it can even make people avoid the disinformation content as a coping strategy when there is no corrective information presented. 2) Simple corrective information serves as an effective corrective information strategy when fear-neutral disinformation is shown but can backfire when fear-arousing disinformation is presented. 3) Corrective information that features individual narratives does not differ from simple alerts on their abilities to reduce misperceptions, situational fear, situational threat appraisal, and intentions to spread disinformation on social media. 4) Across individual differences, social media usage (i.e., social media use for news, social media use for fact-finding, and social media use for social interaction, health blog usage) emerges as significant factors that decide disinformation and corrective information processing. By testing effects of disinformation in terms of fear-arousal, which reflects a crisis of the spread of a health virus, this research addressed how fear-arousing disinformation and different forms of corrective information affect beliefs in disinformation and willingness to spread disinformation on social media, and how situational fear and situational threat appraisal may play their roles in the belief in disinformation mechanism

Monitoring and Expressing Opinions on Social Networking Sites – Empirical Investigations based on the Spiral of Silence Theory

Social networking technologies such as Facebook are increasingly used for the exchange of information and opinions on politically and civically relevant issues. Drawing on the spiral of silence theory, this dissertation investigated the psychological mechanisms leading to the formation of opinion climates on social networking platforms. Specifically, this work focused on (a) whether and how users monitor other people’s opinions through these technologies and (b) under which circumstances they are willing to contribute to these opinion climates by voicing their personal viewpoint on these platforms. These two processes were addressed by five empirical studies. Study 1 examined the effects of different opinion cues (available on Facebook) on people’s inferences about public opinion. Results of a two-session experiment showed that individuals’ fear of isolation sharpened their attention toward user-generated comments, which, in turn, affected recipients’ public opinion perceptions. The latter influenced subjects’ opinions and their willingness to participate in social media discussions. Study 2 explored the situational manifestations of people’s fear of isolation and environmental variables as influence factors of people’s outspokenness. Results from qualitative interviews revealed a variety of sanctions people expect from others when voicing a minority opinion and a series of factors such as the size or the relationship to the audience which could exert an impact on one’s willingness to express their opinion. Study 3 further investigated the expectations of sanctions and their explanatory value regarding people’s communication behavior in different situations. Findings from an experiment demonstrated that the expectation of being personally attacked can explain why people are more inclined to express a minority opinion in offline rather than in online communication settings. Study 4 tested whether the publicness of social networking platforms in terms of the size and relational diversity of the audience affect people’s outspokenness. Results from a cross-cultural experiment showed that in Germany, a higher level of publicness of a controversial discussion on Facebook reduced people’s likelihood to express their viewpoint. This pattern, however, was not found in Singapore. Study 5 analyzed whether the relationship to the audience determines people’s likelihood to express their opinion on Facebook. Findings from an experiment revealed no effects of relational closeness to the audience on outspokenness. Instead, people’s certainty about the prevailing opinion climate among the audience increased their willingness to voice their opinion on Facebook. This collection of studies extends the previous state of knowledge by testing the validity of the spiral of silence theory but also pointing to potential boundaries thereof in the context of increasingly popular communication environments.Soziale Netzwerktechnologien wie Facebook werden immer mehr zum Informations- und Meinungsaustausch hinsichtlich politisch und gesellschaftlich relevanter Themen genutzt. Vor diesem Hintergrund untersucht die vorliegende Dissertation auf Basis der Theorie der Schweigespirale die psychologischen Mechanismen, die zur Bildung von Meinungsklimata auf sozialen Netzwerkplattformen führen. Dabei betrachtet diese Arbeit, (a) ob und wie Nutzer/innen anhand dieser Technologien die Meinungen anderer Menschen wahrnehmen und (b) unter welchen Umständen sie bereit sind, zu diesem Meinungsklima beizutragen und ihre Meinung auf diesen Plattformen zu äußern. Diese zwei Prozesse wurden mit Hilfe von fünf empirischen Studien analysiert. Studie 1 untersuchte die Wirkungen von verschiedenen Meinungs-Hinweisreizen (auf Facebook) auf die individuelle Wahrnehmung der öffentlichen Meinung. Ein zweiwelliges Experiment zeigte, dass die dispositionelle Isolationsfurcht die Aufmerksamkeit auf nutzergenerierte Kommentare erhöhte, welche wiederum die Wahrnehmungen des öffentlichen Meinungsklimas beeinflussten. Diese wirkten sich auf die persönliche Meinung der Rezipient/inn/en sowie deren Bereitschaft, sich an dieser thematischen Diskussion auf Facebook zu beteiligen, aus. Studie 2 fokussierte die situativen Erscheinungsformen der Isolationsfurcht und Umgebungsvariablen als Einflussfaktoren der Redebereitschaft. Anhand der Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Interview-Studie ließen sich diverse Sanktionen identifizieren, die Menschen von ihrer Umgebung erwarten, wenn sie eine Minderheitsmeinung kundtun würden, sowie eine Reihe von Faktoren, etwa die Größe oder die Beziehung zum Publikum, die Einfluss auf die Bereitschaft zur Meinungsäußerung nehmen könnten. Studie 3 analysierte weiterhin die Erklärungskraft der erwarteten Sanktionen auf das Kommunikationsverhalten in unterschiedlichen Situationen. Ein Experiment zeigte, dass die Erwartung, von anderen persönlich attackiert zu werden, einen Grund darstellt, warum Menschen eher dazu bereit sind, eine Minderheitsmeinung in der Offline- als in der Online-Kommunikation zu äußern. Studie 4 testete, ob die Öffentlichkeit auf sozialen Netzwerkseiten im Sinne der Größe und Diversität des Publikums die Redebereitschaft von den Nutzer/inne/n beeinflusst. Die Ergebnisse eines kulturvergleichenden Experiments legten offen, dass der höhere Öffentlichkeitsgrad einer kontroversen Diskussion auf Facebook – in Deutschland – die Wahrscheinlichkeit senkt, dass Menschen bei dieser Diskussion ihren Standpunkt zum Thema äußern. Dieses Muster konnte in Singapur nicht festgestellt werden. Studie 5 untersuchte, ob die Beziehung zum Publikum die Redebereitschaft zu einem kontroversen Thema beeinflussen kann. Ein Experiment fand jedoch keinen Effekt der Beziehungsnähe zum Publikum auf die Bereitwilligkeit von Nutzer/innen, ihre Meinung zum Thema auf Facebook kundzutun. Stattdessen erwies sich die verspürte Sicherheit über das wahrgenommene Meinungsklima unter dem entsprechenden Publikum als entscheidend: Je höher diese war, desto eher waren Menschen bereit, ihre Meinung auf Facebook kundzutun. Diese Studienreihe erweitert den aktuellen Forschungsstand, indem sie die Gültigkeit der Theorie der Schweigespirale, aber auch deren Grenzen in zunehmend beliebten Kommunikationsumgebungen aufzeigt

Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature

The following report is intended to provide an overview of the current state of the literature on the relationship between social media; political polarization; and political “disinformation,” a term used to encompass a wide range of types of information about politics found online, including “fake news,” rumors, deliberately factually incorrect information, inadvertently factually incorrect information, politically slanted information, and “hyperpartisan” news. The review of the literature is provided in six separate sections, each of which can be read individually but that cumulatively are intended to provide an overview of what is known — and unknown — about the relationship between social media, political polarization, and disinformation. The report concludes by identifying key gaps in our understanding of these phenomena and the data that are needed to address them

Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature

The following report is intended to provide an overview of the current state of the literature on the relationship between social media; political polarization; and political “disinformation,” a term used to encompass a wide range of types of information about politics found online, including “fake news,” rumors, deliberately factually incorrect information, inadvertently factually incorrect information, politically slanted information, and “hyperpartisan” news. The review of the literature is provided in six separate sections, each of which can be read individually but that cumulatively are intended to provide an overview of what is known — and unknown — about the relationship between social media, political polarization, and disinformation. The report concludes by identifying key gaps in our understanding of these phenomena and the data that are needed to address them

Employees on social media: A multi-spokespeople model of CSR communication

Increasing societal and stakeholder expectations, along with easy access to information through social media, means corporations are asked for more information. The traditional approach to CSR communication, with corporations controlling what and how much to share with stakeholders has been restructured by social media, with stakeholders taking control. As legitimacy on social media is created through the positive and negative judgements of stakeholders, corporations must plan how to meet stakeholder demands for information effectively and legitimately, and this includes choosing appropriate spokespeople. Corporations in India have now turned towards their employees as CSR spokespeople. By encouraging employee activity on social media, these corporations are attempting to meet stakeholder demands and generate legitimacy through spokespeople whom stakeholders perceive as equals. This article examines that strategy and discusses its viability of using employees as spokespeople for CSR communication and engagement with stakeholder

Cross-cultural evidence for the influence of positive self-evaluation on cross-cultural differences in well-being

Poster Session F - Well-Being: abstract F197We propose that cultural norms about realism and hedonism contribute to the cross-cultural differences in well-being over and above differences in objective living conditions. To test this hypothesis, we used samples from China and the United States. Results supported the mediating role of positive evaluative bias in cross-cultural differences in well-being.postprin

Values and need satisfaction across 20 world regions

Poster Session F - Motivation/Goals: abstract F78Intrinsic valuing predicts the satisfaction of psychological needs (Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2009). We conceptually replicate and extend this finding across 20 world regions. In multi-level models, Schwartz’s (1992) self-transcendence value was positively related to autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction, even when controlling for the Big Five.postprin

From Encounters to Engagement - Examining Political Engagement in an Age of Social Media.

In the current information environment that is increasingly defined by digital technologies, this dissertation focuses on exploring the political implications of citizens’ everyday interactions in online social networks. This dissertation suggests that the user-directed flow of content and the newsfeed structure that enable users to broadcasts information among social ties generate an important shift from purposefully seeking politics online to encountering politics through social networking. In this context, this dissertation presents three studies that examine the outcomes of routine social media use on three different dimensions of democratic citizenship. The first project examines whether social media use can contribute to an informed citizenry. Granted that a healthy participatory democracy is the product of citizens’ political deliberation, this dissertation asks if social media can serve as an effective source for information and promote an informed and engaged citizenry. The second project explores the potential of social media to serve as a democratic sphere that facilitates citizens’ engagement in political discourse. This project sheds light on the potential of social media to embrace diversity and plurality in political discussion and facilitate expressive behavior, despite the high sensitization toward the social presence of others. Finally, the third project examines whether encountering news and politics in social media can ultimately promote citizens’ behavioral participation in the democratic process. Taken together, the findings of this dissertation provide evidence on the possibilities as well as limitations of encountering politics to contribute to engagement in politics.PhDCommunicationUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/107106/1/sybae_1.pd

SNSs and deliberative governance in a polarised society : the role of WhatsApp groups in Kenyan counties

Kenya has experienced polarisation that has sometimes resulted in conflict. As a remedy, the Kenyan constitution, reviewed in 2010, and other legislation prescribes deliberative governance as one of the solutions to polarisation in sub-national Kenyan counties. The legislation mandates counties to use the mainstream and social media platforms for deliberative governance to promote national cohesion and integration. This study examines the growing use of WhatsApp groups for such deliberations. It is based on the proposition that the outcomes of deliberative governance and its impact on polarisation depends on the quality of deliberation and, in particular, on the platform’s (WhatsApp’s), structure and norms. The deliberative norms analysed here are based on the Habermasian model of tolerance, inclusivity, diversity, incivility, and heterogeneity of viewpoints, whilst the deliberative structure examines WhatsApp group’s affordances and composition. Based on these propositions, this study empirically explores the impact of deliberative governance on polarisation in WhatsApp group platforms in four Kenyan counties. Guided by a critical realism paradigm, the study uses an original mixed-methods approach involving a quantitative (online survey) and qualitative (WhatsApp-based focus group discussion). The study revealed that the socio-demographic profile of WhatsApp groups participants is predominantly young males with high educational attainment, similar to other SNSs participatory platforms. The research also suggests that achieving deliberative norms such as civility, tolerance, and inclusivity is challenging in WhatsApp groups. Therefore, the quality of deliberations in WhatsApp groups falls short of the Habermasian deliberative ideals, and this has worsened because WhatsApp has enhanced the sharing of stereotypes, misinformation, and conflict frames which have aggravated polarisation. Consequently, deliberations in WhatsApp groups have further augmented polarisation around county governance issues. Regarding the deliberative structure, the study proposes that the platform’s affordance, the composition of participants, the information sources, and the discussion topics in WhatsApp groups affect the quality of deliberations and polarisation. Additionally, this study makes a significant contribution by using an fresh, integrated methodological approach based on WhatsApp’s affordances for data collection and analysis