University of Kwazulu-Natal

The Consequences Of Misinformation Concern On Media Consumption

Bonisiwe Shabane
-
the consequences of misinformation concern on media consumption

For the last decade, policymakers, journalists, and scientists have continued to alert us of the threat of misinformation for making sound decisions in the political, health, and environmental domains. In this study, we evaluate whether perceiving misinformation as a threat affects media use, particularly considering selection of media sources that are politically aligned. We show which groups are more likely to be concerned about misinformation and find experimental and correlational evidence of an impact of concern on greater use of politically aligned sources among Democrats. We also found no evidence that perceiving higher ability to detect misinformation decreases this association. Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, USA Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, USA Misinformation concern, or worry around misinformation prevalence or impact, varies across demographic groups and does not always correspond to the reality of misinformation prevalence. Although concern may encourage people to seek accuracy, which is valuable (e.g., Rathje et al., 2023; Pennycook et al., 2021), a high level of concern may not be on par with the reality of... For example, according to Jungherr and Rauchfleisch (2022), exposure to common journalistic coverage of misinformation, labeled as “alarmist discourse,” or reporting that is out of proportion with reality (see Carlson, 2020, for more on... However, up to this point, knowledge about the potential negative effects of concern with misinformation is rather limited. One important finding is that exposure to misinformation and a media emphasis on misinformation prevalence decreases trust in the media (Ognyanova et al., 2020).

However, actual information-seeking outcomes, such as implications for use of media sources, have not been ascertained. A new study from Annenberg researchers evaluates whether perceiving misinformation as a threat influences how partisan Americans’ media consumption is. Most Americans are aware of fake news and misinformation. In a new study, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania sought to uncover whether the threat of misinformation drives Americans to seek out news sources that reflect their own political beliefs. The study, published in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, found that Democrats, older individuals, and those with higher education levels are more concerned about misinformation in general and that, compared to Republicans, Democrats,... Through analyses of nationally representative surveys of American adults, the researchers, led by Dolores Albarracín, the Amy Gutmann Penn Integrates Knowledge University Professor and Director of the Division of Communication Science at the Annenberg...

“When under threat, humans do not always seek information in an optimal way,” says lead author Elizabeth Harris, formerly the William J. Henrich Postdoctoral Fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center. “In an ideal world, people who are worried about misinformation would use a broad range of sources to cross-reference any information they find. We wanted to see if people avoid out-party news sources when worried about misinformation.” Furthermore, social media organizations need to provide corrections to misinformation and point out that information may be wrong or misleading. Second, the findings highlight the importance of media literacy education (Chen et al., 2022; Fendt et al., 2023).

These media literacy programs should promote critical thinking skills and provide concrete strategies and techniques individuals can deploy for fact-checking and verifying information. The Partisan Pull of Misinformation Concerns: How Worry About Fake News Shapes Media Consumption The digital age has ushered in an era of unprecedented information access, but it has also unleashed a torrent of misinformation, leaving many Americans grappling with the challenge of discerning truth from falsehood. A new study from the University of Pennsylvania delves into the complex relationship between concerns about misinformation and media consumption habits, revealing a partisan divide in how individuals respond to the threat of fake... The research, published in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, sheds light on the unintended consequences of heightened misinformation awareness, suggesting that simply raising alarm bells may exacerbate existing partisan divides in media consumption. The study, led by Dolores Albarracín, a distinguished professor at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, employed a series of nationally representative surveys to gauge Americans’ concerns about misinformation and their subsequent media choices.

The surveys, conducted over a year, involved over 1,000 American adults, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Participants reported their level of concern regarding misinformation, provided demographic information, indicated their political affiliation, and detailed their media consumption habits. The research team meticulously analyzed these responses, considering the partisan leanings of various media sources and how these interacted with participants’ demographics and political affiliations. The findings reveal a concerning trend: while both Democrats and Republicans primarily consume mainstream media, Democrats exhibiting higher levels of concern about misinformation are more likely to gravitate towards liberal-leaning media sources. This suggests that the fear of encountering false information may inadvertently push individuals towards echo chambers, reinforcing pre-existing beliefs rather than fostering a broader understanding of diverse perspectives. Surprisingly, an individual’s confidence in their ability to distinguish between accurate and fake news did not significantly influence their propensity to seek out partisan media.

This partisan divide in media consumption patterns underscores the complexities of combating misinformation. While raising awareness about the prevalence of fake news is crucial, the study suggests that it may not be sufficient and could even backfire by exacerbating partisan polarization. Simply alerting individuals to the presence of misinformation without providing them with the tools and strategies to critically evaluate information may inadvertently drive them towards partisan sources perceived as aligned with their own political... Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 February 2025 Exposure to misinformation can affect citizens’ beliefs, political preferences, and compliance with government policies. However, little is known about how to durably reduce susceptibility to misinformation, particularly in the Global South.

We evaluate an intervention in South Africa that encouraged individuals to consume biweekly fact-checks—as text messages or podcasts—via WhatsApp for six months. Sustained exposure to these fact-checks induced substantial internalization of fact-checked content, while increasing participants’ ability to discern new political and health misinformation upon exposure—especially when fact-check consumption was financially incentivized. Fact-checks that could be quickly consumed via short text messages or via podcasts with empathetic content were most effective. We find limited effects on news consumption choices or verification behavior, but still observe changes in political attitudes and COVID-19-related behaviors. These results demonstrate that sustained exposure to fact-checks can inoculate citizens against future misinformation, but highlight the difficulty of inducing broader behavioral changes relating to media usage. Misinformation about politics, social issues, and public health is a growing concern.

Such content—defined by its potential to generate misperceptions about the true state of the world—encourages beliefs and behaviors that are potentially harmful for both individuals and societies at large (Kuklinski et al. Reference Kuklinski, Quirk, Jerit, Schwieder and Rich2000; Nyhan Reference Nyhan2020). Across the globe, the spread of misinformation on social media has been linked with citizens’ distrust in politics and unwillingness to comply with government policies (Argote et al. Reference Argote, Barham, Daly, Gerez, Marshall and Pocasangre2021; Berlinski et al. Reference Berlinski, Doyle, Guess, Levy, Lyons, Montgomery and Nyhan2023). By fueling ideological divides and increasing political polarization (Tucker et al.

Reference Tucker, Guess, Barberá, Vaccari, Siegel, Sanovich and Stukal2018), exposure to misinformation may have contributed to events such as the 2020 Capitol Hill riots and Brexit. In the Global South, where citizens are especially reliant on closed platforms like WhatsApp for information (Pereira et al. Reference Pereira, Bueno, Nunes and Pavão2024), misinformation has been linked to lynchings and mass electoral mobilization in India and racial violence in South Africa (Allen Reference Allen2021; Badrinathan Reference Badrinathan2021). Interventions to limit the potential impact of misinformation most frequently engage in debunking or prebunking (Blair et al. Reference Blair, Gottlieb, Nyhan, Paler, Argote and Stainfield2024). Debunking facilitates learning through retroactively correcting specific pieces of misinformation, often by explaining why it is false and providing an alternative explanation (Nyhan and Reifler Reference Nyhan and Reifler2015).

Prebunking, which is closely connected to inoculation theory (Cook, Lewandowsky, and Ecker Reference Cook, Lewandowsky and Ecker2017), entails warning individuals about the threat of misinformation through examples and preemptively providing knowledge to help them... Both prebunking (e.g., Guess et al. Reference Guess, Lerner, Lyons, Montgomery, Nyhan, Reifler and Sircar2020; Pereira et al. Reference Pereira, Bueno, Nunes and Pavão2024; Roozenbeek and Van der Linden Reference Roozenbeek and Van der Linden2019) and debunking (e.g., Henry, Zhuravskaya, and Guriev Reference Henry, Zhuravskaya and Guriev2022; Nyhan et al. Reference Nyhan, Porter, Reifler and Wood2020; Wood and Porter Reference Wood and Porter2019) have been shown to increase skepticism of misinformation. Sustained exposure to fact-checks—one popular method of combating misinformation—leverages complementarities between debunking and prebunking.

Fact-checking most obviously debunks by informing citizens about particular false (and true) claims. But, more generally, repeated engagement with fact-checks should also prebunk by increasing general awareness of misinformation, explaining the logic behind common forms of misinformation, and demonstrating information verification strategies. As a result, fact-checking potentially limits the harmful consequences of misinformation both by shaping citizens’ discernment and verification of misinformation upon exposure and also by shaping media consumption choices, which affect the extent of... Corresponding Author: Milad Ahmadi Marzaleh, Email: miladahmadimarzaleh@yahoo.com Received 2025 Mar 25; Revised 2025 May 1; Accepted 2025 May 20; Issue date 2025 Aug. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

“Misinformation” is the dissemination of false information without the intention to mislead. Those who share this false information may believe that the information is true, useful, or interesting, and have no malicious intent toward the people they share it with.1 Health “misinformation” can be divided into three different types based on its accuracy, each of which poses risks to individuals and society. The first type of misinformation involves the dissemination of completely incorrect health information that can lead to harmful health decisions. The second type of misinformation refers to the spread of health pseudoscience, where some elements of truth are presented in a misleading way, leading to incorrect conclusions. Finally, the third type of misinformation involves conditional advice of uncertain validity that, despite good intentions, can lead to negative health outcomes if used incorrectly.

All three types can significantly harm public health and create confusion in health decision-making.2 For example, skepticism about the COVID-19 vaccine is prevalent in many communities, especially among groups with specific socioeconomic and racial... Given the rapid development of this vaccine, many people have become skeptical about its effectiveness and safety. Stroud’s study showed that people who are able to identify inaccurate health articles are less likely to spread misinformation, have less skepticism about vaccines, and are more likely to get vaccinated.3 Cat Murphy, a college student, has wanted to be a journalist since she was 11. Many of her friends don’t understand why. When they engage with the news — if they do — they hear a cacophony of voices.

They don’t know who to believe. Reporters are biased. They make mistakes. Besides, why would you hitch your future to a dying industry? “There is a lot of commentary — ‘Oh, good for you. Look what you’re walking into.

You’re going to be screaming into the void. You’re going to be useless,’” said Murphy, a 21-year-old graduate student at the University of Maryland’s journalism school. She is undeterred. And it’s also why she’s not surprised by the findings of a study this fall that documented negative attitudes toward the news media among 13- to 18-year-old Americans. The press rarely fares well in surveys of adults, but it’s sobering to see the same disdain among people whose opinions about the world are still forming. Asked by the News Literacy Project for one word to describe today’s news media, 84% of teens responded with something negative — “biased,” “crazy,” “boring,” “fake,” “bad,” “depressing,” “confusing,” “scary.”

People Also Search

For The Last Decade, Policymakers, Journalists, And Scientists Have Continued

For the last decade, policymakers, journalists, and scientists have continued to alert us of the threat of misinformation for making sound decisions in the political, health, and environmental domains. In this study, we evaluate whether perceiving misinformation as a threat affects media use, particularly considering selection of media sources that are politically aligned. We show which groups are...

Annenberg Public Policy Center, University Of Pennsylvania, USA Misinformation Concern,

Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, USA Misinformation concern, or worry around misinformation prevalence or impact, varies across demographic groups and does not always correspond to the reality of misinformation prevalence. Although concern may encourage people to seek accuracy, which is valuable (e.g., Rathje et al., 2023; Pennycook et al., 2021), a high level of concern...

However, Actual Information-seeking Outcomes, Such As Implications For Use Of

However, actual information-seeking outcomes, such as implications for use of media sources, have not been ascertained. A new study from Annenberg researchers evaluates whether perceiving misinformation as a threat influences how partisan Americans’ media consumption is. Most Americans are aware of fake news and misinformation. In a new study, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania sought...

“When Under Threat, Humans Do Not Always Seek Information In

“When under threat, humans do not always seek information in an optimal way,” says lead author Elizabeth Harris, formerly the William J. Henrich Postdoctoral Fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center. “In an ideal world, people who are worried about misinformation would use a broad range of sources to cross-reference any information they find. We wanted to see if people avoid out-party news sou...

These Media Literacy Programs Should Promote Critical Thinking Skills And

These media literacy programs should promote critical thinking skills and provide concrete strategies and techniques individuals can deploy for fact-checking and verifying information. The Partisan Pull of Misinformation Concerns: How Worry About Fake News Shapes Media Consumption The digital age has ushered in an era of unprecedented information access, but it has also unleashed a torrent of misi...