驾驭不信任:威权政权中的新闻、可信度启发式和战争

IF 4.6 1区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Maxim Alyukov
{"title":"驾驭不信任:威权政权中的新闻、可信度启发式和战争","authors":"Maxim Alyukov","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2196951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To evaluate the credibility of political information, citizens rely on simple logical rules-of-thumb or heuristics based on various resources, such as personal experience and popular wisdom. It is often assumed that contrary to dependence on the media, personal experience and popular wisdom help citizens to build alternative understandings of political events. However, little is known about how citizens use heuristics in authoritarian settings. Relying on focus groups, this study uses Russian citizens’ reception of the regime propaganda regarding Ukraine in 2016–17 as a case study to investigate the credibility heuristics of citizens living in an autocratic state during war. Deploying both qualitative and quantitative analysis of citizens’ discourse, I identify the main heuristics used to evaluate the credibility of propaganda. I show that citizens perceive regime propaganda with distrust and often rely on popular wisdom and personal experience to identify bias. However, this does not necessarily guarantee a critical attitude toward regime propaganda. Citizens use these resources to evaluate propaganda’s credibility selectively depending on their political alignment. Indeed, their reliance on personal experience and popular wisdom undermines the authority of state media in general. However, propaganda resonates with the distrust toward media and politics that permeates citizens’ experiences. As a result, the reliance on these resources for interpreting political information can amplify, rather than erode, the credibility of specific news stories. These results contribute to the understanding of both how propaganda is received and credibility heuristics are used in an authoritarian environment.","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"40 1","pages":"527 - 554"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harnessing Distrust: News, Credibility Heuristics, and War in an Authoritarian Regime\",\"authors\":\"Maxim Alyukov\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10584609.2023.2196951\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT To evaluate the credibility of political information, citizens rely on simple logical rules-of-thumb or heuristics based on various resources, such as personal experience and popular wisdom. It is often assumed that contrary to dependence on the media, personal experience and popular wisdom help citizens to build alternative understandings of political events. However, little is known about how citizens use heuristics in authoritarian settings. Relying on focus groups, this study uses Russian citizens’ reception of the regime propaganda regarding Ukraine in 2016–17 as a case study to investigate the credibility heuristics of citizens living in an autocratic state during war. Deploying both qualitative and quantitative analysis of citizens’ discourse, I identify the main heuristics used to evaluate the credibility of propaganda. I show that citizens perceive regime propaganda with distrust and often rely on popular wisdom and personal experience to identify bias. However, this does not necessarily guarantee a critical attitude toward regime propaganda. Citizens use these resources to evaluate propaganda’s credibility selectively depending on their political alignment. Indeed, their reliance on personal experience and popular wisdom undermines the authority of state media in general. However, propaganda resonates with the distrust toward media and politics that permeates citizens’ experiences. As a result, the reliance on these resources for interpreting political information can amplify, rather than erode, the credibility of specific news stories. These results contribute to the understanding of both how propaganda is received and credibility heuristics are used in an authoritarian environment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Communication\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"527 - 554\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2196951\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Communication","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2196951","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要为了评估政治信息的可信度,公民依赖于简单的逻辑经验法则或基于各种资源的启发法,如个人经验和大众智慧。人们通常认为,与对媒体的依赖相反,个人经验和大众智慧有助于公民对政治事件建立不同的理解。然而,人们对公民如何在独裁环境中使用启发式方法知之甚少。本研究以焦点小组为依托,以俄罗斯公民在2016-17年对乌克兰政权宣传的接受程度为个案研究,调查战争期间生活在专制国家的公民的可信度启发。通过对公民话语的定性和定量分析,我确定了用于评估宣传可信度的主要启发式方法。我表明,公民对政权宣传持不信任态度,并经常依靠大众智慧和个人经验来识别偏见。然而,这并不一定保证对政权宣传持批评态度。公民利用这些资源来评估宣传的可信度,这取决于他们的政治立场。事实上,他们对个人经验和大众智慧的依赖破坏了官方媒体的权威。然而,宣传与公民经历中弥漫的对媒体和政治的不信任产生了共鸣。因此,对这些资源解释政治信息的依赖可能会放大而不是削弱特定新闻报道的可信度。这些结果有助于理解在威权环境中如何接受宣传和使用可信度启发法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Harnessing Distrust: News, Credibility Heuristics, and War in an Authoritarian Regime
ABSTRACT To evaluate the credibility of political information, citizens rely on simple logical rules-of-thumb or heuristics based on various resources, such as personal experience and popular wisdom. It is often assumed that contrary to dependence on the media, personal experience and popular wisdom help citizens to build alternative understandings of political events. However, little is known about how citizens use heuristics in authoritarian settings. Relying on focus groups, this study uses Russian citizens’ reception of the regime propaganda regarding Ukraine in 2016–17 as a case study to investigate the credibility heuristics of citizens living in an autocratic state during war. Deploying both qualitative and quantitative analysis of citizens’ discourse, I identify the main heuristics used to evaluate the credibility of propaganda. I show that citizens perceive regime propaganda with distrust and often rely on popular wisdom and personal experience to identify bias. However, this does not necessarily guarantee a critical attitude toward regime propaganda. Citizens use these resources to evaluate propaganda’s credibility selectively depending on their political alignment. Indeed, their reliance on personal experience and popular wisdom undermines the authority of state media in general. However, propaganda resonates with the distrust toward media and politics that permeates citizens’ experiences. As a result, the reliance on these resources for interpreting political information can amplify, rather than erode, the credibility of specific news stories. These results contribute to the understanding of both how propaganda is received and credibility heuristics are used in an authoritarian environment.
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
CiteScore
13.90
自引率
2.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Communication is a quarterly international journal showcasing state-of-the-art, theory-driven empirical research at the nexus of politics and communication. Its broad scope addresses swiftly evolving dynamics and urgent policy considerations globally. The journal embraces diverse research methodologies and analytical perspectives aimed at advancing comprehension of political communication practices, processes, content, effects, and policy implications. Regular symposium issues delve deeply into key thematic areas.
×
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