Complicating the resilience model: a four-country study about misinformation
Faculty Advisor
Date
2022
Keywords
Canada, comparative politics, France, misinformation, news media, political ideology, social media, United Kingdom, United States
Abstract (summary)
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.
Publication Information
Boulianne, S., Tenove, C., & Buffie, J. (2022). Enlightening confusion: How contradictory findings help mitigate problematic trends in digital democracies. Media and Communication, 10(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5346
Notes
Item Type
Article
Language
English
Rights
Attribution (CC BY)
