Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-1
Distributed Discovery of News and Perceived Misinformation Exposure: A Cross-Continent Application of the Resilience to Online Disinformation Framework
Perceived misinformation exposure (PME) among citizens is a global phenomenon and a normative concern because it can lead to reduced trust and faith in democratic institutions, actors, and processes. Using secondary data from multiple sources, this study analyzed individuals’ online news habits across forty-six countries in six continents (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia: N = 91,061) and country-level factors from the resilience to online disinformation framework that shape the relationship between distributed discovery of news and PME. Multilevel analyses showed that increased incidental news exposure and searching for news online at the individual level and news sharing on social media at the country level increased PME while aggregate media trust reduced PME. Cross-level interactions also indicated that higher levels of public service media in a country attenuated the relationship between online news search and PME, exhibiting what we call soft resilience. This study demonstrates the theoretical utility of the resilience to disinformation framework and certain country-level factors that can affect the individual-level dynamics of news consumption and PME.
AllcottH.GentzkowM.. 2017. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” Journal of Economic Perspectives31(2):211–36. doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211.
2.
ArifN.Al-JefriM.BizziI. H.PeranoG. B.GoldmanM.HaqI.ChuaK. L.MengozziM.NeunezM.SmithH.GhezziP.. 2018. “Fake News or Weak Science? Visibility and Characterization of Antivaccine Webpages Returned by Google in Different Languages and Countries.” Front Immunol9:1215. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.01215.
3.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY.. 1995. “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)57(1):289–300. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.
4.
BennettW. L.LivingstonS.. 2018. “The Disinformation Order: Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions.” European Journal of Communication33(2):122–39. doi:10.1177/0267323118760317.
5.
BoulianneS.LeeS.. 2022. “Conspiracy Beliefs, Misinformation, Social Media Platforms, and Protest Participation.” Media and Communication10(4):30–41. doi:10.17645/mac.v10i4.5667.
6.
CastroL.StrömbäckJ.EsserF.Van AelstP.de VreeseC.AalbergT.CardenalA. S.CorbuN.HopmannD. N.Koc-MichalskaK.MatthesJ.SchemerC.SheaferT.SplendoreS.StanyerJ.StepinskaA.ŠtětkaV.TheocharisY.. 2021. “Navigating High-choice European Political Information Environments: A Comparative Analysis of News User Profiles and Political Knowledge.” The International Journal of Press/Politics27:827–59. doi:10.1177/19401612211012572.
7.
CourchesneL.IlhardtJ.ShapiroJ. N.. 2021. “Review of Social Science Research on the Impact of Countermeasures Against Influence Operations.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review2(5): 1–17. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-79.
DebrettM.2009. “Riding the Wave: Public Service Television in the Multi-Platform Era.” Media, Culture & Society31(5):807–27. doi:10.1177/0163443709339466.
10.
EgelhoferJ. L.LechelerS.. 2019. “Fake News as a Two-Dimensional Phenomenon: A Framework and Research Agenda.” Annals of the International Communication Association43(2):97–116. doi:10.1080/23808985.2019.1602782.
11.
FraileM.IyengarS.. 2014. “Not All News Sources Are Equally Informative.” The International Journal of Press/Politics19(3):275–94. doi:10.1177/1940161214528993.
12.
GorwaR.BinnsR.KatzenbachC.. 2020. “Algorithmic Content Moderation: Technical and Political Challenges in the Automation of Platform Governance.” Big Data & Society7(1): 205395171989794. doi:10.1177/2053951719897945.
13.
HallP. A.LamontM.. 2013. “Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era.” In Social Resilience in the Neo-Liberal Era, eds. HallP. A.LamontM., 1–31. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
HameleersM.2020. “Populist Disinformation: Exploring Intersections between Online Populism and Disinformation in the US and the Netherlands.” Politics and Governance8(1):146–57. doi:10.17645/pag.v8i1.2478.
15.
HeisigJ. P.SchaefferM.. 2019. “Why You Should Always Include a Random Slope for the Lower-Level Variable Involved in a Cross-Level Interaction.” European Sociological Review35(2):258–79. doi:10.1093/esr/jcy053.
16.
Himelein-WachowiakM.GiorgiS.DevotoA.RahmanM.UngarL.SchwartzH. A.EpsteinD. H.LeggioL.CurtisB.. 2021. “Bots and Misinformation Spread on Social Media: Implications for COVID-19.” J Med Internet Res23(5):e26933. doi:10.2196/26933.
17.
HolbertR. L.ParkE.. 2020. “Conceptualizing, Organizing, and Positing Moderation in Communication Research.” Communication theory30(3):227–46. doi:10.1093/ct/qtz006.
18.
HorowitzM.CushionS.DragomirM.Gutiérrez ManjónS.PanttiM.. 2021. “A Framework for Assessing the Role of Public Service Media Organizations in Countering Disinformation.” Digital Journalism10(5):843–65. doi:10.1080/21670811.2021.1987948.
19.
HumprechtE.EsserF.Van AelstP.. 2020. “Resilience to Online Disinformation: A Framework for Cross-National Comparative Research.” The International Journal of Press/Politics25(3):493–516. doi:10.1177/1940161219900126.
20.
Jones-JangS. M.KimD. H.KenskiK.. 2020. “Perceptions of Mis- or Disinformation Exposure Predict Political Cynicism: Evidence From a Two-Wave Survey During the 2018 US Midterm Elections.” New Media & Society23(10):3105–25. doi:10.1177/1461444820943878.
21.
JostP. J.PünderJ.Schulze-LohoffI.. 2020. “Fake News - Does Perception Matter More Than the Truth?” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics85:101513. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2020.101513.
22.
KlingerU.SvenssonJ.. 2015. “The Emergence of Network Media Logic in Political Communication: A Theoretical Approach.” New Media & Society17(8):1241–57. doi:10.1177/1461444814522952.
23.
LeeA. M.2015. “Social Media and Speed-Driven Journalism: Expectations and Practices.” International Journal on Media Management17(4):217–39. doi:10.1080/14241277.2015.1107566.
24.
LeeS.Gil de ZúñigaH.MungerK.. 2023. “Antecedents and Consequences of Fake News Exposure: A Two-Panel Study on How News Use and Different Indicators of Fake News Exposure Affect Media Trust.” Human Communication Research49:408–20. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqad019.
25.
LuY.LeeJ. K.. 2019. “Stumbling Upon the Other Side: Incidental Learning of Counter-Attitudinal Political Information on Facebook.” New Media & Society21(1):248–65. doi:10.1177/1461444818793421.
26.
MasonL.2018. “Ideologues Without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities” Public Opinion Quarterly82(1):280–301.
27.
MatthesJ.CorbuN.JinS.TheocharisY.SchemerC.van AelstP.StrömbäckJ.Koc-MichalskaK.EsserF.AalbergT.CardenalA. S.CastroL.de VreeseC.HopmannD.SheaferT.SplendoreS.StanyerJ.StępińskaA.ŠtětkaV.ZoiznerA. (2022). Perceived prevalence of misinformation fuels worries about COVID-19: A cross-country, multi-method investigation. Information, Communication & Society, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2022.2146983
28.
MinS. J.WohnD. Y.. 2018. “All the News That You Don’t Like: Cross-Cutting Exposure and Political Participation in the Age of Social Media”. Computers in Human Behavior83:24–31. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.015.
NorrisP.2020. “Measuring Populism Worldwide”. Party Politics26(6):697–717. doi:10.1177/1354068820927686.
32.
Oeldorf-HirschA.2018. “The Role of Engagement in Learning From Active and Incidental News Exposure on Social Media.” Mass Communication and Society21(2):225–47. doi:10.1080/15205436.2017.1384022.
33.
OgnyanovaK.LazerD.RobertsonR. E.WilsonC.. 2020. “Misinformation in Action: Fake News Exposure is Linked to Lower Trust in Media, Higher Trust in Government When Your Side is in Power.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review1(4):1–19. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-024.
34.
OsmundsenM.BorA.VahlstrupP. B.BechmannA.PetersenM. B.. 2021. “Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter.” American Political Science Review115(3):999–1015. doi:10.1017/s0003055421000290.
35.
ParkC. S.Gil de ZúñigaH.. 2020. “Learning About Politics From Mass Media and Social Media: Moderating Roles of Press Freedom and Public Service Broadcasting in 11 Countries.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research33:315–35. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edaa021.
36.
PennycookG.RandD. G.. 2021. “The Psychology of Fake News.” Trends Cogn Sci25(5):388–402. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007.
37.
QuiringO.ZiegeleM.SchemerC.JackobN.JakobsI.SchultzT.. 2021. “Constructive Skepticism, Dysfunctional Cynicism? Skepticism and Cynicism Differently Determine Generalized Media Trust.” International Journal of Communication15:3497–3518.
38.
RossiniP.Mont’AlverneC.KalogeropoulosA.. 2023. “Explaining Beliefs in Electoral Misinformation in the 2022 Brazilian Election: The Role of Ideology, Political Trust, Social Media, and Messaging Apps.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review4(3):1–16. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-115.
39.
SchäferS.2023. “Incidental News Exposure in a Digital Media Environment: A Scoping Review of Recent Research.” Annals of the International Communication Association47(2):242–60. doi:10.1080/23808985.2023.2169953.
40.
SindermannC.CooperA.MontagC.. 2020. “A Short Review on Susceptibility to Falling for Fake Political News.” Curr Opin Psychol36:44–8. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.014.
41.
SinghK.LimaG.ChaM.ChaC.KulshresthaJ.AhnY. Y.VarolO.. 2022. “Misinformation, Believability, and Vaccine Acceptance Over 40 Countries: Takeaways From the Initial Phase of the COVID-19 Infodemic.” PloS one17(2):e0263381. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263381.
42.
StoeckelF.CarterC.LyonsB. A.ReiflerJ.. 2022. “The Politics of Vaccine Hesitancy in Europe.” Eur J Public Health32(4):636–42. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckac041.
43.
StroudN. J.2010. “Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure.” Journal of Communication60(3):556–76. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.
44.
StubenvollM.HeissR.MatthesJ.. 2021. “Media Trust Under Threat: Antecedents and Consequences of Misinformation Perceptions on Social Media.” International Journal of Communication15: 2765–86.
45.
TandocE. C.2019. “The Facts of Fake News: A Research Review.” Sociology Compass13(9):1–9. doi:10.1111/soc4.12724.
46.
ToffB.NielsenR. K.. 2018. “I Just Google It”: Folk Theories of Distributed Discovery.” Journal of Communication68(3):636–57. doi:10.1093/joc/jqy009.
47.
Van AelstP.StrömbäckJ.AalbergT.EsserF.de VreeseC.MatthesJ.HopmannD.SalgadoS.HubéN.StępińskaA.PapathanassopoulosS.BerganzaR.LegnanteG.ReinemannC.SheaferT.StanyerJ.. 2017. “Political Communication in a High-Choice Media Environment: A Challenge For Democracy?” Annals of the International Communication Association41(1):3–27. doi:10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551.
48.
van KesselS.SajuriaJ.Van HauwaertS. M.. 2020. “Informed, Uninformed or Misinformed? A Cross-National Analysis of Populist Party Supporters Across European Democracies.” West European Politics44(3):585–610. doi:10.1080/01402382.2019.1700448.
49.
VragaE. K.TullyM.. 2019. “News Literacy, Social Media Behaviors, and Skepticism Toward Information on Social Media.” Information, Communication & Society24(2):150–66. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2019.1637445.
WassermanH.Madrid-MoralesD.. 2019. “An Exploratory Study of ‘Fake News’ and Media Trust in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa.” African Journalism Studies40(1):107–23. doi:10.1080/23743670.2019.1627230.
52.
WeeksB. E.Gil de ZúñigaH.. 2019. “What’s Next? Six Observations for the Future of Political Misinformation Research.” American Behavioral Scientist65(2):277–89. doi:10.1177/0002764219878236.
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.
