Disinformation has become one of the most substantial problems in modern societies. This research aims to analyze the reception of disinformation shared in digital platforms, its effects on citizens, and the formulas to combat disinformation in the context of COVID-19, as well as the sociodemographic and political factors that determine them. An online survey (n = 2803) was developed for citizens of Spain, the U.S., Brazil, and India. Results show that disinformation had a moderate effect on the users’ attitudes, generating an increase in mistrust towards the media and politicians and an increase in belief in conspiracy theories.
Aleixandre-BenaventRCastelló-CogollosLJuan-CarlosV-Z (2020) Información y comunicación durante los primeros meses de Covid-19. Infodemia, desinformación y papel de los profesionales de la información. Profesional de la Información29(4): 1–17. DOI: 10.3145/epi.2020.jul.08.
2.
AllcottHGentzkowM (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. The Journal of Economic Perspectives31(2): 211–236. DOI: 10.1257/jep.31.2.211.
3.
AllingtonDDuffyBWesselyS, et al. (2021) Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychological Medicine51(10): 1763–1769. DOI: 10.1017/S003329172000224X.
4.
AmazeenMABucyEP (2019) Conferring resistance to digital disinformation: the inoculating influence of procedural news knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media63(3): 415–432. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2019.1653101.
5.
AndersdotterK (2017) Fatti alternativi e fake news: La verificabilità nella società dell’informazione. AIB Studi57(1): 5–6. DOI: 10.2426/aibstudi-11618.
6.
BabbieE (2004) The Practice of Social Research. 10th edition. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
7.
BallPMaxmenA (2020) The epic battle against coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy teories. Nature581(7809): 371–375. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-01452-z.
8.
BaruaZBaruaSAktarS, et al. (2020) Effects of misinformation on COVID-19 individual responses and recommendations for resilience of disastrous consequences of misinformation. Progress in Disaster Science8: 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100119.
9.
BastickZ (2021) Would you notice if fake news changed your behavior? An experiment on the unconscious effects of disinformation. Computers in Human Behavior116: 106633.
10.
BerkowitzDSchwartzDA (2016) Miley, CNN and the onion: when fake news becomes realer than real. Journalism Practice10(1): 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2015.1006933.
11.
CalvilloDPRossBJGarcíaRJB, et al. (2020) Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science11(8): 1119–1128. DOI: 10.1177/1948550620940539.
12.
Casero-RipollésA (2020) Impact of Covid-19 on the media system. Communicative and democratic consequences of news consumption during the outbreak. Profesional de la Información29(2): 23. DOI: 10.3145/epi.2020.mar.23.
13.
Casero-RipollésADoménech-FabregatHAlonso-MuñozL (2023) Perceptions of Spanish citizens about disinformation in times of COVID-19: effects and mechanisms to fight against false news. Revista ICONO 14. Revista Científica de Comunicación y Tecnologías Emergentes21(1): 1988. DOI: 10.7195/ri14.v21i1.1988.
14.
ChuaAYKBanerjeeS (2018) Intentions to trust and share online health rumors: an experiment with medical professionals. Computers in Human Behavior87: 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.021.
15.
ClaytonKSpencerBBusamJA, et al. (2020) Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact- check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behavior42: 1073–1095. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0.
16.
DhananiLYFranzB (2020) The role of news consumption and trust in public health leadership in shaping COVID-19 knowledge and prejudici. Frontiers in Psychology2812: 560828. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.560828.
17.
DuboisEMinaeianSPaquet-LabelleA, et al. (2020) Who to trust on social media: how opinion leaders and seekers avoid disinformation and echo Chambers. Social Media + Society6(2): 1–13. DOI: 10.1177/2056305120913993.
18.
Duc-HuynhTL (2020) The COVID-19 risk perception: a survey on socioeconomics and media attention. Economics Bulletin40(1): 758–764.
19.
DuplagaM (2020) The determinants of conspiracy beliefs related to the COVID-19 pandemic in a nationally representative sample of internet users. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17(21): 7818. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17217818.
European Commission (2018) A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation. In: Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
23.
FischerTB (2018) Editorial: IA, alternative facts and fake news–Is the post-factual turn starting to turn?Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal36(2): 129–130. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1426846.
24.
García-BorregoMCasero-RipollésA (2022) ¿Qué nos hace vulnerables frente las noticias falsas sobre la COVID-19? Una revisión crítica de los factores que condicionan la susceptibilidad a la desinformación. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico28(4): 789–801. DOI: 10.5209/esmp.82881.
25.
GreenspanRLLoftusEF (2021) Pandemics and infodemics: research on the effects of misinformation on memory. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies3(1): 8–12. DOI: 10.1002/hbe2.228.
26.
HallinDCPaoloM (2004) Comparing Media Systems. Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HuntingtonS (1994) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
28.
KricorianKCivenREquilsO (2022) COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: misinformation and perceptions of vaccine safety. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics18(1): 1950504. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1950504.
29.
LarsonHJ (2020) Blocking information on COVID-19 can fuel the spread of misinformation. Nature580(7803): 306–307.
30.
LauLLHungNJoy GoD, et al. (2020) Knowledge, attitudes and practices of COVID-19 among income-poor households in the Philippines: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Global Health10(1): 011007. DOI: 10.7189/jogh.10.011007.
31.
LeeJJKangK-AWangMP, et al. (2020) Associations between COVID-19 misinformation exposure and belief with COVID-19 knowledge and preventive behaviors: cross-sectional online study. Journal of Medical Internet Research22(11): e22205. DOI: 10.2196/22205.
32.
LeónBMartínez-CostaM-PSalaverríaR, et al. (2022) Health and science-related disinformation on COVID-19: a content analysis of hoaxes identified by fact-checkers in Spain. PLoS One17(4): 0265995. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265995.
33.
LevyN (2017) The bad news about fake news. Social epistemology review and reply collective6(8): 20–36.
McCargoD (2012) Partisan polyvalenceComparing Media Systems beyond the Western World Editeb by Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 201–223.
36.
McCormackLASquiersLFrasierAM, et al. (2021) Gaps in knowledge about COVID-19 among US residents early in the outbreak. Public Health Reports136(1): 107–116. DOI: 10.1177/0033354920970182.
37.
Moreno-CastroCVengut-ClimentECano-OrónL, et al. (2021) Exploratory study of the hoaxes spread via WhatsApp in Spain to prevent and/or cure COVID-19. Gaceta Sanitaria35(6): 534–541. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.07.008.
38.
NewmanNFletcherRSchulzA, et al. (2021) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
39.
OleartÁBouzaL (2022) El debate transatlántico sobre la definición y actuación ante la ‘desinformación’: una agenda de investigación. AdComunica23: 51–74. DOI: 10.6035/adcomunica.6357.
40.
Pauner-ChulviC (2018) Fake news and freedom of expression and information. The control of information contents on the network. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional41: 297–318.
41.
PorterSBellhouseSMcDougallA, et al. (2010) A prospective investigation of the vulnerability of memory for positive and negative emotional scenes to the misinformation effect. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement42(1): 55–61. DOI: 10.1037/a0016652.
42.
PriorM (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
PrzeworskiAHenryT (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: John Wiley.
44.
RomerDJamiesonKH (2021) Patterns of media use, strength of belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and the prevention of COVID-19 from March to July 2020 in the United States: survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research23(4): e25215. DOI: 10.2196/25215.
45.
RoozenbeekJSchneiderCRDryhurstS, et al. (2020) Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science7(10): 201199. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.201199.
46.
RosenbergHSyedSRezaieS (2020) The Twitter pandemic: the critical role of Twitter in the dis-semination of medical information and misinformation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine22(4): 418–421. DOI: 10.1017/cem.2020.361.
47.
Rúas-AraújoJPérez-CurielCCarlos López-LópezP (2020) New challenges and threats for journalism in the post-truth era: fact-checking and the fake news combat. In: Toural-BranCVizosoÁPérez-SeijoS, et al. (eds) Information Visualization in the Era of Innovative Journalism. UK: Routledge, 154–160.
48.
SádabaCSalaverríaR (2023) Combatir la desinformación con alfabetización mediática: análisis de las tendencias en la Unión Europea. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social81: 17–33. DOI: 10.4185/RLCS-2023-1552.
49.
SchaewitzLFlanaginAJHossT, et al. (2023) Social sharing of political disinformation: effects of tie strength, message valence, and corrective information on evaluations of political figures. Western Journal of Communication87(2): 173–195. DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2022.2100471.
50.
SeawrightJGerringJ (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly61(2): 294–308. DOI: 10.1177/1065912907313077.
51.
SouthwellBGNiederdeppeJCappellaJN, et al. (2019) Misinformation as a mis-understood challenge to public Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine57(2): 282–285. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.009.
StraußNAlonso-MuñozLZúñigaHG (2020) Bursting the filter bubble: the mediating effect of discussion frequency on network heterogeneity. Online Information Review44(6): 1161–1181. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-11-2019-0345.
54.
SunsteinCR (2006) Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
SunsteinCR (2009) Republic.com 2.0. New York: Princeton University Press.
56.
TambiniD (2017) Fake news: public policy responses. In: TambiniDGoodmanE (eds) LSE Media Policy Project Series (Media Policy Brief 20). London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.
57.
TandocECLimZWLingR (2018) Defining fake news. Digital Journalism6(2): 137–153. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143.
58.
Tuñón-NavarroJSánchez-del-VasR (2022) Verificación: ¿la cuadratura del círculo contra la desinformación y las noticias falsas?AdComunica23: 75–95. DOI: 10.6035/adcomunica.6347.
59.
VaraAAmoedoAMorenoE, et al. (2022) Digital News Report España 2022. Pamplona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra.
60.
Vázquez-HerreroJVizosoÁLópez-GarcíaX (2019) Innovación tecnológica y comunicativa para combatir la desinformación: 135 experiencias para un cambio de rumbo. Profesional de la Información28(3): 1. DOI: 10.3145/epi.2019.may.01.
WasonPC (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology12(3): 129–140. DOI: 10.1080/17470216008416717.
WittenbergCBerinskyAJ (2020) Misinformation and its correction. In: PersilyNTuckerJA (eds) Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform. UK: Cambridge University Press, 163–198.
65.
ZhenLYanBTangJL, et al. (2023) Social network dynamics, bots, and community-based online misinformation spread: lessons from anti-refugee and COVID-19 misinformation cases. The Information Society39(1): 17–34. DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2022.2139031.
