Cited by 26

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social Media and Belief in Misinformation in Mexico: A Case of Maximal Panic, Minimal Effects?

Valenzuela, Sebastián, Muñiz, Carlos, Santos, Marcelo·2024·The International Journal of Press/Politics

Abstract

Contrary to popular narratives, it is not clear whether using social media for news increases belief in political misinformation. Several of the most methodologically sound studies find small to nonexistent effects. However, extant research is limited by focusing on few platforms (usually Facebook, Twitter or YouTube) and is heavily U.S. centered. This leaves open the possibility that other platforms, such as those that rely on visual communication (e.g., Instagram) or are tailored to strong-tie network communication (e.g., WhatsApp), are more influential. Furthermore, the few studies conducted in other countries suggest that social media use increases political misperceptions. Still, these works use cross-sectional designs, which are ill suited to dealing with omitted variable bias and temporal ordering of processes. Using a two-wave survey fielded in Mexico during the 2021 midterm elections (N = 596), we estimate the relationship between frequency of news exposure on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and WhatsApp, and belief in political misinformation, while controlling for both time-invariant and time-dependent individual differences. In contrast to political discussion, information literacy and digital skills, none of the social platforms analyzed exhibits a significant association with misinformed beliefs. We also tested for possible indirect, moderated, and reciprocal relationships, but none of these analyses yielded a statistically significant result. We conclude that the study is consistent with the “minimal media effects” paradigm, which suggests that efforts to address misinformation need to go beyond social platforms.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/19401612221088988

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Acerbi Alberto, Altay Sacha, Mercier Hugo. 2022. “Research Note: Fighting Misinformation or Fighting for Information?” Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review 3: 1–15. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-87 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1080/13629395.2019.1635816 · DOI
  3. Argüello Pérez, Fernanda María, Barojan Donara. 2019. “Mexico.” In Disinformation in Democracies: Strengthening Digital Resilience in Latin America, ed. Bandeira L., Barojan D., Braga R., Peñarredonda J. L., Pérez Argüello M. F., 20–29. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council.
  4. Armstrong Mia. 2018. “Mexico’s chapter in the Saga of Election Disinformation.” Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/mexicos-presidential-election-was-rife-with-disinformation-from-inside-the-country.html.
  5. 10.2307/2939040 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1093/jcmc/zmy012 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107173 · DOI
  9. Boulianne Shelley Larsson Anders Olof. 2021. “Engagement with Candidate Posts on Twitter Instagram and Facebook During the 2019 Election.” New Media & Society. Advance online publication. · DOI
  10. Cárdenas Alejandro, Ballesteros Carlos, Jara René. 2017. “Social Networks and Electoral Campaigns in Latin America. A Comparative Analysis of the Cases of Spain, Mexico and Chile.” Cuadernos.Info 0 (41): 19–40. doi:10.7764/cdi.41.1259. · DOI
  11. 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1505934 · DOI
  12. Carpini Delli, Michael X., Keeter Scott. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  13. 10.1017/S0003055410000493 · DOI
  14. Cohen Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  15. Correa Teresa, Valenzuela Sebastián, Pavez Isabel. 2020, May. “How Do Digital Skills Matter for Misinformation Sharing? Comparing Mobile-Only and Hybrid Users.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Virtual Conference.
  16. Enders Adam M. Uscinski Joseph E. Seelig Michelle Klofstad Casey A. Wuchty Stefan Funchion John R. Murthi Manohar N. Premaratne Kamal Stoler Justin. 2021. “The Relationship between Social Media Use and Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation.” Political Behavior. Advance online publication. · DOI
  17. 10.4135/9781412983594 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/pops.12394 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1080/10584609.2020.1723755 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/jcc4.12164 · DOI
  21. 10.1126/science.aau2706 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1057/9781137409058_3 · DOI
  23. Guess Andrew M., Lockett Dominique, Lyons Benjamin, Montgomery Jacob M., Nyhan Brendan, Reifler Jason. 2020. “‘Fake News’ May Have Limited Effects Beyond Increasing Beliefs in False Claims.” Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review 1 (1): 1–12.
  24. 10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1177/0002764218756922 · DOI
  26. Hawkins Kirk, Rosario Aguilar A., Silva Bruno Castanho, Jenne Erin K., Kocijan Bojana, Kaltwasser Cristóbal Rovira. 2019, June. “Measuring Populist Discourse: The Global Populism Database.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the European Political Science Association, Belfast, UK.
  27. 10.1177/1940161219900126 · DOI
  28. 10.2307/1962976 · DOI
  29. 10.1177/1461444820943878 · DOI
  30. 10.1177/0002764219869406 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Lazarsfeld Paul F., Berelson Bernard, Gaudet Hazel. 1948. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
  32. 10.1093/hcr/hqab014 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/10584609.2020.1716499 · DOI
  34. 10.1007/BF00992793 · DOI
  35. Marini Anna Marta. 2019. “El Mesías Tropical: Aproximación a Fenómenos Populistas Actuales a Través del Discurso de López Obrador.” Chasqui. Revista Latinoamericana de Comunicación (139): 153–70.
  36. Marvin Carolyn. 1988. When old Technologies Were New: Thinking About Electric Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
  37. 10.1177/2056305120935102 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.17645/mac.v9i1.3409 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1177/2056305120984452 · DOI
  40. 10.6035/clr.5806 · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01381.x · DOI
  42. Newman Nic, Fletcher Richard, Kalogeropoulos Antonis, Levy David A. L., Nielsen Rasums K.. 2018. Digital News Report 2018. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. http://media.digitalnewsreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/digital-news-report-2018.pdf.
  43. Neyazi Taberez A., Muhtadi Burhanuddin. 2021. “Selective Belief: How Partisanship Drives Belief in Misinformation.” International Journal of Communication 15: 1286–308.
  44. Ognyanova Katherine, Lazer David, Robertson Ronald E., Wilson Christo. 2020. “Misinformation in Action: Fake News Exposure is Linked to Lower Trust in Media, Higher Trust in Government When Your Side is in Power.” Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review 1 (4): 24.
  45. Pavlíčková Tereza. 2012. “At the Crossroads of Hermeneutic Philosophy and Reception Studies: Understanding Patterns of Cross Media Consumption.” In The Social Use of Media: Cultural and Social Scientific Perspectives on Audience Research, ed. Bilandzic H., Patriarche G., Traudt P. J., 37–51. Chicago: Intellect.
  46. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1089/cyber.2020.0663 · DOI
  48. 10.1080/23808985.2018.1446350 · DOI
  49. 10.1080/10584609.2019.1670897 · DOI
  50. 10.51685/jqd.2021.015 · DOI
  51. 10.4324/9781003004431-38 · DOI
  52. 10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0134 · DOI
  53. 10.7560/314555-002 · DOI
  54. 10.1098/rsos.160802 · DOI
  55. 10.1080/01292986.2021.1941149 · DOI
  56. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143 · DOI
  57. 10.7560/314555-019 · DOI
  58. 10.4324/9781315475059-39 · DOI
  59. 10.1080/21670811.2019.1693904 · DOI
  60. 10.1177/19401612211025238 · DOI
  61. 10.1080/21670811.2019.1623701 · DOI
  62. 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1350730 · DOI
  63. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033608 · DOI · Paper page
  64. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.008 · DOI
  65. 10.1177/0894439318812050 · DOI
  66. 10.1177/0002764219878236 · DOI
  67. 10.1017/9781108890960.009 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.008 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

Metadata

Authors
Valenzuela, S., Muñiz, C., & Santos, M.
Affiliations
  • School of Communications, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
  • Faculty of Political Science and International Relations, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Mexico
  • Millennium Institute for Foundational Research on Data (IMFD), Santiago, Chile
Venue
The International Journal of Press/Politics
Published
2022-03-24
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
667-688
ISSN
  • 1940-1612
  • 1940-1620
Cited by
26
References
6
Language
en
Funders
  • Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo of Chile (ANID-Millennium Science Initiative Program-ICN17_0)
  • Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (280739)

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