Diana Was Not Involved in the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks!: Or Was She? Newspaper Headlines and the Boomerang Effect

IF 0.8 Q3 Psychology
Pascal Wagner-Egger, P. Gygax
{"title":"Diana Was Not Involved in the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks!: Or Was She? Newspaper Headlines and the Boomerang Effect","authors":"Pascal Wagner-Egger, P. Gygax","doi":"10.1024/1421-0185/a000203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this research, we investigated the social influence of newspaper headlines on beliefs on various social, political, and economic issues, including belief in conspiracy theories. Building on the seminal study by Gruenfeld and Wyer (1992), we examined how denials and affirmations printed in a credible source (e.g., a newspaper considered to be serious) versus a less credible source (e.g., a free newspaper) affected readers’ beliefs. In this computer-based study, participants were asked to rate the plausibility of 24 newspaper statements (eight of which were related to conspiracy theories), first without any mention of a newspaper and then with the newspapers mentioned as sources. The results showed the general effects associated with the degree of informativeness of the statements. We discuss these effects in terms of the boomerang effect (i.e., opinion change in the direction opposite to that of the opinion given in the headline). We also found that the participants judged the official versions of various events to be more plausible than the conspiracy theory versions of the same events.","PeriodicalId":46193,"journal":{"name":"Swiss Journal of Psychology","volume":"77 1","pages":"15–22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Swiss Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In this research, we investigated the social influence of newspaper headlines on beliefs on various social, political, and economic issues, including belief in conspiracy theories. Building on the seminal study by Gruenfeld and Wyer (1992), we examined how denials and affirmations printed in a credible source (e.g., a newspaper considered to be serious) versus a less credible source (e.g., a free newspaper) affected readers’ beliefs. In this computer-based study, participants were asked to rate the plausibility of 24 newspaper statements (eight of which were related to conspiracy theories), first without any mention of a newspaper and then with the newspapers mentioned as sources. The results showed the general effects associated with the degree of informativeness of the statements. We discuss these effects in terms of the boomerang effect (i.e., opinion change in the direction opposite to that of the opinion given in the headline). We also found that the participants judged the official versions of various events to be more plausible than the conspiracy theory versions of the same events.
戴安娜没有参与9/11恐怖袭击!或者是她?报纸标题和回旋镖效应
在这项研究中,我们调查了报纸标题对各种社会、政治和经济问题的信仰的社会影响,包括对阴谋论的信仰。在Gruenfeld和Wyer(1992)开创性研究的基础上,我们研究了在可信来源(例如,被认为是严肃的报纸)和不太可信的来源(例如,免费的报纸)上刊登的否认和肯定是如何影响读者的信念的。在这项以电脑为基础的研究中,参与者被要求对24篇报纸报道(其中8篇与阴谋论有关)的可信性进行评级,首先没有提到报纸,然后把报纸作为消息来源。结果显示了与陈述的信息量程度相关的一般效应。我们从“回巢效应”的角度来讨论这些影响(即,观点朝着与标题给出的观点相反的方向变化)。我们还发现,参与者认为各种事件的官方版本比同一事件的阴谋论版本更可信。
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
Swiss Journal of Psychology
Swiss Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: General, Clinical, Social, Organizational, Developmental, Personality, and Biological Psychology.
×
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