中介交际语境中虚假信息拒绝和欺骗行为的实证评估

IF 4.7 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Communication Theory Pub Date : 2021-08-03 DOI:10.1093/ct/qtab011
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}
引用次数: 9

摘要

尽管误导性健康信息并不是一种新现象,但目前还没有标准来评估消费者检测并随后拒绝错误信息的能力。这部分赤字反映了理论和计量方面的挑战。在对虚假、误导或欺骗性广告的法律、监管和哲学观点与说服性传播的认知过程模型之间建立了新的联系后,我们定义了欺骗和拒绝错误信息。认识到个人可以持有与有说服力的信息一致的信念,而这些信念不受其影响,我们得出了经验标准来测试这些构建的证据,这些构建的核心是在中介环境中屈服或不屈服于错误信息。我们提供了一项实验研究的数据来说明所提出的测试程序,并为两种理论推导的模式提供了证据,这两种模式表明了错误信息拒绝。由此产生的定义和实证程序为对市场中的错误信息进行进一步的理论化和实证研究奠定了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Communication Theory
Communication Theory COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
2.70%
发文量
21
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.
期刊最新文献
Situational privacy: theorizing privacy as communication and media practice Lie–truth judgments: adaptive lie detector account and truth-default theory compared and contrasted Mainstreaming as a meta-process: A systematic review and conceptual model of factors contributing to the mainstreaming of radical and extremist positions Why, how, when, and for whom does digital disconnection work? A process-based framework of digital disconnection Conceptualizing embeddedness as a key dimension for analyzing journalistic cultures
×
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