The rise of mis/disinformation online has turned empirical attention toward the existence and effects of false information for democracy. Yet this work has tended to focus on the effects of mis/disinformation for individual misperceptions rather than interpersonal relationships. In turn, this study looks to explore the relational impact of online mis/disinformation on romantic relationships. Through in-depth interviews (N = 28) with individuals who have terminated romantic relationships due to political difference(s) in the United States, I find that mis/disinformation plays a key role in the termination of romantic relationships, encouraging informational, and relational isolation and disrupting shared reality between partners. These findings advance our understanding of media effects and the growing complication of online mis/disinformation in a polarized society.
AllcottHGentzkowM (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives31(2): 211–236.
2.
BarnidgeMPeacockCKimB, et al. (2023) Networks and selective avoidance: how social media networks influence unfriending and other avoidance behaviors. Social Science Computer Review41(3): 1017–1038.
3.
BernholdQSGilesH (2020) Group-based identity accommodation in older adults’ romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly68(4): 417–437.
4.
ChadwickAVaccariCHallNA (2024) What explains the spread of misinformation in online personal messaging networks? Exploring the role of conflict avoidance. Digital Journalism12(5): 574–593.
5.
DuffyATandocELingR (2020) Too good to be true, too good not to share: the social utility of fake news. Information, Communication & Society23(13): 1965–1979.
6.
EchterhoffGHigginsETLevineJM (2009) Shared reality: experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science4(5): 496–521.
7.
FlaxmanSGoelSRaoJM (2016) Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly80(1): 298–320.
8.
FreelonDMarwickAKreissD (2020) False equivalencies: online activism from left to right. Science369(6508): 1197–1201.
9.
GrayKLAdeyemoB (2021) Not “falling for the okey-doke”:# BlackLivesMatter as resistance to disinformation in online communities. Feminist Media Studies21(5): 868–871.
10.
HechtML (1993) 2002—A research odyssey: toward the development of a communication theory of identity. Communications Monographs60(1): 76–82.
11.
HigginsET (2019) Shared Reality: What Makes Us Strong and Tears Us Apart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
HigginsETRossignac-MilonMEchterhoffG (2021) Shared reality: from sharing-is-believing to merging minds. Current Directions in Psychological Science30(2): 103–110.
13.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
14.
JenningsJStroudNJ (2023) Asymmetric adjustment: partisanship and correcting misinformation on Facebook. New Media & Society25(7): 1501–1521.
15.
KaiserJRauchfleischA (2020) Birds of a feather get recommended together: algorithmic homophily in YouTube’s channel recommendations in the United States and Germany. Social Media+ Society6(4). DOI: 10.1177/2056305120969914.
16.
KaiserJVaccariCChadwickA (2022) Partisan blocking: biased responses to shared misinformation contribute to network polarization on social media. Journal of Communication72(2): 214–240.
17.
KatzELazarsfeldP (1955) Personal Influence. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
18.
LedwichMZaitsevALaukemperA (2022) Radical bubbles on YouTube? Revisiting algorithmic extremism with personalised recommendations. First Monday27(12). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v27i12.12552.
19.
LukerK (2009) Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
MalhotraPPearceK (2022) Facing falsehoods: strategies for polite misinformation correction. International Journal of Communication16: 2303–2324.
21.
MargolinDBHannakAWeberI (2018) Political fact-checking on Twitter: when do corrections have an effect?Political Communication35(2): 196–219.
22.
MastroniLMooneyR (2023) “I one-hundred thousand percent blame it on QAnon”: the impact of QAnon belief on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships41(9): 2478–2499.
23.
MoreyACEvelandWPJr.HutchensMJ (2012) The “who” matters: types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication29(1): 86–103.
24.
MourãoRRThorsonEChenW, et al. (2018) Media repertoires and news trust during the early Trump administration. Journalism Studies19(13): 1945–1956.
25.
O’CallaghanDGreeneDConwayM, et al. (2015) Down the (white) rabbit hole: the extreme right and online recommender systems. Social Science Computer Review33(4): 459–478.
26.
PeacockCPedersonJR (2022) Love and politics: the influence of politically (dis) similar romantic relationships on political participation and relationship satisfaction. Human Communication Research48(4): 567–578.
27.
PenningtonNWinfreyKL (2021) Engaging in political talk on Facebook: investigating the role of interpersonal goals and cognitive engagement. Communication Studies72(1): 100–114.
28.
ReddiMKuoRKreissD (2023) Identity propaganda: racial narratives and disinformation. New Media & Society25(8): 2201–2218.
29.
RossiniPStromer-GalleyJBaptistaEA, et al. (2021) Dysfunctional information sharing on WhatsApp and Facebook: the role of political talk, cross-cutting exposure and social corrections. New Media & Society23(8): 2430–2451.
30.
Tal-OrN (2021) The effects of co-viewers on the viewing experience. Communication Theory31(3): 316–335.
31.
TandocECSeetSK (2024) War of the words: how individuals respond to “fake news,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “online falsehoods.”Journalism Practice18(6): 1503–1519.
32.
TandocECJrLimDLingR (2020) Diffusion of disinformation: how social media users respond to fake news and why. Journalism21(3): 381–398.
33.
TracySJ (2019) Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
34.
Van DuynE (2024) Negotiating news: how cross-cutting romantic partners select, consume, and discuss news together. Political Communication41(2): 224–243.
35.
WarnerBRColanerCWParkJ (2021) Political difference and polarization in the family: the role of (non) accommodating communication for navigating identity differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships38(2): 564–585.
36.
WoolleyKSharifMA (2022) Down a rabbit hole: how prior media consumption shapes subsequent media consumption. Journal of Marketing Research59(3): 453–471.
37.
YangJBarnidgeMRojasH (2017) The politics of “Unfriending”: user filtration in response to political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior70: 22–29.
38.
ZeeuwDDGekkerA (2023) A god-tier LARP? QAnon as conspiracy fictioning. Social Media + Society9(1). DOI: 10.1177/20563051231157300.
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.
