This study investigates the dynamics of audience reception to visual disinformation in the context of the Fukushima nuclear wastewater release on Chinese social media, focusing on the interplay between media richness, manipulation sophistication, and perceived plausibility. Through a comparative frame analysis of four visual modalities – photographs, AI-generated images, edited videos, and 3D animations – from Xiaohongshu, the author explores how varying levels of media richness and manipulation influence emotional engagement and online discourse. The findings reveal that, while high media richness amplifies emotional resonance in low-sophistication visuals, high-sophistication visuals elicit skepticism, particularly when narrative plausibility is compromised. The study introduces the concept of ‘experiential indexicality’ to elucidate how digital visuals shape audience perception, as well as highlighting the nuanced role of historical and cultural contexts, such as anti-Japanese sentiment, in shaping collective engagement. By addressing the limits of audience autonomy in interpreting manipulated visuals, this research contributes to the broader discourse on digital disinformation and its socio-political implications.
AkramW, et al (2022) A bibliometric analysis of disinformation through social media. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies12(1): e12545.
2.
BollmerG (2019) The kinesthetic index: Video games and the body of motion capture. Media, Culture & Society41(4): 486–502.
3.
BoltonRN, et al (2022) Designing satisfying service encounters: Website versus store touchpoints. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science50: 85–107. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-021-00808-9.
4.
BoykoffMTBoykoffJM (2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media covergae. Geoforum38(6): 1190–1204.
5.
BreitsohlLL (2022) Bearing witness in analog and digital witness films: Ethical aesthetics in Shoah (1985) and Waltz with Bashir (2008). Genealogy6(1). DOI: 10.3390/genealogy6010014.
6.
BrennenJSSimonFMNielsenRK (2021) Beyond (mis)representation: Visuals in COVID-19 misinformation. International Journal of Press/Politics26(1): 277–299.
7.
BudakC (2019) ‘What happened? The spread of fake news publisher content during the 2016 U.S. presidential election’, paper presented at the World Wide Web Conference.
8.
CarrollN (2007) The Philosophy of Motion Pictures. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
9.
CinelliM, et al (2020) The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports10(1): 16598.
10.
ChadwickAStanyerJ (2022) Deception as a bridging concept in the study of disinformation, misinformation, and misperceptions: Toward a holistic framework. Communication Theory32(1). DOI: 10.1093/ct/qtab019.
11.
DanV, et al (2021) Visual mis- and disinformation, social media, and democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly98(3): 641–664.
12.
DaviesP (2011) Digital technology, indexicality, and cinema. Rivista di Estetica1(1): 45–58.
13.
DelaTorreC (2017) Populism and nationalism in Latin America. Javnost – The Public24(4): 375–390.
14.
DoornJ (2018) Anger, feelings of revenge, and hate. Emotion Review10(4): 321–322.
15.
DozalL (2023) Mixed methods framework for understanding visual frames in social movements. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(1): 111–120.
16.
DryzekJS (2022) The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
FanWLuS (2023) China seeks to write its own history of battle with Covid-19: Beijing is withholding data, censoring debate as it promotes narrative of triumph on how it handled the virus. The Wall Street Journal, 12April.
18.
FischerA, et al (2018) Why we hate. Emotion Review10(4): 309–320.
19.
GalN (2018) Ironic humor on social media as participatory boundary work. New Media & Society21(3): 729–749.
20.
GaoBHuangL (2019) Smart media audience-type user’s media service acceptance: An empirical research. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Economy, Judicature, Administration and Humanitarian Projects (JAHP 2019).
21.
GeiseS (2017) Visual framing. In: RösslerP (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 1–12.
22.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
GriesPH (2004) China’s New Nationalism: Pride, Politics, and Diplomacy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
GuoJ (2022) The postfeminist entrepreneurial self and the platformisation of labour: A case study of yesheng female lifestyle bloggers on Xiaohongshu. Global Media and China7(3): 303–318.
25.
HeY (2009) The Search for Reconciliation: Sino-Japanese and German–Polish Relations since World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HollebeekLDMackyK (2019) Digital content marketing’s role in fostering consumer engagement, trust, and value: Framework, fundamental propositions, and implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing45(1): 27–41.
27.
HuddyLMasonLAarøeL (2015) Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review109(1). DOI: 10.1017/S0003055414000604.
28.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Chichester: Macmillan.
29.
KaptanY (2021) ‘Down-to-earth tv dramas’: The reception of authenticity, reality, and modality in Danish TV dramas. Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies16(4): 375–393.
30.
Kardefelt-WintherD (2017) How does the time children spend using digital technology impact their mental well-being, social relationships and physical activity? An evidence-focused literature review. UNICEF.
31.
KileyCWUsreyWM (2022) Cortical processing of visual signals. In: PfaffDW (ed.) Neuroscience in the 21st Century: From Basic to Clinical. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 1055–1074.
32.
LakoffG (2008) The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics. Penguin Press.
33.
LiuL (2021) Prisms of pathos: Environmental memes as a public rhetorical strategy in the example of haze-related duanzi in china. Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference on Social Science and Contemporary Humanity Development.
34.
LivingstoneS (2013) The participation paradigm in audience research. The Communication Review16(1-2): 21–30.
35.
MaibachEWNisbetMBaldwinPAkerlofKDiaoG (2010) Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health10: 1–11.
36.
Maldonado-RomoMMRojasCGonzálezA (2021) The role of social media in the spread of misinformation: A study of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Information Management57: 102–112.
37.
McIntyreL (2018) Post-truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
McQuailD (2010) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. London: SAGE.
39.
MessarisP (1996) Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. London: SAGE.
40.
MessarisPAbrahamL (2001) The role of images in framing news stories. In: ReeseSD, et al (eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. London: Routledge, 231–242.
41.
MillerDCHoughtonDJHoughtonRJ (2022) Integrating truth bias and elaboration likelihood to understand how political polarisation impacts disinformation engagement on social media. Information Systems Journal32(3): 456–482.
MyersSL (2020) China spins tale that the U.S. army started the coronavirus epidemic. The New York Times, 13March.
44.
MyersSLMozurP (2019) China is waging a disinformation war against Hong Kong protesters. The New York Times, 13August.
45.
NabiRL (2003) Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference?Communication Research30(2): 224–247.
46.
NightingaleSJFaridH (2022) AI-synthesized faces are indistinguishable from real faces and more trustworthy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119(8): e2120481119.
NishimotoS, et al (2011). Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies. Current Biology21(19): 1641–1646.
49.
NwabuezeCOkonkwoE (2018) Rethinking the bullet theory in the digital age. International Journal of Media, Journalism and Mass Communications4(2). DOI: 10.20431/2454-9479.04020011-10.
50.
OkonPEEkpangJE (2021) The 2019 Nigerian presidential elections and the resurgence of the magic bullet theory of media effect. International Journal of Communication and Society3(2): 52–62.
Pascual-LeoneA, et al (2013) Problem anger in psychotherapy: An emotion-focused perspective on hate, rage, and rejecting anger. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy43(2): 83–92.
56.
PeirceCS (1974) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
PowellTE, et al (2015) A clearer picture: The contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of Communication65(6): 997–1017.
58.
ReevesBNassC (1996) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People. Cambridge: Centre for the Study of Language and Information, Cambridge University Press.
59.
ReynaJHanhamJMeierP (2018) The Internet explosion, digital media principles and implications to communicate effectively in the digital space. E-Learning and Digital Media15(1): 36–52.
60.
RhodesSC (2022) Filter bubbles, echo chambers and fake news: How social media conditions individuals to be less critical of political misinformation. Political Communication39(1). DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2021.1910887.
61.
RietveldRVan DolenWMazloomMWorringM (2020) What you feel, is what you like Influence of message appeals on customer engagement on instagram. Journal of Interactive Marketing49(1): 20–53.
62.
RodriguezLDimitrovaDV (2011) The levels of visual framing. Journal of Visual Literacy30(1): 48–65.
63.
RoyyantiDAKusumaAS (2023) Reception analysis of overseas students against family conflict in ‘Ngeri-Ngeri Sedap’ movie. Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities12: 373–380.
64.
Rúa-HidalgoI, et al (2021) Understanding the emotional impact of GIFs on Instagram through consumer neuroscience. Behavioral Sciences11(8): 108.
65.
SamoilenkoSASuvorovaI (2023) Artificial intelligence and deepfakes in strategic deception campaigns: The US and Russian experiences. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Malicious Use of AI and Psychological Security. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 507–529.
66.
SeverinWJTankardJW (2001) Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. New York, NY: Longman.
67.
ShaputraAHidayatRPutraA (2023) How media richness and interactivity in hotel visualization hotel booking intention in online travel agency applications?Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies5(1): 1–12.
68.
ShethJNSharmaAIyerGR (2019) Cognitive services and intelligent chatbots: Current perspectives and Special Issue introduction. IEEE Internet Computing23(1): 6–10.
69.
SoaresF (2022) Systematic disinformation: The spread of misleading information as a collective dynamic on twitter. Brazilian Creative Industries Journal2(1): 5–26.
70.
SuLLiX (2020) Perceived agenda-setting effect in international context: Impact of media coverage on american audience’s perception of China. International Communication Gazette83(7): 708–729.
71.
SundarS (2008) The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (eds) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 73–100.
72.
ThomsonT, et al (2020) Visual mis/disinformation in journalism and public communications: Current verification practices, challenges, and future opportunities. Journalism Practice16(5): 938–962.
73.
TsfatiY (2010) Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: Exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist54(1): 22–42.
74.
TsfatiY, et al (2020) Causes and consequences of mainstream media dissemination of fake news: Literature review and synthesis. Annals of the International Communication Association44(2): 157–173.
75.
TweedieJ (2018) Moving Pictures, Still Lives: Film, New Media, and the Late Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
76.
VaccariCChadwickA (2020) Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media + Society6(1): 1–13.
77.
WangS, et al (2022) Disinformation: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health19(24). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192416849.
78.
WeikmannTLechelerS (2023) Visual disinformation in a digital age: A literature synthesis and research agenda. New Media & Society25(12): 3696–3713.
79.
WischmannL (1987) Dying on the front page: Kent State and the Pulitzer Prize. Journal of Mass Media Ethics2: 67–74.
80.
WuX (2021) A qualitative analysis on Xiaohongshu: Conspicuous consumption, gender, social media algorithms and surveillance. Department of Communication and New Media, MacMaster University, Masters thesis.
81.
XiangY (2023) Visual hegemony and resistance: A multimodal critical discourse analysis of ‘Covid-19 Hero’ on Chinese social media. In: VenetiARoviscoM (eds) Visual Politics in the Global South. Chichester: Palgrave Macmillan.
ZhaoS (1998) A state-led nationalism: The patriotic education campaign in post-Tiananmen China. Communist and Post-Communist Studies31(3): 287–302.
84.
ZhaoXXiangY (2022) Using disparagement humour to deal with health misinformation endorsers: A case study of China’s Shuanghuanglian oral liquid incident. In: Fowler-Watt K and McDougall J (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Media Misinformation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 179–190.
