Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-3
Believing false political headlines and discrediting truthful political headlines: The interaction between news source trust and news content expectancy
An online survey experiment with 897 US adults demonstrated that the level of believability of news headlines about illegal immigration was for a large part the result of an interaction of perceptions about news source trust and news content expectancy. This study was a second, successful attempt to test a theoretical news content believability model to explain correct and wrongful perceptions of reality. A better understanding of how people assess the believability of news would allow educators to fine-tune media literacy modules. There is certainly a need for enhanced media literacy as the participants of the experiment demonstrated that many of them believed news headlines about illegal immigration that contain misinformation.
Ardèvol-AbreuAGil de ZúñigaH (2016) Effects of editorial media bias perception and media trust on the use of traditional, citizen, and social media news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94(2): 703–724.
2.
BaumMAGroelingT (2009) Shot by the messenger: Partisan cues and public opinion regarding national security of war. Political Behavior31(2): 157–186.
3.
BaumMAGussinP (2007) In the eye of the beholder: How information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science3(1): 1–31.
4.
BerganDE (2012) Partisan stereotypes and policy attitudes. Journal of Communication62(6): 1102–1120.
5.
BuhrmesterMKwangTGoslingSD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Studies6(1): 3–5.
6.
ChowGC (1960) Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica28(3): 591–605.
7.
CrawfordJTJussimLMadonS, et al. (2011) The use of stereotypes and individuating information in political person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin37(4): 529–542.
8.
Delli CarpiniMXKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
EaglyAHChaikenSWoodW (1981) An attribution analysis of persuasion. In: HarveyJHIckesWJKiddRF (eds) New Directions in Attribution Research, vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 37–62.
10.
EaglyAHWoodWChaikenS (1978) Causal influences about communicators and their effect on opinion changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41(4): 847–855.
11.
EisingaRTe GrotenhuisMPelzerB (2012) The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach or Spearman-Brown?International Journal of Public Health58(4): 637–642.
12.
FeldmanL (2011) Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: A test of the hostile media effect. Political Behavior33(3): 407–432.
13.
FlanaginAMetzgerM (2000) Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77(3): 515–540.
14.
GuntherAC (1992) Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly56: 147–167.
15.
HeiderF (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
16.
HovlandCIHarveyOJSherifM (1957) Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(2): 244–252.
17.
JonesEEMcGillisD (1976) Correspondent inference and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In: HarveyJHIckesWJKiddRF (eds) New Directions in Attribution Research, vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 389–420.
18.
JonesEEDavisKEGergenKJ (1961) Role playing variations and their information value for person perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology63(2): 302–310.
19.
KelleyHH (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. New York: General Learning Press.
20.
KelleyHH (1973) The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist28(2): 107–128.
21.
KimHSForquerHRuskoJ, et al. (2016) Selective exposure to health information: The role of headline features in the choice of health newsletter articles. Media Psychology19(4): 614–637.
22.
KuklinskiJHQuirkPJJeritJ, et al. (2000) Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics62(3): 790–816.
23.
MeyerP (1988) Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly65(3): 567–574.
24.
MihailidisPCohenJN (2013) Exploring curation as a core competency in digital and media literacy education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Available at: https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2013-02/
25.
MorrisJSFranciaPL (2010) Cable news, public opinion, and the 2004 party conventions. Political Research Quarterly63(4): 834–849.
26.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2010) When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior32(2): 303–330.
27.
PettyREFlemingMAPriesterJR, et al. (2001) Individual versus group interest violation: Surprise as a determinant of argument scrutiny and persuasion. Social Cognition19(4): 418–442.
PriesterJRPettyRE (1995) Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin21(6): 637–654.
30.
RobertsC (2010) Correlations among variables in message and messenger credibility scales. American Behavioral Scientist54(1): 43–56.
31.
RotterJB (1967) A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality35(4): 615–665.
32.
SternthalBPhilipsLWDholakiaR (1978) The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly42(3): 285–314.
33.
ThorsonE (2013) Belief echoes: The lingering effects of corrected misinformation, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
34.
TsfatiY (2003) Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International Journal of Public Opinion Research15(1): 65–82.
35.
TsfatiY (2010) Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: Exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist54(1): 22–42.
36.
ValloneRPRossLLepperMR (1985) The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut Massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology49(3): 577–585.
37.
WestMD (1994) Validating a scale for the measurement of credibility: A covariance structure modeling approach. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly71(1): 159–168.
38.
WilsonEJSherrellDL (1993) Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science21(2): 101–112.
39.
WoodWEaglyAH (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages: The role of causal attributions and message comprehension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40(2): 246–259.
