The Interplay of Knowledge Overestimation, Social Media Use, and Populist Ideas: Cross-Sectional and Experimental Evidence From Germany and Taiwan

IF 4.9 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Communication Research Pub Date : 2024-02-10 DOI:10.1177/00936502241230203
Niels G. Mede, Adrian Rauchfleisch, Julia Metag, Mike S. Schäfer
{"title":"The Interplay of Knowledge Overestimation, Social Media Use, and Populist Ideas: Cross-Sectional and Experimental Evidence From Germany and Taiwan","authors":"Niels G. Mede, Adrian Rauchfleisch, Julia Metag, Mike S. Schäfer","doi":"10.1177/00936502241230203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social media expose users to an abundance of information about various issues. But they also make it difficult for users to assess the quality of this information. If users do not recognize this, they may overestimate their knowledge about those issues. Knowledge overestimation may lead to increased social media engagement and can be linked to attitudes deeming expert knowledge inferior to common sense, such as science-related populist attitudes. We investigate this during the COVID-19 pandemic in two preregistered, cross-sectional survey experiments in Germany and Taiwan, two countries with different cultures, media environments, and responses to the pandemic. Our study offers two contributions: First, we develop a novel measure of COVID-19-related knowledge. Second, we provide comparative evidence on how social media affordances shape the interplay between knowledge overestimation, social media exposure and engagement, and populist attitudes. We do not find that frequent exposure to COVID-19 information is associated with a higher likelihood of knowledge overestimation. However, we show that overestimation is linked to more user engagement with social media content about COVID-19. Experimental data indicate that engagement depends on whether users are in a private or public communication environment. We find minor differences between Germany and Taiwan.","PeriodicalId":48323,"journal":{"name":"Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241230203","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social media expose users to an abundance of information about various issues. But they also make it difficult for users to assess the quality of this information. If users do not recognize this, they may overestimate their knowledge about those issues. Knowledge overestimation may lead to increased social media engagement and can be linked to attitudes deeming expert knowledge inferior to common sense, such as science-related populist attitudes. We investigate this during the COVID-19 pandemic in two preregistered, cross-sectional survey experiments in Germany and Taiwan, two countries with different cultures, media environments, and responses to the pandemic. Our study offers two contributions: First, we develop a novel measure of COVID-19-related knowledge. Second, we provide comparative evidence on how social media affordances shape the interplay between knowledge overestimation, social media exposure and engagement, and populist attitudes. We do not find that frequent exposure to COVID-19 information is associated with a higher likelihood of knowledge overestimation. However, we show that overestimation is linked to more user engagement with social media content about COVID-19. Experimental data indicate that engagement depends on whether users are in a private or public communication environment. We find minor differences between Germany and Taiwan.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
知识高估、社交媒体使用和民粹主义思想的相互作用:来自德国和台湾的横断面和实验证据
社交媒体让用户接触到大量有关各种问题的信息。但这也使用户难以评估这些信息的质量。如果用户认识不到这一点,他们可能会高估自己对这些问题的了解程度。知识高估可能会导致社交媒体参与度的提高,并可能与认为专家知识不如常识的态度有关,例如与科学有关的民粹主义态度。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,我们在德国和台湾进行了两次预先登记的横断面调查实验,对这一问题进行了调查。我们的研究有两个贡献:首先,我们开发了一种新的 COVID-19 相关知识测量方法。其次,我们提供了比较证据,说明社交媒体的承受能力如何影响知识高估、社交媒体接触和参与以及民粹主义态度之间的相互作用。我们没有发现频繁接触 COVID-19 信息与更高的知识高估可能性相关。但是,我们表明,高估与用户更多地参与有关 COVID-19 的社交媒体内容有关。实验数据表明,参与度取决于用户是处于私人还是公共交流环境。我们发现德国和台湾之间存在细微差别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Communication Research
Communication Research COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Empirical research in communication began in the 20th century, and there are more researchers pursuing answers to communication questions today than at any other time. The editorial goal of Communication Research is to offer a special opportunity for reflection and change in the new millennium. To qualify for publication, research should, first, be explicitly tied to some form of communication; second, be theoretically driven with results that inform theory; third, use the most rigorous empirical methods; and fourth, be directly linked to the most important problems and issues facing humankind. Critieria do not privilege any particular context; indeed, we believe that the key problems facing humankind occur in close relationships, groups, organiations, and cultures.
期刊最新文献
The Impacts of Code-Mixing in a Cross-Cultural Narrative: How Processing Fluency Impacts Narrative Engagement and Attitudes Toward Out-Groups Developing and Validating a 15-Item True/False Measure of News Literacy Knowledge Examining How Sex Appeal Cues and Strength Cues Influence Impressions of Female Video Game Characters The Effects of Social Approval Signals on the Production of Online Hate: A Theoretical Explication Living in a (Mediated) Political World: Mindfulness, Problematic News Consumption, and Political Hostility
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1