Climate Change-related Counter-attitudinal Fake News Exposure and its Effects on Search and Selection Behavior

References

• Adam, S., Häussler, T., Schmid-Petri, H., & Reber, U. (2019). Coalitions and counter-coalitions in online contestation: An analysis of the German and British climate change debate. New Media & Society, 21(11-12), 2671–2690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819855966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allgaier, J. (2019). Science and environmental communication on YouTube: Strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 36. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036
   Google Scholar
• Beierlein, C., Asbrock, F., Kauff, M., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA-3) [Authoritarianism short scale]. https://zis.gesis.org/skala/Beierlein-Asbrock-Kauff-Schmidt-Kurzskala-Autoritarismus-(KSA-3).
   Google Scholar
• Blanco, F. (2017). Cognitive bias. In J. Vonk & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of animal cognition and behavior (pp. 1–7). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bless, H., Fellhauer, R. F., Bohner, G., & Schwarz, N. (1991). Need for cognition: eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben (1991/06). DEU.
   Google Scholar
• BMU, UBA & German IPCC Coordination Unit. (2017). Kernbotschaften des Fünften Sachstandsberichts des IPCC. Klimaänderung 2013: Naturwissenschaftliche Grundlagen (Teilbericht 1) [Key messages of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2013: Scientific Foundations (Substudy Report 1)]. BMU. http://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/ipcc_sachstandsbericht_5_teil_1_bf.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brüggemann, M., De Silva-Schmidt, F., Hoppe, I., Arlt, D., & Schmitt, J. B. (2017). The appeasement effect of a United Nations climate summit on the German public. Nature Climate Change, 7(11), 783–787. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clay, R., Barber, J. M., & Shook, N. J. (2013). Techniques for measuring selective exposure: A critical review. Communication Methods and Measures, 7(3-4), 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2013.813925
   Google Scholar
• Crease, R. P. (2019). The rise and fall of scientific authority — and how to bring it back. Nature, 567(7748), 309–310. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00872-w
   Google Scholar
• Dalbert, C. (1999). Die Ungewissheitstoleranzskala: Skaleneigenschaften und Validierungsbefunde. Hallesche Berichte zur Pädagogischen Psychologie: Vol. 1 [The uncertainty tolerance scale: scale properties and validation findings. Halle Reports on Educational Psychology: Vol. 1.] Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. https://psydok.psycharchives.de/jspui/bitstream/20.500.11780/927/1/bericht01.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2007). The selective exposure hypothesis and media choice processes. In R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), LEA’s communication series. Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 103–118). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Das, S., Echambadi, R., McCardle, M., & Luckett, M. (2003). The effect of interpersonal trust, need for cognition, and social loneliness on shopping, information seeking and surfing on the web. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027448801656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelmann, E., Luebke, S., & Kessler, S. H. (2021). Effects of news factors on users’ news attention and selective exposure on a news aggregator website. Journalism Studies, 22(6), 780–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1889395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2019). Special Eurobarometer 490. Climate Change. https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2212_91_3_490_eng?locale=en
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2021). Special Eurobarometer Nr. 516. European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2237_95_2_516_ENG
   Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freiling, I., Krause, M., Scheufele, D. A., & Brossard, D. (2023). Believing and sharing misinformation, fact-checks, and accurate information on social media: The role of anxiety during COVID-19. New Media & Society, 25(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211011451
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 41–80). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gallup. (2019). Wellcome global monitor – first wave findings. https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wellcome-global-monitor-2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K. (2013). Selective exposure: New methods and new directions. Communication Methods and Measures, 7(3-4), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2013.835796
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K. (2017). The “echo chamber” distraction: Disinformation campaigns are the problem, not audience fragmentation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 370–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawronski, B. (2012). Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core motive. Social Cognition, 30(6), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelfert, A. (2018). Fake news: A definition. Informal Logic, 38(1), 84–117. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i1.5068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Science, 363(6425), 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706
   Google Scholar
• Guenther, L., Mahl, D., de Silva-Schmidt, F., & Brüggemann, M. (2020). Klimawandel und Klimapolitik: Vom Nischenthema auf die öffentliche Agenda [Climate change and climate policy: From a niche topic to the public agenda]. Media Perspektiven, 5, 287–296.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015701
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastall, M. R., & Wagner, A. J. M. (2018). Enhancing selective exposure to health messages and health intentions: Effects of susceptibility cues and gain–loss framing. Journal of Media Psychology, 30(4), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell, E. L., Wirz, C. D., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2020). Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Understanding of Science, 29(8), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520962741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, S. M. (2014a). Seeking congruency or incongruency online? Science Communication, 36(2), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013502733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, S. M. (2014b). Challenges to selective exposure: Selective seeking and avoidance in a multitasking media environment. Mass Communication and Society, 17(5), 665–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.835425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, J., & Rhomberg, M. (2016). Questioning the doubt: Climate skepticism in German newspaper reporting on COP17. Environmental Communication, 10(5), 556–574. http://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1050435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler, S. H., & Guenther, L. (2017). Eyes on the frame: Explaining people’s online searching behavior in response to TV consumption. Internet Research, 27(2), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-01-2016-0015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler, S. H., & Langmann, K. (2021). Online-Recherche und Selektionsprozesse zur politischen Wissensbildung: Eine Eye-Tracking-Untersuchung zur Informationssuche nach Parteipositionen im Internet [Online research and selection processes for political knowledge formation: An eye-tracking investigation of information search for party positions on the Internet]. In M. Seifert & S. Jöckel (Eds.), Bildung, Wissen und Kompetenz(-en) in digitalen Medien: Was können, wollen und sollen wir über digital vernetzte Kommunikation wissen? [Education, knowledge and competence(s) in digital media: What can, want and should we know about digitally networked communication?] (pp. 137–157). https://doi.org/10.48541/dcr.v8.8.
   Google Scholar
• Kessler, S. H., Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Eyeing CRISPR on wikipedia: Using eye tracking to assess what lay audiences look for to learn about CRISPR and genetic engineering. Environmental Communication, 14(7), 886–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1723668
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler, S. H., & Zillich, A. F. (2019). Searching online for information about vaccination: Assessing the influence of user-specific cognitive factors using eye-tracking. Health Communication, 34(10), 1150–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1465793
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015). Choice and preference in media use: Advances in selective exposure theory and research. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Johnson, B. K., & Westerwick, A. (2013). To your health: Self-regulation of health behavior through selective exposure to online health messages. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 807–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S. (2021). Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. Annual Review of Public Health, 42(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102409
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Macias, W., Lee, M., & Cunningham, N. (2018). Inside the mind of the online health information searcher using think-aloud protocol. Health Communication, 33(12), 1482–1493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1372040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurer, M. (2011). Wie Journalisten mit Ungewissheit umgehen: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Berichterstattung über die Folgen des Klimawandels [How journalists deal with uncertainty: An investigation using the example of reporting on the consequences of climate change]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2011-1-60
   Google Scholar
• McIntyre, K. (2019). Solutions journalism: The effects of including solution information in news stories about social problems. Journalism Practice, 13(8), 1029–1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1640632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokhtari, H., Davarpanah, M.-R., Dayyani, M.-H., & Ahanchian, M.-R. (2013). Students’ need for cognition affects their information seeking behavior. New Library World, 114(11/12), 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-07-2013-0060
   Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2022). Science & engineering indicators 2022. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, J. L., & Taneja, H. (2018). The small, disloyal fake news audience: The role of audience availability in fake news consumption. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3720–3737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818758715
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neverla, I., Taddicken, M., Lörcher, I., & Hoppe, I. (2019). ‘Breitbandkommunikation‘ zum Thema Klimawandel. Ein multifaktorielles Modell und zentrale Projektergebnisse zur Medienwirkung eines Meta-Themas [‘Broadband communication’ on climate change. A multifactorial model and key project results on the media impact of a meta-topic]. In I. Neverla, M. Taddicken, I. Lörcher, & I. Hoppe (Eds.), Klimawandel im Kopf: Studien zur Wirkung, Aneignung und Online-Kommunikation [Climate change in the mind: Studies on impact, appropriation, and online communication] (pp. 3–27). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Park, S., & Go, E. (2016). Health information seeking on the internet: The role of involvement in searching for and assessing online health information. Health Marketing Quarterly, 33(4), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2016.1238653
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peters, H. P. (1999). Rezeption und Wirkung der Gentechnikberichterstattung: Kognitive Reaktionen und Einstellungsänderungen [Reception and impact of genetic engineering reporting: cognitive responses and attitude changes]. Forschungszentrum Jülich: Arbeiten zur Risiko-Kommunikation: Vol. 71.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, H. P., & Heinrichs, H. (2005). Öffentliche Kommunikation über Klimawandel und Sturmflutrisiken: Bedeutungskonstruktion durch Experten, Journalisten und Bürger [Public communication about climate change and storm surge risks: Meaning construction by experts, journalists, and citizens]. Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich: Reihe Umwelt/Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7662–7669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2013). Media attention for climate change around the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1233–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H., Lu, H., & McComas, K. A. (2021). The role of fairness in early characterization of new technologies: Effects on selective exposure and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 41(9), 1614–1629. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446
   Google Scholar
• Stark, B., Magin, M., & Jürgens, P. (2014). Navigieren im Netz. Befunde einer qualitativen und quantitativen Nutzerbefragung [Navigating the net. Findings of a qualitative and quantitative user survey]. In B. Stark, D. Dörr, & S. Aufenanger (Eds.), Die Googleisierung der Informationssuche. Suchmaschinen zwischen Nutzung und Regulierung [The Googleization of information search. Search engines between use and regulation] (pp. 21–74). Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Taddicken, M. (2013). Climate change from the user’s perspective: The impact of mass media and internet use and individual and moderating variables on knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Media Psychology, 25(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taddicken, M., & Neverla, I. (2011). Klimawandel aus Sicht der Mediennutzer: Multifaktorielles Wirkungsmodell der Medienerfahrung zur komplexen Wissensdomäne Klimawandel [Climate change from the perspective of media users: Multifactorial impact model of media experience on the complex knowledge domain of climate change]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59(4), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2011-4-505
   Google Scholar
• Taddicken, M., & Reif, A. (2016). Who participates in the climate change online discourse? A typology of Germans’ online engagement. Communications, 41(3), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2016-0012
   Google Scholar
• Taddicken, M., Reif, A., & Hoppe, I. (2018). What do people know about climate change - and how confident are they? On measurements and analyses of science related knowledge. Journal of Science Communication, 17(03), A01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030201
   Google Scholar
• Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Climatic Change, 114(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0393-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treen, K. M., Williams, H. T. P., & O’Neill, S. (2020). Online misinformation about climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 11(5), e665. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), Article 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veltri, G. A., & Atanasova, D. (2017). Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515613702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Wehrden, H., Kater-Wettstädt, L., & Schneidewind, U. (2019). Fridays for Future aus nachhaltigkeitswissenschaftlicher Perspektive [Fridays for Future from a sustainability science perspective]. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 28(3), 307–309. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.28.3.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardle, C. (2017). Fake news. It’s complicated. First Draft, 16, 1–11. https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/fake-news-complicated/
   Google Scholar
• Weingart, P., & Guenther, L. (2016). Science communication and the issue of trust. Journal of Science Communication, 15(5), C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerwick, A., Sude, D., Robinson, M., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2020). Peers versus pros: Confirmation bias in selective exposure to user-generated versus professional media messages and Its consequences. Mass Communication and Society, 23(4), 510–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1721542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff, L., & Taddicken, M. (2022). Disinforming the unbiased : How online users experience and cope with dissonance after climate change disinformation exposure. New Media & Society, 0(0). http://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221090194
   Google Scholar
• Yan, P., Schroeder, R., & Stier, S. (2022). Is there a link between climate change scepticism and populism? An analysis of web tracking and survey data from Europe and the US. Information, Communication & Society, 25(10), 1400–1439. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1864005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zillich, A. F., & Guenther, L. (2021). Selective exposure to information on the internet: Measuring cognitive dissonance and selective exposure with Eye-tracking. International Journal of Communication, 15, 3459–3478. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/14184/3512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zillich, A. F., & Kessler, S. H. (2019). Measuring selective exposure to online information: Combining Eye-tracking and content analysis of users’ actual search behavior. In C. Peter, T. K. Naab, & R. Kühne (Eds.), Methoden und Forschungslogik der Kommunikationswissenschaft: Vol. 14. Measuring media Use and exposure: Recent developments and challenges (pp. 196–220). Herbert von Halem.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmermann, F., & Kohring, M. (2018). „Fake News“ als aktuelle Desinformation. Systematische Bestimmung eines heterogenen Begriffs [“Fake News” as current disinformation. Systematic definition of a heterogeneous term]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 66(4), 526–541. doi:10.5771/1615-634X-2018-4-526
   Google Scholar