Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been circulating on social media and multiple conspiracy theories have since become quite popular. We conducted a U.S. national survey for three main purposes. First, we aim to examine the association between social media news consumption and conspiracy beliefs specific to COVID-19 and general conspiracy beliefs. Second, we investigate the influence of an important moderator, social media news trust, that has been overlooked in prior studies. Third, we further propose a moderated moderation model by including misinformation identification. Our findings show that social media news use was associated with higher conspiracy beliefs, and trust in social media news was found to be a significant moderator of the relationship between social media news use and conspiracy beliefs. Moreover, our findings show that misinformation identification moderated the relationship between social media news use and trust. Implications are discussed.
AhmedWVidal-AlaballJDowningJSeguíFL (2020) COVID-19 and the 5G conspiracy theory: Social network analysis of twitter data. Journal of Medical Internet Research22(5): e19458. DOI: 10.2196/19458.
2.
AllingtonDDuffyBWesselySDhavanNRubinJ (2020) Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychological Medicine. Epub ahead of print 9 June. DOI: 10.1017/S003329172000224X.
3.
AnspachNMCarlsonTN (2020) What to believe? Social media commentary and belief in misinformation. Political Behavior42: 697–718.
4.
Ardèvol-AbreuAGil de ZúñigaH (2017) Effects of editorial media bias perception and media trust on the use of traditional, citizen, and social media news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94(3): 703–724.
5.
Ardèvol-AbreuAHookerCMGildeZúñigaH (2018) Online news creation, trust in the media, and political participation: Direct and moderating effects over time. Journalism19(5): 611–631.
6.
AVAAZ (2020) How Facebook can flatten the curve of the coronavirus infodemic: Study indicates Facebook is rife with bogus cures and conspiracy theories that remain on the platform long enough to put millions of people at risk. Report published by AVAAZ, London. Available at: https://avaazimages.avaaz.org/facebook_coronavirus_misinformation.pdf
7.
BantimaroudisPSideriMBallasDPanagiotidisTZiogasT (2020) Conspiracism on social media: An agenda melding of group-mediated deceptions. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics16(2): 115–138.
8.
BastaniPBahramiMA (2020) COVID-19 related misinformation on social media: A qualitative study from Iran. Journal of Medical Internet Research. Epub ahead of print 5 April. DOI: 10.2196/18932.
9.
BerinskyAJHuberGLenzG (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20: 351–368.
10.
BierwiaczonekKKunstJRPichO (2020) Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories reduces social distancing over time. Applied Psychology12: 1270–1285.
11.
BorahPEdgerlySVragaEKShahDV (2013) Hearing and talking to the other side: Antecedents of cross-cutting exposure in adolescents. Mass Communication and Society16(3): 391–416.
12.
BradshawSHowardPNKollanyiBNeudertLM (2020) Sourcing and automation of political news and information over social media in the United States, 2016-2018. Political Communication37(2): 173–193.
ByfordJ (2011) Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
CassinoD (2016) Fairleigh Dickinson University’s public mind poll finds trump supporters more conspiracy-minded than other republicans. Available at: http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/160504/
16.
CastilloCMendozaMPobleteB (2011). Information credibility on twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, Hyderabad, India, 28 March–1 April, pp. 675–684. New York: ACM.
17.
ChenDWuJJWangY (2011) Unpacking new media literacy. Systemics Cybernetics and Informatics9(2): 84–88.
18.
ChouWOhAKleinW (2018) Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. JAMA320: 2417–2418.
19.
ColemanS (2012) Believing the news: From sinking trust to atrophied efficacy. European Journal of Communication27(1): 35–45.
20.
CraftSAshleySMakslA (2017) News media literacy and conspiracy theory endorsement. Communication and the Public2(4): 388–401.
21.
DouglasKSuttonRCallanMJDawtryRJHarveyAJ (2016) Someone is pulling the strings: Hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories. Thinking & Reasoning22: 57–77.
22.
DouglasKMSuttonRM (2008) The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana. Journal of Social Psychology148(2): 210–222.
23.
DouglasKMUscinskiJESuttonRMCichockaANefesTAngCS, et al. (2019) Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology40: 3–35.
DruckmanJN (2001) On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?Journal of Politics63(4): 1041–1066.
26.
DuttonWHShepherdA (2006) Trust in the Internet as an experience technology. Information Communication & Society9(4): 433–451.
27.
EckerUKLewandowskySTangDTW (2010) Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory and Cognition38(8): 1087–1100.
28.
EgelhoferJLechelerS (2019) Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: A framework and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association43(2): 97–116.
29.
FletcherRNielsenR (2018) Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society20: 2450–2468.
30.
FreelonDWellsC (2020) Disinformation as political communication. Political Communication37(2): 145–156.
31.
FreemanDWaiteFRosebrockLPetitACausierCEastA, et al. (2020) Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England. Psychological Medicine: 1–13.
32.
GarrettRK (2019) Social media’s contribution to political misperceptions in U.S. Presidential elections. PLoS ONE14: e0213500.
33.
GoertzelT (2010) Conspiracy theories in science. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports11: 493–499.
HalpernDGibbsJ (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 1159–1168.
36.
HameleersMPowellTEVan der MeerTGBosL (2020) A picture paints a thousand lies? The effects and mechanisms of multimodal disinformation and rebuttals disseminated via social media. Political Communication37(2): 281–301.
37.
HuberBBarnidgeMZúñigaHGLiuJ (2019) Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science28(7): 759–777.
38.
HuffCTingleyD (2015) “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics2(3): 4648.
39.
JolleyDDouglasK (2014b) The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. British Journal of Psychology105(1): 35–56.
40.
JolleyDDouglasKM (2014a) The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS ONE9(2): e89177.
41.
Jones-JangSMMortensenTLiuJ (2019) Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist65: 371–388.
KalogeropoulosASuiterJUdrisLEiseneggerM (2019) News media trust and news consumption: factors related to trust in news in 35 countries. International Journal of Communication13: 3672–3693.
44.
KarlssonMClerwallCNordL (2017) Do not stand corrected: Transparency and users’ attitudes to inaccurate news and corrections in online journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94(1): 148–167.
45.
KaufholdKValenzuelaSGildeZúñigaH (2010) Citizen journalism and democracy: How user-generated news use relates to political knowledge and participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 87(3–4): 515–529.
KimMCaoX (2016) The impact of exposure to media messages promoting government conspiracy theories on distrust in the government: Evidence from a two-stage randomized experiment. International Journal of Communication10: 3808–3827.
48.
KouzyRAbi JaoudeJKraitemAEl AlamMBKaramBAdibE, et al. (2020) Coronavirus goes viral: Quantifying the COVID-19 misinformation epidemic on Twitter. Cureus12(3): e7255.
49.
LaddJ (2004) Attitudes toward the News Media and the Acquisition of Political Information. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 2–5 September.
50.
LaddJM (2010) The role of media distrust in partisan voting. Political Behavior32(4): 567–585.
51.
LazerDBaumMBenklerYBerinskyAJGreenhillKMMenczerF, et al. (2018) The science of fake news. Science359(6380): 1094–1096.
52.
LeeTT (2010) Why they don’t trust the media: An examination of factors predicting trust. American Behavioral Scientist54(1): 8–21.
53.
LewandowskySEckerUKSeifertCMSchwarzNCookJ (2012) Misinformation and its correction continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(3): 106–131.
54.
LewandowskySGignacGOberauerK (2015) The robust relationship between conspiracism and denial of (climate) science. Psychological Science26: 667–670.
55.
LewandowskySOberauerKGignacGE (2013) NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax. Psychological Science24(5): 622–633.
56.
LinWYZhangXSongHOmoriK (2016) Health information seeking in the Web 2.0 age: Trust in social media, uncertainty reduction, and self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior56: 289–294.
NekmatE (2020) Nudge effect of fact-check alerts: Source influence and media skepticism on sharing of news misinformation in social media. Social Media + Society6: 1–14.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2010) When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior3: 302–330.
62.
O’ConnorC (2020) Going viral: Doctors must tackle fake news in the Covid-19 pandemic. BMJ369: m1587.
63.
Oeldorf-HirschA (2018) The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Communication and Society21(2): 225–247.
64.
PaolacciGChandlerJ (2014) Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science23(3): 184–188.
65.
PennycookGMcPhetresJZhangYLuJGRandDG (2020) Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science31(7): 770–780.
RishelNM (2011) Digitizing deliberation: Normative concerns for the use of social media in deliberative democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis33(3): 411–432.
69.
SharmaMYadavKYadavNFerdinandK (2017) Zika virus pandemic—analysis of Facebook as a social media health information platform. American Journal of Infection Control45: 301–302.
ShinJJianLDriscollKBarF (2018) The diffusion of misinformation on social media: Temporal pattern, message, and source. Computers in Human Behavior83: 278–287.
SterrettDMalatoDBenzJKantorLTompsonTRosenstielT, et al. (2019) Who shared it?: Deciding what news to trust on social media. Digital Journalism7(6): 783–801.
76.
StojanovA (2015) Reducing Conspiracy Theory Beliefs. Psihologija48(3): 251–266.
77.
ThorsonE (2016) Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication33(3): 460–480.
78.
TsfatiY (2002) The consequences of mistrust in the news media: Media skepticism as a moderator in media effects and as a factor influencing news media exposure. Dissertations Available from Proquest. AAI 3043970. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3043970
79.
TurcotteJYorkCIrvingJSchollRMPingreeRJ (2015) News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication20(5): 520–535.
80.
VivianiMPasiG (2017) Credibility in social media: Opinions, news, and health information—a survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery7(5): e1209.
81.
VragaEKBodeL (2017) Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication39(5): 621–645.
82.
VragaEKTullyM (2019) News literacy, social media behaviors, and skepticism toward information on social media. Information Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 18July. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637445.
83.
VragaEKBodeLTullyM (2020) Creating news literacy messages to enhance expert corrections of misinformation on Twitter. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 30January. DOI: 10.1177/0093650219898094.
84.
VragaEKTullyMBodeL (2020) Empowering users to respond to misinformation about Covid-19. Media and Communication8(2): 475–479.
85.
WangYMarkG (2013). Trust in online news: Comparing social media and official media use by Chinese citizens. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Antonio, TX, 23–27 February, pp. 599–610. New York: ACM.
86.
WeeksBEGarrettRK (2014) Electoral consequences of political rumors: Motivated reasoning, candidate rumors, and vote choice during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research26(4): 401–422.
87.
WeeksBEGildeZúñigaH (2019) What’s Next? Six Observations for the Future of Political Misinformation Research. American Behavioral Scientist65: 277–289.
88.
WilliamsAE (2012) Trust or bust? Questioning the relationship between media trust and news attention. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(1): 116–131.
89.
WoodMJ (2016) Some dare call it conspiracy: Labeling something a conspiracy theory does not reduce belief in it. Political Psychology27(5): 695–705.
90.
WoodMJDouglasKMSuttonRM (2012) Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science3(6): 767–773.
91.
YamamotoMMoreyAC (2019) Incidental news exposure on social media: A campaign communication mediation approach. Social Media+ Society5(2): 2056305119843619.
92.
YoungIM (2002) Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
