Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published online by De Gruyter Mouton May 11, 2023

Does credibility become trivial when the message is right? Populist radical-right attitudes, perceived message credibility, and the spread of disinformation

  • Clara Christner ORCID logo EMAIL logo
From the journal Communications

Abstract

Individuals with populist radical-right (PRR) attitudes seem particularly inclined to spread disinformation. However, it is unclear whether this is due to the large amount of disinformation with a PRR bias or a general tendency to perceive disinformation as credible and/or spread it further. This study explores (1) effects of a PRR bias on perceived message credibility and likelihood of spreading disinformation, (2) the extent to which perceived message credibility mediates the spread of disinformation, (3) effects of PRR attitudes on the perceived message credibility of biased disinformation, and (4) whether a PRR bias of disinformation explains the spread of disinformation by individuals with PRR attitudes despite a lack of credibility. An online experimental study (N = 572) in Germany showed that the spread of disinformation is mediated by perceived message credibility of disinformation. PRR attitudes positively predict perceived message credibility regardless of whether it is biased or unbiased disinformation.

Acknowledgements

I gratefully thank Michaela Maier and Teresa Gil-López for their helpful feedback on previous versions of this manuscript.

References

Akkerman, A., Zaslove, A., & Spruyt, B. (2017). ‘We the People’ or ‘We the Peoples’? A comparison of support for the populist radical right and populist radical left in the Netherlands. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 377–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.1227510.1111/spsr.12275Search in Google Scholar

Ali, K., Li, C., Zain-ul-abdin, K., & Zaffar, M. A. (2022). Fake news on Facebook: Examining the impact of heuristic cues on perceived credibility and sharing intention. Internet Research, 32(1), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-10-2019-044210.1108/INTR-10-2019-0442Search in Google Scholar

Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.21110.1257/jep.31.2.211Search in Google Scholar

Appelman, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901560605710.1177/1077699015606057Search in Google Scholar

Arendt, F., Haim, M., & Beck, J. (2019). Fake News, Warnhinweise und perzipierter Wahrheitsgehalt: Zur unterschiedlichen Anfälligkeit für Falschmeldungen in Abhängigkeit von der politischen Orientierung [Fake news, warning notices, and perceived truthfulness: On the different susceptibility to false news depending on the political orientation]. Publizistik, 64(2), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-019-00484-410.1007/s11616-019-00484-4Search in Google Scholar

Bago, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1608–1613. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge000072910.1037/xge0000729Search in Google Scholar

Baptista, J. P., & Gradim, A. (2020). Understanding fake news consumption: A review. Social Sciences, 9(10), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci910018510.3390/socsci9100185Search in Google Scholar

Barthel, M., Mitchell, A., & Holcomb, J. (2016). Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion. Retrieved October 4, 2021 from https://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/Search in Google Scholar

Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.00510.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005Search in Google Scholar

Bryanov, K., & Vziatysheva, V. (2021). Determinants of individuals’ belief in fake news: A scoping review determinants of belief in fake news. PLoS ONE, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.025371710.1371/journal.pone.0253717Search in Google Scholar

Buchanan, T. (2020). Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation: The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLoS ONE, 15(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.023966610.1371/journal.pone.0239666Search in Google Scholar

Buchanan, T., & Benson, V. (2019). Spreading disinformation on Facebook: Do trust in message source, risk propensity, or personality affect the organic reach of ‘fake news’? Social Media + Society, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/205630511988865410.1177/2056305119888654Search in Google Scholar

Chadwick, A., & Vaccari, C. (2019). News sharing on UK social media: Misinformation, disinformation, and correction. https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/News_sharing_on_UK_social_media_misinformation_disinformation_and_correction/9471269/files/17095679.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.75210.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752Search in Google Scholar

D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.xSearch in Google Scholar

de Vreese, C. H., & Neijens, P. (2016). Measuring media exposure in a changing communications environment. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(2–3), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.115044110.1080/19312458.2016.1150441Search in Google Scholar

Eastin, M. S. (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00126.x10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00126.xSearch in Google Scholar

Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18(4), 741–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.0007710.1111/0162-895X.00077Search in Google Scholar

Flanagin, A. J., Winter, S., & Metzger, M. J. (2020). Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: The role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society, 23(7), 1038–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.154741110.1080/1369118X.2018.1547411Search in Google Scholar

Freelon, D., & Wells, C. (2020). Disinformation as political communication. Political Communication, 53(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.172375510.1080/10584609.2020.1723755Search in Google Scholar

Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau458610.1126/sciadv.aau4586Search in Google Scholar

Hameleers, M. (2020a). My reality is more truthful than yours: Radical right-wing politicians’ and citizens’ construction of ‘fake’ and ‘truthfulness’ on social media-evidence from the United States and the Netherlands. International Journal of Communication, 14, 1135–1152. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/12463Search in Google Scholar

Hameleers, M. (2022). Populist disinformation in fragmented information settings. Routledge.10.4324/9781003194668Search in Google Scholar

Hameleers, M., Humprecht, E., Möller, J., & Lühring, J. (2021). Degrees of deception: The effects of different types of COVID-19 misinformation and the effectiveness of corrective information in crisis times. Information, Communication & Society, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.202127010.1080/1369118X.2021.2021270Search in Google Scholar

Hasell, A., & Weeks, B. E. (2016). Partisan provocation: The role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.1209210.1111/hcre.12092Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, K., Scott, R., & Cas, M. (2012). Measuring populist attitudes. Political Concepts Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series, 55, 1–35.Search in Google Scholar

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, London: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/26635010.1086/266350Search in Google Scholar

Humprecht, E. (2019). Where ‘fake news’ flourishes: A comparison across four Western democracies. Information, Communication & Society, 22(13), 1973–1988. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.147424110.1080/1369118X.2018.1474241Search in Google Scholar

Jost, J. T., van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C., & Hardin, C. D. (2018). Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.01.00310.1016/j.copsyc.2018.01.003Search in Google Scholar

Kapantai, E., Christopoulou, A., Berberidis, C., & Peristeras, V. (2021). A systematic literature review on disinformation: Toward a unified taxonomical framework. New Media & Society, 23(5), 1301–1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144482095929610.1177/1461444820959296Search in Google Scholar

Kim, A., & Dennis, A. R. (2019). Says who? How news presentation format influences perceived believability and the engagement level of social media users. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 1025–1039. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.298786610.25300/MISQ/2019/15188Search in Google Scholar

Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Mothes, C., Johnson, B. K., Westerwick, A., & Donsbach, W. (2015). Political online information searching in Germany and the United States: Confirmation bias, source credibility, and attitude impacts. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.1215410.1111/jcom.12154Search in Google Scholar

Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.xSearch in Google Scholar

Leuker, C, Eggeling, L. M., Fleischhut, N., Gubernath, J., Gumenik, K., Hechtlinger, S., Kozyreva, A., Samaan, L., & Hertwig, R. (2022). Misinformation in Germany during the Covid-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey on citizens’ perceptions and individual differences in the belief in false information. European Journal of Health Communication, 3(2), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.47368/ejhc.2022.20210.47368/ejhc.2022.202Search in Google Scholar

Maier, M., Gil-López, T., Bromme, L., Zinkernagel, A., Welzenbach-Vogel, I. C., Christner, C., Adam, S., Schmitt, M., & Tillman, E. R. (2023). The interplay between explicit and implicit right-wing populism in Germany and Switzerland. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.1289510.1111/pops.12895Search in Google Scholar

Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.2067210.1002/asi.20672Search in Google Scholar

Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & Mccann, R. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 293–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.1167902910.1080/23808985.2003.11679029Search in Google Scholar

Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.xSearch in Google Scholar

Moravec, P. L., Minas, R. K., & Dennis, A. R. (2019). Fake news on social media: People believe what they want to believe when it makes no sense at all. MIS Quarterly, 43(4), 1343–1360. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/1550510.2139/ssrn.3269541Search in Google Scholar

Mourão, R. R., & Robertson, C. T. (2019). Fake news as discursive integration: An analysis of sites that publish false, misleading, hyperpartisan and sensational information. Journalism Studies, 7(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.156687110.1080/1461670X.2019.1566871Search in Google Scholar

Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 542–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.xSearch in Google Scholar

Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511492037Search in Google Scholar

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2013). Exclusionary vs. inclusionary populism: Comparing contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition, 48(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2012.1110.1017/gov.2012.11Search in Google Scholar

Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andi, S., Craig, R. T., & Nielsen, R. K. (2021). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021: 10th edition. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/Digital_News_Report_2021_FINAL.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Vahlstrup, P. B., Bechmann, A., & Petersen, M. B. (2021). Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542100029010.1017/S0003055421000290Search in Google Scholar

Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592(7855), 590–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-210.1038/s41586-021-03344-2Search in Google Scholar

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.01110.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011Search in Google Scholar

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.1247610.1111/jopy.12476Search in Google Scholar

Pereira, A., Harris, E. A., & van Bavel, J. J. (2018). Identity concerns drive belief: The impact of partisan identity on the belief and dissemination of true and false news. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7vc5d10.31234/osf.io/7vc5dSearch in Google Scholar

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-210.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2Search in Google Scholar

Piotrkowicz, A., Dimitrova, V. G., Otterbacher, J., & Market, K. (2017). The impact of news values and linguistic style on the popularity of headlines on Twitter and Facebook. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on News and Public Opinion (ICWSM NECO 2017). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada.10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14979Search in Google Scholar

Rooduijn, M. (2014). Vox populismus: A populist radical right attitude among the public? Nations and Nationalism, 20(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.1205410.1111/nana.12054Search in Google Scholar

Schaewitz, L., Kluck, J. P., Klösters, L., & Krämer, N. C. (2020). When is disinformation (in)credible? Experimental findings on message characteristics and individual differences. Mass Communication and Society, 23(4), 484–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.171698310.1080/15205436.2020.1716983Search in Google Scholar

Schoemann, A. M., Boulton, A. J., & Short, S. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/194855061771506810.1177/1948550617715068Search in Google Scholar

Schulz, A., Müller, P., Schemer, C., Wirz, D. S., Wettstein, M., & Wirth, W. (2018). Measuring populist attitudes on three dimensions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(2), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw03710.1093/ijpor/edw037Search in Google Scholar

Schulz, A., Wirth, W., & Müller, P. (2020). We are the people and you are fake news: A social identity approach to populist citizens’ false consensus and hostile media perceptions. Communication Research, 47(2), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365021879485410.1177/0093650218794854Search in Google Scholar

Sindermann, C., Schmitt, H. S., Rozgonjuk, D., Elhai, J. D., & Montag, C. (2021). The evaluation of fake and true news: On the role of intelligence, personality, interpersonal trust, ideological attitudes, and news consumption. Heliyon, 7(3), e06503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e0650310.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06503Search in Google Scholar

Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Staender, A., Humprecht, E., Esser, F., Morosoli, S., & van Aelst, P. (2021). Is sensationalist disinformation more effective? Three facilitating factors at the national, individual, and situational level. Digital Journalism, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/2167081110.1080/21670811.2021.1966315Search in Google Scholar

Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Zafar, N., & Alrasheedy, M. (2019). Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.02610.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026Search in Google Scholar

Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2017). Defining ‘fake news’. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.136014310.1080/21670811.2017.1360143Search in Google Scholar

Tumber, H., & Waisbord, S. (2021). Media, disinformation, and populism. In H. Tumber & S. Waisbord (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism (pp. 13–25). Routledge.10.4324/9781003004431-2Search in Google Scholar

Valenzuela, S., Halpern, D., Katz, J. E., & Miranda, J. P. (2019). The paradox of participation versus misinformation: Social media, political engagement, and the spread of misinformation. Digital Journalism, 7(6), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.162370110.1080/21670811.2019.1623701Search in Google Scholar

Valenzuela, S., Piña, M., & Ramírez, J. (2017). Behavioral effects of framing on social media users: How conflict, economic, human interest, and morality frames drive news sharing. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.1232510.1111/jcom.12325Search in Google Scholar

van Bavel, J. J., Harris, E. A., Pärnamets, P., Rathje, S., Doell, K. C., & Tucker, J. A. (2021). Political psychology in the digital (mis)information age: A model of news belief and sharing. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15(1), 84–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.1207710.1111/sipr.12077Search in Google Scholar

Waisbord, S. (2018). The elective affinity between post-truth communication and populist politics. Communication Research and Practice, 4(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2018.142892810.1080/22041451.2018.1428928Search in Google Scholar

Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L., & Morag, Y. (2020). Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.166889410.1080/10584609.2019.1668894Search in Google Scholar

Winter, S., Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2016). Selective use of news cues: A multiple-motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 669–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.1224110.1111/jcom.12241Search in Google Scholar

Zimmermann, F., & Kohring, M. (2020). Mistrust, disinforming news, and vote choice: A panel survey on the origins and consequences of believing disinformation in the 2017 German parliamentary election. Political Communication, 37(2), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.168609510.1080/10584609.2019.1686095Search in Google Scholar


Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from Clara Christner.


Published Online: 2023-05-11

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.4.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/commun-2022-0024/html
Scroll to top button