网上的虚假信息预测了赢家和输家对选举公平性的不准确信念

IF 4.2 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Marlene Mauk, Max Grömping
{"title":"网上的虚假信息预测了赢家和输家对选举公平性的不准确信念","authors":"Marlene Mauk, Max Grömping","doi":"10.1177/00104140231193008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Electoral disinformation is feared to variously undermine democratic trust by inflaming incorrect negative beliefs about the fairness of elections, or to shore up dictators by creating falsely positive ones. Recent studies of political misperceptions, however, suggest that disinformation has at best minimal effects on beliefs. In this article, we investigate the drivers of public perceptions and misperceptions of election fairness. We build on theories of rational belief updating and motivated reasoning, and link public opinion data from 82 national elections with expert survey data on disinformation and de facto electoral integrity. We show that, overall, people arrive at largely accurate perceptions, but that disinformation campaigns are indeed associated with less accurate and more polarized beliefs about election fairness. This contributes a cross-nationally comparative perspective to studies of (dis)information processing and belief updating, as well as attitude formation and trust surrounding highly salient political institutions such as elections.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online Disinformation Predicts Inaccurate Beliefs About Election Fairness Among Both Winners and Losers\",\"authors\":\"Marlene Mauk, Max Grömping\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00104140231193008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Electoral disinformation is feared to variously undermine democratic trust by inflaming incorrect negative beliefs about the fairness of elections, or to shore up dictators by creating falsely positive ones. Recent studies of political misperceptions, however, suggest that disinformation has at best minimal effects on beliefs. In this article, we investigate the drivers of public perceptions and misperceptions of election fairness. We build on theories of rational belief updating and motivated reasoning, and link public opinion data from 82 national elections with expert survey data on disinformation and de facto electoral integrity. We show that, overall, people arrive at largely accurate perceptions, but that disinformation campaigns are indeed associated with less accurate and more polarized beliefs about election fairness. This contributes a cross-nationally comparative perspective to studies of (dis)information processing and belief updating, as well as attitude formation and trust surrounding highly salient political institutions such as elections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Political Studies\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Political Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231193008\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Political Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231193008","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们担心,选举虚假信息会通过煽动对选举公平性的错误负面信念,从各个方面破坏民主信任,或者通过制造错误的正面信念,来支持独裁者。然而,最近关于政治误解的研究表明,虚假信息对信念的影响最多是最小的。在这篇文章中,我们调查了公众对选举公平的认知和误解的驱动因素。我们建立在理性信念更新和动机推理理论的基础上,并将82次全国选举的民意数据与关于虚假信息和事实上的选举完整性的专家调查数据联系起来。我们的研究表明,总体而言,人们得出的看法在很大程度上是准确的,但虚假信息运动确实与对选举公平的不太准确和更两极分化的信念有关。这为研究(非)信息处理和信念更新,以及围绕高度突出的政治制度(如选举)的态度形成和信任提供了一个跨国比较的视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Online Disinformation Predicts Inaccurate Beliefs About Election Fairness Among Both Winners and Losers
Electoral disinformation is feared to variously undermine democratic trust by inflaming incorrect negative beliefs about the fairness of elections, or to shore up dictators by creating falsely positive ones. Recent studies of political misperceptions, however, suggest that disinformation has at best minimal effects on beliefs. In this article, we investigate the drivers of public perceptions and misperceptions of election fairness. We build on theories of rational belief updating and motivated reasoning, and link public opinion data from 82 national elections with expert survey data on disinformation and de facto electoral integrity. We show that, overall, people arrive at largely accurate perceptions, but that disinformation campaigns are indeed associated with less accurate and more polarized beliefs about election fairness. This contributes a cross-nationally comparative perspective to studies of (dis)information processing and belief updating, as well as attitude formation and trust surrounding highly salient political institutions such as elections.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Comparative Political Studies
Comparative Political Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Comparative Political Studies is a journal of social and political science which publishes scholarly work on comparative politics at both the cross-national and intra-national levels. We are particularly interested in articles which have an innovative theoretical argument and are based on sound and original empirical research. We also encourage submissions about comparative methodology, particularly when methodological arguments are closely linked with substantive issues in the field.
×
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