Predictores psicosociales de la exposición y difusión de noticias falsas en Costa Rica
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.49.27437Palabras clave:
noticias falsas, exposición, reconocimiento, difusión, motivaciones, actitudes, Costa RicaResumen
Este estudio investiga los predictores psicosociales y sociodemográficos de la exposición a noticias falsas entre adultos costarricenses, así como su autopercepción de la capacidad de reconocerlas y de difundirlas. Se condujo una encuesta representativa por muestreo estratificado aleatorio aplicada a 805 usuarios de teléfonos celulares en 2019, con un 67% de mujeres y una edad promedio de 38,83 (DT=15,75). En el ámbito actitudinal, los resultados muestran una asociación positiva entre el autoritarismo de derecha y la difusión intencional de noticias falsas en redes sociales. En el ámbito motivacional, se encontraron asociaciones positivas entre una motivación defensiva y la exposición a noticias falsas en medios de comunicación y vía WhatsApp, así como asociaciones entre motivaciones defensivas y de precisión con la autopercepción de la capacidad de reconocer noticias falsas. Las mujeres, las personas con mayor nivel educativo y las más jóvenes se exponen más a noticias falsas, mientras que los hombres y las personas con mayor educación dicen ser más capaces de identificar noticias falsas.
Citas
Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winniped, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
American National Election Studies (2013). American National Election Studies (ANES) Internet Recontact Study. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Beck, J. (2019, December 11). This article won’t change your mind: The fact on why facts alone can’t fight false beliefs. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-won't-change-your-mind/519093/
Berinsky, A. A. J. (2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241–246. https://doi.org//10.1017/S0007123415000186
Bilewicz, M., Soral, W., Marchlewska, M., & Winiewski, M. (2017). When authoritarians confront prejudice. Differential effects of SDO and RWA on support for hate-speech prohibition. Political Psychology, 38(1), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12313
Bizer, G., Krosnick, J., Holbrook, A., Petty, R., Rucker, D., & Wheeler, C. (2002). The Impact of Personality on Political Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behavior: Need for Cognition and Need to Evaluate. In presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August 29-September 1.
Bizer, G., Krosnick, J., Holbrook, A., S. Wheeler, C., Rucker, D., & Petty, R. (2004). The Impact of Personality on Cognitive, Behavioral, and Affective Political Processes: The Effects of the Need to Evaluate. Journal of Personality, 72(5), 995–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00288.x
Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 108-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005
Cacioppo, J. & Petty, R. (1982). The Need for Cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
Cacioppo, J., Petty, R., Feinstein, J., & Jarvis, B. (1996). Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need for Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
Carazo, C., Tristán, L., & Siles, I. (2020). Noticias falsas en Costa Rica: hacia una agenda de investigación (Fake News in Costa Rica: Towards a Research Agenda). In paper presented as a research base for the Informe del Estado de Nación en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible 2020 (Report of the State of the Nation on Sustainable Human Development 2020) (nº26, chapter 11). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12337/8025
Crowson, H. M. & Brandes, J. A. (2017). Differentiating Between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Voters Using Facets of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social-Dominance Orientation: A Brief Report. Psychological Reports, 120(3), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117697089
da Silva, A. J. B. & Larkins, E. R. (2019). The Bolsonaro Election, Antiblackness, and Changing Race Relations in Brazil. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 24(4), 893-913. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlca.12438
De keersmaecker, J. & Roets, A. (2017). ‘Fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions. Intelligence, 65, 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.005
De keersmaecker, J. & Roets, A. (2019). Is there an ideological asymmetry in the moral approval of spreading misinformation by politicians? Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 165-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.003
Diakopoulos, N. (2019). Automating the news: How algorithms are rewriting the media. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Egelhofer, J. & Lecheler, S. (2019). Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: a framework and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(2), 97-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1602782
Federico, C. & Schneider, M. (2007). Political Expertise and the Use of Ideology: Moderating Effects of Evaluative Motivation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 221–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm010
Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5, eaau4586. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586
Hameleers, M. & van der Meer, T. G. (2019). Misinformation and Polarization in a High-Choice Media Environment: How Effective Are Political Fact-Checkers? Communication Research, 47(2), 227-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218819671
Hansen, G. J. & Kim, H. (2011). Is the media biased against me? A meta-analysis of the hostile media effect research. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565280
Hoffmann, S., Taylor, E., & Bradshaw, S. (2019). The Market of Disinformation. Oxford: Oxford Information Labs. Retrieved from https://oxtec.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/115/2019/10/OxTEC-The-Market-of-Disinformation.pdf
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. (2017). Encuesta Nacional de Hogares 2017 (National Household Survey 2017). San José, Costa Rica: INEC. Retrieved from https://www.inec.cr/sites/default/files/documetos-biblioteca-virtual/reenaho2017.pdf
Ituassu, A., Capone, A., Firmino, L., Magalhães, L., Mannheimer, V., & Murta, F. (2019). Comunicación política, elecciones y democracia: las campañas de Donald Trump y Jair Bolsonaro (Political Communication, Elections, and Democracy: The Campaigns Of Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro). Perspectivas de la comunicación, 12(2), 11-37. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48672019000200011
Jarvis, W., Blair, G., & Petty, R. (1996). The Need to Evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1),172–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.172
Kahne, J. & Bowyer, B. (2017). Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216679817
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Lazer, D., Baum, M., Benkler, J., Berinsky, A., Greenhill, K., Metzger, M., & Zittrain, J. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
Leeper, T. J. & Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35(S1), 129-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12164
Lins de Holanda Coelho, G., HP Hanel, P., & J. Wolf, L. (2018). The very efficient assessment of need for cognition: Developing a six-item version. Assessment, 27(8), 1870-1885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118793208
Montero, J., Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2008). Social trust, political confidence, and satisfaction with democracy. Revista Española De Investigaciones Sociológicas (Reis), 122(1), 11-54. Retrieved from https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cis/reis/2008/00000122/00000001/art00001
Mustafaraj, E. & Metaxas, P. T. (2017, June). The fake news spreading plague: Was it preventable? In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on web science conference (pp. 235-239). https://doi.org/10.1145/3091478.3091523
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., & Nielsen, R. (2019). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019. Oxford, United Kingdom: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Nir, L. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 504-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq076
Pérez Sánchez, R., Molina Delgado, M., Smith Castro, V., & Vega Jiménez, R. (2020). Conservadurismo político e intención de voto durante las elecciones 2017-2018: Una aproximación desde la psicología social (Political conservatism and vote intention during the 2017-2018 elections: An approach from social psychology). In R. A. Redondo & F. Alpizar Rodríguez (Eds.), Elecciones Costa Rica 2018. Retrato de una Democracia Amenazada (Costa Rica Elections 2018. Portrait of a Threatened Democracy). San José, Costa Rica: Conare.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(4), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Rampersad, G. & Althiyabi, T. (2020). Fake news: Acceptance by demographics and culture on social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1686676
Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25(6), 845-880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x
Siles, I., Tristán, L., & Carazo, C. (2021). Populism, media and misinformation in Latin America. In H. Tumber & S. Waisbord (Eds.), The Routledge companion to media misinformation and populism (pp. 356–365). Routledge.
Sindermann, C., Elhaib, J., Moshagen, M., & Montag, Ch. (2020): Age, gender, personality, ideological attitudes and individual differences in a person’s news spectrum: How many and who might be prone to “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” online? Heliyon, 6(1), e03214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03214
Slater, M. D. (2004). Operationalizing and analyzing exposure: The foundation of media effects research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 168-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100112
Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
Taber, C. S., Cann, D., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9075-8
Tandoc, E. C. J., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). Defining “fake news”. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
Tandoc, E. C., Ling, R., Westlund, O., Duffy, A., Goh, D., & Zheng Wei, L. (2018). Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2745-2763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817731756
Tong, C., Gill, H., Li, J., Valenzuela, S., & Rojas, H. (2020). “Fake News Is Anything They Say!”—Conceptualization and Weaponization of Fake News among the American Public. Mass Communication and Society, 23(5), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1789661
Valenzuela, S., Bachmann, I., & Bargsted, M. (2021). The personal is the political? What do Whatsapp users share and how it matters for news knowledge, polarization and participation in Chile. Digital Journalism, 9(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1693904
van der Linden, S., C. Panagopoulos, & Roozenbeek, J. (2020). You Are Fake News: Political Bias in Perceptions of Fake News. Media, Culture & Society, 42(3), 460-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720906992
Wagner, M. C. & Boczkowski, P. J. (2019). The Reception of Fake News: The Interpretations and Practices That Shape the Consumption of Perceived Misinformation. Digital Journalism, 7(7), 870-885. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1653208
Waisbord, S. (2018). Truth is what happens to news: On journalism, fake news, and posttruth. Journalism Studies, 19(13), 1866–1878. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1492881
Winter, S., Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2016). Selective Use of News Cues: A Multiple‐Motive Perspective on Information Selection in Social Media Environments. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 669-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12241
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Cuadernos.info
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0.
