IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v10y2022i3p158-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“I Don’t Believe Anything They Say Anymore!” Explaining Unanticipated Media Effects Among Distrusting Citizens

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Hameleers

    (Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The erosion of political and societal trust, polarization, and the omnipresence of disinformation may undermine the perceived trustworthiness of established sources of information. Yet, many forced exposure media effect studies in the field of political communication studying polarizing issues such as disinformation and populism assume a baseline level of trust among participants exposed to seemingly neutral information. This neglects long-standing issues of distrust in the press and trends toward increasing distrust among growing segments of the population. Resistance toward established information presented as news may result in unanticipated findings, as a substantial part of the population may not accept these sources as trustworthy or neutral. To enlighten confusion, this article relies on two different experiments ( N = 728 and N = 738) to explore how citizens with low levels of trust and high dissatisfaction with the established order respond to information from established information sources. Our main findings indicate that participants with higher levels of populist attitudes, media distrust, and fake news perceptions are more likely to find established information untrustworthy. They are also less likely to agree with the statements of such content. These findings indicate that media effect studies assuming univocal acceptance of seemingly neutral information may fall short in incorporating problematic trends toward factual relativism in their design.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Hameleers, 2022. "“I Don’t Believe Anything They Say Anymore!” Explaining Unanticipated Media Effects Among Distrusting Citizens," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 158-168.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v10:y:2022:i:3:p:158-168
    DOI: 10.17645/mac.v10i3.5307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5307
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/mac.v10i3.5307?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Druckman, James N., 2001. "Evaluating framing effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-101, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 326, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    2. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    3. Maier-Rigaud, Frank P. & Apesteguia, José, 2003. "The Role of Choice in Social Dilemma Experiments," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 22/2003, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    4. Subhasish Chowdhury & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2013. "An experimental investigation of Colonel Blotto games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(3), pages 833-861, April.
    5. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing, 2006. "Tenure security and land-related investment: Evidence from Ethiopia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 1245-1277, July.
    7. Antonio Mastrogiorgio & Enrico Petracca, 2014. "Numerals as triggers of System 1 and System 2 in the ‘bat and ball’ problem," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 13(1), pages 135-148, June.
    8. Schwaiger, Rene & Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Determinants of investor expectations and satisfaction. A study with financial professionals," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Luigi Mittone & Mauro Papi, 2020. "Inducing alternative-based and characteristic-based search procedures in risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 371-380, May.
    10. Björn Hofman & Gerdien de Vries & Geerten van de Kaa, 2022. "Keeping Things as They Are: How Status Quo Biases and Traditions along with a Lack of Information Transparency in the Building Industry Slow Down the Adoption of Innovative Sustainable Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, July.
    11. Gilles Grolleau & Luc Meunier & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2025. "Targeting the Sin or the Sinner? Applying Kahneman's Insights to Frame Environmental Messages for Better Waste Management," Post-Print hal-04926850, HAL.
    12. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno, 2018. "All’s fair in taxation: A framing experiment with local politicians," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 26-40.
    13. Klaus Abbink & Heike Hennig-Schmidt, 2006. "Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 103-121, June.
    14. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx_v1, Center for Open Science.
    15. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," CESifo Working Paper Series 11166, CESifo.
    16. van Buiten, Marc & Keren, Gideon, 2009. "Speaker-listener incompatibility: Joint and separate processing in risky choice framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 106-115, January.
    17. Tinessa, Fiore & Román Garcia, Concepción & Simonelli, Fulvio & Papola, Andrea & Pagliara, Francesca, 2024. "How public transport users would react to different pandemic alert scenarios in the post-vaccine era? An analysis of preferences and attitudes of the users in the metropolitan area of Naples (Italy)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    18. Carly Moulang & Maria Strydom, 2018. "Does well‐being impact individuals’ risky decisions and susceptibility to cognitive bias?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(S1), pages 493-527, November.
    19. Michael Hameleers, 2022. "“I Don’t Believe Anything They Say Anymore!” Explaining Unanticipated Media Effects Among Distrusting Citizens," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 158-168.
    20. Stephen Wu, 2018. "The Effects of Cueing and Framing on Youth Attitudes towards Gun Control and Gun Rights," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-18, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v10:y:2022:i:3:p:158-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.