Cited by 227Misinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Influence and PoliticsSocial Media and Politics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mistrust, Disinforming News, and Vote Choice: A Panel Survey on the Origins and Consequences of Believing Disinformation in the 2017 German Parliamentary Election

Open access
Zimmermann, Fabian, Kohring, Matthias·2020·Political Communication

Abstract

In this paper, we address the question of whether disinforming news spread online possesses the power to change the prevailing political circumstances during an election campaign. We highlight factors for believing disinformation that until now have received little attention, namely trust in news media and trust in politics. A panel survey in the context of the 2017 German parliamentary election (N = 989) shows that believing disinforming news had a specific impact on vote choice by alienating voters from the main governing party (i.e., the CDU/CSU), and driving them into the arms of right-wing populists (i.e., the AfD). Furthermore, we demonstrate that the less one trusts in news media and politics, the more one believes in online disinformation. Hence, we provide empirical evidence for Bennett and Livingston’s notion of a disinformation order, which forms in opposition to the established information system to disrupt democracy.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10584609.2019.1686095

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 81 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Ernst N., 2017, International Journal of Communication, 11, 3265
  2. 10.4135/9781412983594 · DOI
  3. Gibson T. A., 2018, International Journal of Communication, 12, 3167
  4. Guess A., 2018, Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign
  5. Jöreskog K. G., 1979, Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models, 129
  6. Kline R. B., 2016, Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
  7. Levy N., 2017, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 6, 20
  8. Luhmann N., 1979, Trust and power
  9. McFadden D., 1974, Frontiers in econometrics, 105
  10. Muthén L. K., 2015, Mplus user’s guide
  11. Pennycook G., 2017, Social Science Research Network
  12. 10.5964/ejop.v8i2.456 · DOI
  13. 10.4324/9780203481134 · DOI
  14. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012 · DOI
  15. Weedon J., 2017, Information operations and Facebook
  16. 10.1111/jcom.1224 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–178 of 178

Metadata

Authors
Zimmermann, F., & Kohring, M.
Affiliations
University of Mannheim (DE)
Corresponding author
Zimmermann, Fabian
Venue
Political Communication
Published
2020-01-01
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
215-237
ISSN
  • 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-7675
OpenAlex
W2997867760
Cited by
227
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 11
FWCI
41.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Political Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • MADOC (University of Mannheim) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
disinformation, public trust in government, vote choice, 2017 German federal election, Alternative für Deutschland, right-wing populism, CDU/CSU, online news, political campaigns, political alienation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review