Rumours. Who believes them?

Runping Zhu, Qilin Liu, Richard Krever
{"title":"Rumours. Who believes them?","authors":"Runping Zhu, Qilin Liu, Richard Krever","doi":"10.1108/jices-08-2023-0116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose\nWhile psychology, sociology and communications studies hypothesise a range of independent variables that might impact on individuals’ acceptance or rejection of rumours, almost all studies of the phenomenon have taken place in environments featuring notable, and sometimes very deep, partisan divisions, making it almost impossible to isolate the impact of partisan influences on views on different rumour subjects. This study aims to remove the possibility of partisan influences on readers of internet rumours by testing the impact of independent demographic variables in China, a one-party state with no overt partisan divisions. The study provides an opportunity to strip away the influence of ideology and see whether this factor may have coloured previous studies on susceptibility to believe rumours.\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nAn empirical study was used to examine belief in false and true online rumours in a non-partisan environment. A large sample group was presented with rumours across four subject areas and respondents’ conclusions and demographic information was then subject to logistic regression analysis to identify relationships between factors and ability to identify the veracity of online rumours.\n\nFindings\nUnexpectedly, the regression analysis revealed no statistically significant nexus between many independent demographic variables and patterns of believing or disbelieving rumours. In other cases, a statistically significant relationship was revealed, but only to a limited degree. The results suggest that once the role of partisanship in explaining the proliferation of and belief in false rumours and the ability to identify true ones is removed from consideration, no other independent variables enjoy convincing links with rumour belief.\n\nOriginality/value\nThe study tests in China, a jurisdiction featuring a non-partisan environment, the impact of independent variables on media users’ belief in a wide range of rumours.\n","PeriodicalId":186016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society","volume":" 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jices-08-2023-0116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose While psychology, sociology and communications studies hypothesise a range of independent variables that might impact on individuals’ acceptance or rejection of rumours, almost all studies of the phenomenon have taken place in environments featuring notable, and sometimes very deep, partisan divisions, making it almost impossible to isolate the impact of partisan influences on views on different rumour subjects. This study aims to remove the possibility of partisan influences on readers of internet rumours by testing the impact of independent demographic variables in China, a one-party state with no overt partisan divisions. The study provides an opportunity to strip away the influence of ideology and see whether this factor may have coloured previous studies on susceptibility to believe rumours. Design/methodology/approach An empirical study was used to examine belief in false and true online rumours in a non-partisan environment. A large sample group was presented with rumours across four subject areas and respondents’ conclusions and demographic information was then subject to logistic regression analysis to identify relationships between factors and ability to identify the veracity of online rumours. Findings Unexpectedly, the regression analysis revealed no statistically significant nexus between many independent demographic variables and patterns of believing or disbelieving rumours. In other cases, a statistically significant relationship was revealed, but only to a limited degree. The results suggest that once the role of partisanship in explaining the proliferation of and belief in false rumours and the ability to identify true ones is removed from consideration, no other independent variables enjoy convincing links with rumour belief. Originality/value The study tests in China, a jurisdiction featuring a non-partisan environment, the impact of independent variables on media users’ belief in a wide range of rumours.
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
谣言。谁会相信呢?
目的虽然心理学、社会学和传播学研究提出了一系列可能影响个人接受或拒绝谣言的独立变量,但几乎所有有关这一现象的研究都是在党派分歧明显、有时甚至非常严重的环境中进行的,因此几乎不可能分离出党派影响对不同谣言主题观点的影响。中国是一党制国家,没有明显的党派分歧,本研究旨在通过检验独立人口变量对中国网络谣言读者的影响,消除党派影响的可能性。这项研究提供了一个机会,可以剔除意识形态的影响,并了解这一因素是否会影响以往关于谣言易信度的研究。设计/方法/途径一项实证研究用于考察在无党派环境中对虚假和真实网络谣言的相信程度。研究人员向一个大样本群体展示了四个主题领域的谣言,然后对受访者的结论和人口统计学信息进行逻辑回归分析,以确定各种因素与识别网络谣言真实性的能力之间的关系。在其他情况下,统计意义上的关系被揭示出来,但程度有限。研究结果表明,一旦剔除了党派主义在解释虚假谣言的扩散和相信程度以及识别真实谣言的能力方面所起的作用,其他独立变量与谣言相信程度之间就没有令人信服的联系。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Examining ChatGPT adoption among educators in higher educational institutions using extended UTAUT model Unmasking user vulnerability: investigating the barriers to overcoming dark patterns in e-commerce using TISM and MICMAC analysis Rumours. Who believes them? Responsible living labs: what can go wrong? Editorial: the dark side of blockchains: threats, risks, ethics and biases in blockchain adoption
×
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