R. Paquin, Vanessa Boudewyns, Kevin R. Betts, Mihaela Johnson, Amie C O'Donoghue, B. Southwell
{"title":"中介交际语境中虚假信息拒绝和欺骗行为的实证评估","authors":"R. Paquin, Vanessa Boudewyns, Kevin R. Betts, Mihaela Johnson, Amie C O'Donoghue, B. Southwell","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtab011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Although misleading health information is not a new phenomenon, no standards exist to assess consumers’ ability to detect and subsequently reject misinformation. Part of this deficit reflects theoretical and measurement challenges. After drawing novel connections among legal, regulatory, and philosophical perspectives on false, misleading or deceptive advertising and cognitive-process models of persuasive communication, we define deception and misinformation rejection. Recognizing that individuals can hold beliefs that align with a persuasive message without those beliefs having been influenced by it, we derive empirical criteria to test for evidence of these constructs that center on yielding or not yielding to misinformation in mediated contexts. We present data from an experimental study to illustrate the proposed test procedure and provide evidence for two theoretically derived patterns indicative of misinformation rejection. The resulting definitions and empirical procedure set the stage for additional theorizing and empirical studies on misinformation in the marketplace.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Empirical Procedure to Evaluate Misinformation Rejection and Deception in Mediated Communication Contexts\",\"authors\":\"R. Paquin, Vanessa Boudewyns, Kevin R. Betts, Mihaela Johnson, Amie C O'Donoghue, B. Southwell\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ct/qtab011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Although misleading health information is not a new phenomenon, no standards exist to assess consumers’ ability to detect and subsequently reject misinformation. Part of this deficit reflects theoretical and measurement challenges. After drawing novel connections among legal, regulatory, and philosophical perspectives on false, misleading or deceptive advertising and cognitive-process models of persuasive communication, we define deception and misinformation rejection. Recognizing that individuals can hold beliefs that align with a persuasive message without those beliefs having been influenced by it, we derive empirical criteria to test for evidence of these constructs that center on yielding or not yielding to misinformation in mediated contexts. We present data from an experimental study to illustrate the proposed test procedure and provide evidence for two theoretically derived patterns indicative of misinformation rejection. The resulting definitions and empirical procedure set the stage for additional theorizing and empirical studies on misinformation in the marketplace.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Theory\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtab011\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtab011","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
An Empirical Procedure to Evaluate Misinformation Rejection and Deception in Mediated Communication Contexts
Although misleading health information is not a new phenomenon, no standards exist to assess consumers’ ability to detect and subsequently reject misinformation. Part of this deficit reflects theoretical and measurement challenges. After drawing novel connections among legal, regulatory, and philosophical perspectives on false, misleading or deceptive advertising and cognitive-process models of persuasive communication, we define deception and misinformation rejection. Recognizing that individuals can hold beliefs that align with a persuasive message without those beliefs having been influenced by it, we derive empirical criteria to test for evidence of these constructs that center on yielding or not yielding to misinformation in mediated contexts. We present data from an experimental study to illustrate the proposed test procedure and provide evidence for two theoretically derived patterns indicative of misinformation rejection. The resulting definitions and empirical procedure set the stage for additional theorizing and empirical studies on misinformation in the marketplace.
期刊介绍:
Communication Theory is an international forum publishing high quality, original research into the theoretical development of communication from across a wide array of disciplines, such as communication studies, sociology, psychology, political science, cultural and gender studies, philosophy, linguistics, and literature. A journal of the International Communication Association, Communication Theory especially welcomes work in the following areas of research, all of them components of ICA: Communication and Technology, Communication Law and Policy, Ethnicity and Race in Communication, Feminist Scholarship, Global Communication and Social Change, Health Communication, Information Systems, Instructional/Developmental Communication, Intercultural Communication, Interpersonal Communication, Journalism Studies, Language and Social Interaction, Mass Communication, Organizational Communication, Philosophy of Communication, Political Communication, Popular Communication, Public Relations, Visual Communication Studies, Children, Adolescents and the Media, Communication History, Game Studies, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies, and Intergroup Communication. The journal aims to be inclusive in theoretical approaches insofar as these pertain to communication theory.