The concern about misinformation in the public space has become more worrisome during the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. In this context, we investigate what make people correctly recognize accurate information and detect misinformation about the war at the beginning of the conflict in Romania, a bordering country. By means of a national survey (N = 1006) conducted in April-May 2022, we looked for predictors of people’s capacity of navigating the information environment about the conflict. Data was gathered via an online panel conducted by Kantar as part of a cross-country project implemented in 19 countries. Findings show that people are relatively good at discerning between correct and misleading statements about the war. Prior negative attitudes about the Ukraine invasion, the level of concern about the war, not having a conspiracy mindset, self-perceived media literacy, and the extent to which people believe fact-checks to be effective in fighting misinformation are all predictors of the accuracy of misinformation detection of the respondents. These results offer insights into how ideologically based/motivated misinformation could be countered in a war crisis context, in a country bordering the conflict.
Abalakina‐PaapMStephanWGCraigT, et al. (1999) Beliefs in conspiracies. Political Psychology20(3): 637–647.
2.
AlcottHGentzkowM (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. The Journal of Economic Perspectives31(2): 211–236.
3.
AliSHForemanJTozanY, et al. (2020) Trends and predictors of COVID-19 information sources and their relationship with knowledge and beliefs related to the pandemic: Nationwide cross-Sectional study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance6(4): e21071. DOI: 10.2196/21071.
4.
AmazeenM AThorsonE.MuddimanA, et al (2018). Correcting political and consumer misperceptions: The effectiveness and effects of rating scale versus contextual correction formats. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(1): 28—48.
5.
BakirVMcStayA (2018) Fake news and the Economy of Emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism6(2): 154–175.
6.
BBC News (2022) Ukraine War: Viral Conspiracy Theories Falsely Claim the War Is Fake. BBC. 27 February. Available at:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64789737 (accessed 15 May 2023).
7.
BulgerMDavisonP (2018) The promises, challenges, and futures of media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education10(1): 1–21.
8.
Cabrera BlázquezF J (2022) The Implementation of EU Sanctions against RT and Sputnik. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Obvervatory. Available at:https://rm.coe.int/note-rt-sputnik/1680a5dd5d
9.
CamajLWeaverD (2013) Need for orientation and attribute agenda-setting during a U.S. Election campaign. International Journal of Communication7: 22, Available at:https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1921
10.
CastroLStrömbäckJEsserF, et al. (2022) Navigating high-choice European political information environments: a comparative analysis of news user Profiles and political knowledge. The International Journal of Press/Politics27(4): 827–859.
11.
CollinsBHoangDTNguyenNT, et al. (2021) Trends in combating fake news on social media–a survey. Journal of Information and Telecommunication5(2): 247–266.
12.
DouglasKMUscinskiJESuttonRM, et al. (2019) Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology40: 3–35.
EgelhoferJLLechelerS (2019) Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: a framework and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association43(2): 97–116.
GlasmanLRAlbarracínD (2006) Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin132(5): 778–822.
20.
GlüerKWikforssÅ (2022) What is knowledge resistance? In: StrömbäckJWikforssÅGlüerK, et al. (eds) Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments. New York: Routledge, 29–48.
21.
HartWAlbarracínDEaglyAH, et al. (2009) Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin135(4): 555–588.
22.
HoweLCKrosnickJA (2017) Attitude strength. Annual Review of Psychology68(1): 327–351.
JamiesonKHAlbarracínD (2020) The relation between media consumption and misinformation at the outset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the US. The Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review1(2): 3.
25.
JeongSHChoHHwangY (2012) Media literacy interventions: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication62: 454–472.
26.
Jones-JangSMMortensenTLiuJ (2019) Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist65: 371–388. DOI: 10.1177/0002764219869406.
KahneJBowyerB (2017) Educating for a democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal54: 3–34.
29.
KarlsenRBeyerASteen-JohnsenK (2020) Do high-choice media environments facilitate news avoidance? A longitudinal study 1997–2016. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media64(5): 794–814.
30.
Knobloch-WesterwickS (2014) Choice and preference in media use. Advances in Selective Exposure Theory and Research. New York: Routledge.
31.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMengJ (2011) Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication61(2): 349–368.
KümpelAS (2020) The Matthew effect in social media news use: Assessing inequalities in news exposure and news engagement on social network sites (SNS). Journalism21(8): 1083–1098.
34.
LechelerSEgelhoferJL (2022) Disinformation, misinformation and fake news. Understanding the supply side. In: StrömbäckJWikforssÅGlüerK, et al. (eds) Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments. New York: Routledge, 69–87.
35.
LewandowskySEckerUKHSeifertCM, et al. (2012) Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society13(3): 106–131. DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018.
36.
LodgeMTaberCS (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. USA: Cambridge University Press.
37.
LyonsBMérolaVReiflerJ, et al. (2020) How politics shape views toward fact-checking: evidence from six European countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics25(3): 469–492.
38.
MarwickAE (2018) Why do people share fake news? A sociotechnical model of media effects. Georgetown Law Technology Review474(2): 474–512.
39.
MatthesJ (2006) The need for orientation towards news media: Revising and validating a classic concept. International Journal of Public Opinion Research18(4): 422–444.
40.
MatthesJCorbuNJinS, et al. (2023) Perceived prevalence of misinformation fuels worries about COVID-19: a cross-country, multi-method investigation. Information, Communication & Society26(16): 3133–3156. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2022.2146983.
41.
MihailidisPViottyS (2017) Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: Civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in “post-fact” society. American Behavioral Scientist61: 441–454.
PennycookGRandDG (2019) Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality88(2): 185–200.
45.
PennycookGBearACollinsET, et al. (2020) The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science66(11): 4944–4957.
46.
PennycookGEpsteinZMoslehM, et al. (2020) Understanding and reducing the spread of misinformation online. In: ArgoJLowreyTMJensen SchauH (eds) NA - Advances in Consumer Research. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 863–867.
47.
PennycookGMcPhetresJZhangY, et al. (2020) Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological science31(7): 770–780.
48.
PorterEWoodTJ (2021) The global effectiveness of fact-checking: evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118(37): 1–7. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2104235118.
49.
SadiqMTSajiKM (2022) The disaster of misinformation: a review of research in social media. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics13(4): 271–285.
50.
SalviCIannelloPCancerA, et al. (2021) Going viral: how fear, socio-cognitive polarization and problem-solving influence fake news detection and proliferation during COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in communication5: 127. DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.562588.
51.
SchwaigerLSchneiderJRauchfleischA, et al. (2022) Mindsets of conspiracy: a typology of affinities towards conspiracy myths in digital environments. Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies28(4): 1007–1029.
52.
SmallmanS (2015) Whom do You trust? Doubt and conspiracy theories in the 2009 Influenza pandemic. Journal of International and Global Studies6(2): 1–24.
StrömbäckJBoomgaardenHBrodaE, et al. (2022) From low-choice to high-choice media environments. Implications for knowledge resistance. In: StrömbäckJWikforssÅGlüerK, et al. (eds) Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments. New York: Routledge, 49–68.
55.
StrömbäckJWikforssAGlüerK, et al. (2022) Introduction. Toward understanding knowledge resistance in high-choice information environments. In: StrömbäckJWikforssÅGlüerK, et al. (eds) Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments. New York: Routledge, 1–28.
56.
SudeDKnobloch-WesterwickS (2022) Selective exposure and attention to attitude-consistent and attitude-discrepant information. Reviewing the evidence. In: StrömbäckJWikforssÅGlüerK, et al. (eds) Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments. New York: Routledge, 88–105.
57.
SwamiVVoracekMStiegerS, et al. (2014) Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition133(3): 572–585.
58.
SzewachPReiflerJOscarssonH (2022) Is resistance futile? Citizen knowledge, motivated reasoning, and fact-checking. In: StrömbäckJWikforssÅGlüerK, et al. (eds) Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments. New York: Routledge, 166–186.
59.
SzostekJ (2018) Nothing is true? The credibility of news and conflicting narratives during “Information War” in Ukraine. The international journal of press/politics23(1): 116–135.
TullyMVragaEKBodeL (2020) Designing and testing news literacy messages for social media. Mass Communication & Society23: 22–46.
62.
Van ProoijenJ-W (2020) An existential threat model of conspiracy theories. European Psychologist25(1): 16–25.
63.
VragaEKTullyM (2015) Media literacy messages and hostile media perceptions: processing of nonpartisan versus partisan political information. Mass Communication & Society18: 422–448.
64.
VragaEKTullyMKotcherJE, et al. (2015) A multi-dimensional approach to measuring news media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education7(3): 41–53.
65.
VragaEKTullyMBodeL (2020) Empowering users to respond to misinformation about COVID-19. Media and Communication8(2): 475–479.
XiaoXBorahPSuY (2021) The dangers of blind trust: examining the interplay among social media news use, misinformation identification, and news trust on conspiracy beliefs. Public Understanding of Science30(8): 977–992.
68.
ZacherHRudolphCW (2021) Big Five traits as predictors of perceived stressfulness of the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences175: 110694. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.110694.
69.
ZarocostasJ (2020) How to fight an infodemic?Lancet (London, England)395(10225): 676. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X.
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.
