IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v25y2022i10p1239-1258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

People’s understanding of the concept of misinformation

Author

Listed:
  • Magda Osman
  • Zoe Adams
  • Bjoern Meder
  • Christos Bechlivanidis
  • Omar Verduga
  • Colin Strong

Abstract

In the main, work has focused on defining and conceptualising the term misinformation, why and how people share misinformation, as well as the consequences for individual behaviour and policy making. Misinformation is an especially live issue in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and the communication that people use to inform their interpretations of risks, and claims about what is needed to reduce exposure and spread of the virus. However, we know very little about what the public take the concept of misinformation to mean. Therefore, here and for other matters of public interest, it is worth understanding what informs the way people report what misinformation means to them. To address this, we present findings from a large scale representative survey (N = 4,407) from four countries (Russia, Turkey, UK, USA) to investigate the various ways in which people understand the concept of misinformation. Intentionality appears to matter, where most agreement was for the general description of misinformation as ‘Information that is intentionally designed to mislead’ (69.00%). Relative to other sources (e.g. media, other people), experts (48.38%) and scientific evidence (60.20%) were the most common sources by which to determine that something is misinformation. Finally, looking at specific features of information, misinformation was most associated with information that exaggerated conclusions from facts (49.24%), didn’t provide a complete picture (48.83%), and was presented as fact rather than opinion or rumour (43.07%). In general, country and demographic factors (age, gender, education, marital status, employment status) did not appear to distinguish these patterns of responses. This work helps to reveal what people report they take the concept of misinformation to mean, which may inform ways of targeting it.

Suggested Citation

  • Magda Osman & Zoe Adams & Bjoern Meder & Christos Bechlivanidis & Omar Verduga & Colin Strong, 2022. "People’s understanding of the concept of misinformation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(10), pages 1239-1258, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:25:y:2022:i:10:p:1239-1258
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2049623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2022.2049623
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2022.2049623?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mingfei Sun & Xiaoyue Ma & Yudi Huo, 2022. "Does Social Media Users’ Interaction Influence the Formation of Echo Chambers? Social Network Analysis Based on Vaccine Video Comments on YouTube," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:25:y:2022:i:10:p:1239-1258. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.