By any memes necessary: Belief- and chaos-driven motives for sharing conspiracy theories on social media

Christina E. Farhart, Erin B. Fitz, Joanne M. Miller, Kyle L. Saunders
{"title":"By any memes necessary: Belief- and chaos-driven motives for sharing conspiracy theories on social media","authors":"Christina E. Farhart, Erin B. Fitz, Joanne M. Miller, Kyle L. Saunders","doi":"10.1177/20531680231193514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although a growing body of scholarship examines who believes conspiracy theories (CTs) and why, less is known about why people share CTs. We test the impact of three independent motives on people’s willingness to share CTs on social media: bolstering their or their group’s beliefs (motivated sharing), generating collective action against their political outgroup because of losing (sounding the alarm), and mobilizing others against the political system (need for chaos). Using an original survey of US adults ( N = 3336), we test these three motives together and find strong evidence for motivated sharing and need for chaos, but no evidence for sounding the alarm. Our findings suggest that motivated sharing—when measured directly as belief in the CTs—is the strongest predictor of willingness to share CTs on social media. Need for chaos has less of an effect on sharing than belief but a consistently stronger effect on sharing than partisanship and ideology. Altogether, we demonstrate that sharing CTs on social media can serve both motivated and mobilizing functions, particularly for those who believe the CTs or seek to challenge the political system, rather than impugn their political rivals.","PeriodicalId":125693,"journal":{"name":"Research & Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research & Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680231193514","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although a growing body of scholarship examines who believes conspiracy theories (CTs) and why, less is known about why people share CTs. We test the impact of three independent motives on people’s willingness to share CTs on social media: bolstering their or their group’s beliefs (motivated sharing), generating collective action against their political outgroup because of losing (sounding the alarm), and mobilizing others against the political system (need for chaos). Using an original survey of US adults ( N = 3336), we test these three motives together and find strong evidence for motivated sharing and need for chaos, but no evidence for sounding the alarm. Our findings suggest that motivated sharing—when measured directly as belief in the CTs—is the strongest predictor of willingness to share CTs on social media. Need for chaos has less of an effect on sharing than belief but a consistently stronger effect on sharing than partisanship and ideology. Altogether, we demonstrate that sharing CTs on social media can serve both motivated and mobilizing functions, particularly for those who believe the CTs or seek to challenge the political system, rather than impugn their political rivals.
任何必要的迷因:在社交媒体上分享阴谋论的信仰和混乱驱动的动机
尽管越来越多的学者研究谁相信阴谋论(CTs)以及为什么相信,但人们为什么相信CTs却知之甚少。我们测试了三个独立动机对人们在社交媒体上分享ct的意愿的影响:支持他们或他们群体的信仰(动机分享),因为失败而产生集体行动反对他们的政治外群体(拉响警报),动员其他人反对政治制度(需要混乱)。通过对美国成年人的原始调查(N = 3336),我们一起测试了这三种动机,并找到了强有力的证据,证明了有动机的分享和对混乱的需求,但没有证据表明会发出警报。我们的研究结果表明,当直接以对ct的信念来衡量时,动机分享是在社交媒体上分享ct的意愿的最强预测因子。对混乱的需求对分享的影响不如信仰,但对分享的影响始终比党派和意识形态更强。总之,我们证明在社交媒体上分享ct可以起到激励和动员的作用,特别是对于那些相信ct或寻求挑战政治制度的人,而不是抨击他们的政治对手。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信