حقه های رسانه اجتماعی و ایدئولوژی سیاسی
Abstract
1- Introduction
2- Literature review
3- Method
4- Result
5- Discussion
References
Abstract
Applying motivated reasoning theory, this study explores how people pay attention to politicized science issues and engage in supportive actions in social media. In doing so, the role of issue confidence was closely investigated. The current study adopts a non-profit organization’s use of political ideology and hoaxes in promoting labeling issues for GMO (genetically modified organisms) products. Results from an online survey with an embedded experiment showed that issue confidence is related to an individual’s motivation to engage in the GMO labeling issue, unlike factual knowledge or literacy. Findings suggested that social media hoaxes can activate individuals’ issue confidence. The present study discussed not only the effects of issue confidence and social media hoaxes but also ethical considerations of hoax-spreading by activists.
Introduction
Why do some people have no interest in social issues? How do people get motivated to think about and support a social issue? Answering these questions, this study pays attention to how an individual’s lack of ability to understand the complexity of a social problem might hinder them from creating a constructive social discourse. In science communication in particular, scholars have found that people tend to have difficulties processing science-related information (Taber and Lodge, 2006). This deficiency of knowledge can lead people to either ignore important social problems (e.g., climate change; Weber and Stern, 2011) or to engage in an irrational social movement (Krishna, 2017). Some scholars believe that we can prevent the public from misunderstandings about science issues by providing factual knowledge and developing their literacy (e.g., Sunstein, 2007). However, people tend to process science issues with their heuristics rather than utilizing scientific reasoning (Kahan, 2012; Taber and Lodge, 2006). A recent study suggests that accepting scientific reasoning is not necessarily associated with scientific knowledge or numerical literacy (Kahan et al., 2012). For example, even though 88% of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed a scientific consensus that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe to eat, about 63% of the public believed GMOs are unsafe (Pew, 2017).