IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v10y2022i3p169-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Complicating the Resilience Model: A Four-Country Study About Misinformation

Author

Listed:
  • Shelley Boulianne

    (Department of Sociology, MacEwan University, Canada)

  • Chris Tenove

    (Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Canada)

  • Jordan Buffie

    (Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Canada)

Abstract

The 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Shelley Boulianne & Chris Tenove & Jordan Buffie, 2022. "Complicating the Resilience Model: A Four-Country Study About Misinformation," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 169-182.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:169-182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5346
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow & Chuan Yu, 2019. "Trends in the Diffusion of Misinformation on Social Media," NBER Working Papers 25500, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marius Dragomir & José Rúas-Araújo & Minna Horowitz, 2024. "Beyond online disinformation: assessing national information resilience in four European countries," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    2. Michele Cantarella & Nicolo' Fraccaroli & Roberto Volpe, 2019. "Does fake news affect voting behaviour?," Department of Economics 0146, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    3. Bartosz Wilczek, 2020. "Misinformation and herd behavior in media markets: A cross-national investigation of how tabloids’ attention to misinformation drives broadsheets’ attention to misinformation in political and business," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, November.
    4. Yuho Chung & Yiwei Li & Jianmin Jia, 2021. "Exploring embeddedness, centrality, and social influence on backer behavior: the role of backer networks in crowdfunding," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 925-946, September.
    5. Joan Calzada & Nestor Duch-Brown & Ricard Gil, 2021. "Do search engines increase concentration in media markets?," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2021/415, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. Laura Studen & Victor Tiberius, 2020. "Social Media, Quo Vadis? Prospective Development and Implications," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Andrew P. Weiss & Ahmed Alwan & Eric P. Garcia & Antranik T. Kirakosian, 2021. "Toward a Comprehensive Model of Fake News: A New Approach to Examine the Creation and Sharing of False Information," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Besley, Timothy & Dray, Sacha, 2023. "The political economy of lockdown: Does free media matter?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. Ataharul Chowdhury & Khondokar H. Kabir & Abdul-Rahim Abdulai & Md Firoze Alam, 2023. "Systematic Review of Misinformation in Social and Online Media for the Development of an Analytical Framework for Agri-Food Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-25, March.
    10. David J. Grüning, 2022. "Synthesis of human and artificial intelligence: Review of “How to stay smart in a smart world: Why human intelligence still beats algorithms” by Gerd Gigerenzer," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3-4), September.
    11. Raúl Rodríguez-Ferrándiz & Cande Sánchez-Olmos & Tatiana Hidalgo-Marí & Estela Saquete-Boro, 2021. "Memetics of Deception: Spreading Local Meme Hoaxes during COVID-19 1st Year," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, June.
    12. Edward Simpson & David Bradley & John Palfreyman & Roger White, 2022. "Sustainable Society: Wellbeing and Technology—3 Case Studies in Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-30, October.
    13. Beatriz Catalina García & María del Carmen García Galera & Mercedes Del Hoyo Hurtado, 2024. "From Scientific Journals to Newspapers in Spain: Interest in Disinformation (2000–2023)," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, April.
    14. Matilde Giaccherini & Joanna Kopinska & Gabriele Rovigatti, 2022. "Vax Populi: The Social Costs of Online Vaccine Skepticism," CESifo Working Paper Series 10184, CESifo.
    15. Jost, Peter J. & Pünder, Johanna & Schulze-Lohoff, Isabell, 2020. "Fake news - Does perception matter more than the truth?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Javier Alvarez-Galvez & Jose A. Salinas-Perez & Ilaria Montagni & Luis Salvador-Carulla, 0. "The persistence of digital divides in the use of health information: a comparative study in 28 European countries," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 0, pages 1-9.
    17. Lisa Singh & Leticia Bode & Ceren Budak & Kornraphop Kawintiranon & Colton Padden & Emily Vraga, 2020. "Understanding high- and low-quality URL Sharing on COVID-19 Twitter streams," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 343-366, November.
    18. Artem Zakharchenko & Tomáš Peráček & Solomiia Fedushko & Yuriy Syerov & Olha Trach, 2021. "When Fact-Checking and ‘BBC Standards’ Are Helpless: ‘Fake Newsworthy Event’ Manipulation and the Reaction of the ‘High-Quality Media’ on It," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, January.
    19. Jiping Cao & Hartwig H. Hochmair & Fisal Basheeh, 2022. "The Effect of Twitter App Policy Changes on the Sharing of Spatial Information through Twitter Users," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-14, September.
    20. Ryan C. Moore & Ross Dahlke & Jeffrey T. Hancock, 2023. "Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2020 US election," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1096-1105, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:169-182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.