What misinformation means and what it means to be someone who corrects it is socially contested, especially in interpersonal contexts where politeness expectations complicate correction. Given this flux in meaning, we analyze posts about misinformation correction in interpersonal contexts from the AmItheAsshole subreddit through a relational dialectics theory (RDT) lens. Findings revealed that discourses of misinformation as harmful and as innocuous and potentially helpful constituted the meaning of misinformation, while discourses of misinformation correctors as inconsiderate and as communal guardians constituted the meaning of misinformation correctors. The latter meaning was dependent on the meaning of misinformation and the adjacent ideology of politeness. Thus, we extend RDT by elucidating how the meaning of a semantic object is predicated on a web of larger intertextual meaning.
BakhtinM. M.EmersonC. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published in 1963).
3.
BakhtinM. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In EmersonC.HolquistM. (Eds.), Speech genres & other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans. (1st ed., pp. 60−102). University of Texas Press. (Original work published in 1979).
BaxterL. A.ScharpK. M.ThomasL. J. (2021). Relational dialectics theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(1), 7−20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12405.
6.
BaxterL. A.SuterE. A.ThomasL. J.SeurerL. M. (2015). The dialogic construction of “adoption” in online foster adoption narratives. Journal of Family Communication, 15(3), 193−213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2015.1043431.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
9.
ChanM.-p. S.JonesC. R.Hall JamiesonK.AlbarracínD. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531−1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714579.
10.
ChoudhuryM. D.DeS. (2014). Mental health discourse on Reddit: Self-disclosure, social support, and anonymity. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2014 (pp. 71–80).
11.
DillardJ. P.WilsonS. R.TusingK. J.KinneyT. A. (1997). Politeness judgments in personal relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(3), 297−325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970163003.
12.
DuffyA.TandocE.LingR. (2020). Too good to be true, too good not to share: the social utility of fake news. Information, Communication & Society, 23(13), 1965−1979. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1623904.
13.
FeasterJ. C. (2010). Expanding the impression management model of communication channels: An information control scale. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(1), 115−138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01535.x.
14.
FengB.MacGeorgeE. L. (2006). Predicting Receptiveness to Advice: Characteristics of the Problem, the Advice-Giver, and the Recipient. Southern Communication Journal, 71(1), 67−85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940500503548.
GuessA. M.LyonsB. A. (2020). Misinformation, disinformation, and online propaganda. In PersilyN.TuckerJ.A. (Eds.), Social Media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform (pp. 10−33). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.
17.
HaL.Andreu PerezL.RayR. (2019). Mapping recent development in scholarship on fake news and misinformation, 2008 to 2017: Disciplinary contribution, topics, and impact. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 290−315. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002764219869402.
Hernández-FloresN. (1999). Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation. Ideologies of politeness, 9(1), 37−49. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.04her.
20.
KrauseN. M.FreilingI.BeetsB.BrossardD. (2021). Fact-checking as risk communication: The multilayered risk of misinformation in times of COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7−8), 1−8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1756385. Advanced online publication.
21.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106−131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018.
22.
LiJ. (2020). Toward a research agenda on political misinformation and corrective information. Political Communication, 37(1), 125−135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1716499.
23.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
MalhotraP (2020). A relationship-centered and culturally informed approach to studying misinformation on COVID-19. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 2056305120948224. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120948224.
26.
MargolinD. B.HannakA.WeberI. (2018). Political fact-checking on Twitter: When do corrections have an effect?Political Communication, 35(2), 196−219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334018.
27.
MassanariA. (2017). #Gamergate and the fappening: How Reddit's algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329−346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807.
28.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303−330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2.
29.
O’ConnorC.WeatherallJ. O. (2019). The misinformation age: How false beliefs spread. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24285.
PhillipsW.MilnerR. M. (2021). You are here: A field guide for navigating polarized speech, conspiracy theories, and our polluted media landscape. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12436.001.0001.
ScharpK. M.ThomasL. J. (2016). Family "Bonds": Making Meaning of Parent-Child Relationships in Estrangement Narratives. Journal of Family Communication, 16(1), 32−50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2015.1111215.
34.
ScharpK. M.ThomasL. J. (2017). "What would a loving mom do today?": Exploring the meaning of motherhood in stories of prenatal and postpartum depression. Journal of Family Communication, 17(4), 401−414. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1355803.
35.
ScharpK. M.ThomasL. J. (2020). A child for every family? Characterizations of "adoptable" foster children in online permanency advocacy publications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(7), 2098−2117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520918668.
36.
SuterE. A.BaxterL. A.SeurerL. M.ThomasL. J. (2014). Discursive constructions of the meaning of “family” in online narratives of foster adoptive parents. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 59−78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.880791.
37.
TakahashiT.BeebeL. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In KasperG.Blum-KulkaS. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 138−157). Oxford University Press.
38.
TandocE. C.Jr.LimD.LingR. (2019). Diffusion of disinformation: How social media users respond to fake news and why. Journalism, 21(3), 381−398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919868325.
39.
ThomasL. J.ScharpK. M. (2017). "A family for every child": Discursive constructions of "ideal" adoptive families in online foster adoption photolistings that promote adoption of children from foster care. Adoption Quarterly, 20(1), 44−64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2016.1263261.
40.
VragaE. K.BodeL. (2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621−645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776.
