Search

EU attitudes are multidimensional and likely to matter differentially for voting across different parties. The 2019 European Parliament (EP) elections offer a unique setting for testing the differential effects of multidimensional EU attitudes, as the election results entailed increased political fragmentation – with notable pro- and anti-EU party groups in the EP gaining strength. This article examines the importance of EU attitudes on electoral choice and zooms in on the influence of specific EU attitudes on party voting in EP elections ('EU issue voting'). We use original survey data collected around the 2019 EP elections in ten EU member states, which include a fine-grained measurement of EU attitudes. We find evidence for EU issue voting in all countries, albeit not equally structured across countries. EU issue voting matters across all party groups with affective and performance evaluations having the strongest effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In information environments characterized by institutional distrust, fragmentation and the widespread dissemination of conspiracies and disinformation, citizens perceive misinformation as a salient and threatening issue. Especially amidst disruptive events and crises, news users are likely to believe that information is inaccurate or deceptive. Using an original 19‐country comparative survey study across diverse regions in the world (N = 19,037), we find that news users are likely to regard information on the Russian war in Ukraine as false. They are more likely to attribute false information to deliberative deception than to a lack of access to the war area or inaccurate expert knowledge. Russian sources are substantially more likely to be blamed for falsehoods than Ukrainian or Western sources – but these attribution biases depend on a country's position on the war. Our findings reveal that people mostly believe that falsehoods are intended to deceive them, and selectively associate misinformation with the opposed camp. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional wisdom suggests that social media, especially when used by authoritarian powers with nefarious aims, leaves citizens of democratic countries vulnerable to psychological influence campaigns. But such concerns overlook predispositions among recipients of false claims to reject (or to endorse) conspiratorial narratives. Analyzing responses from a survey fielded in 19 countries, we find that it is a preexisting conspiracy outlook at the individual level, more so than media diets, which consistently predicts rating Russia's pretenses for the invasion as more accurate. In all countries, individuals who view the world in general with a conspiratorial mindset are more likely to believe war-related disinformation. Receiving news via YouTube, Facebook, or TikTok is also associated with greater belief in Russian narratives justifying the invasion in several countries, but these relationships are weaker compared to those observed for conspiracy thinking. Without downplaying a potential positive role for media interventions, the findings highlight the importance of a deeper understanding of the underlying causes of conspiratorial thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As news organizations increasingly adopt AI-driven technologies like news recommender systems (NRS), notions of responsible artificial intelligence (AI) design have attracted significant scholarly and public attention. Particularly, transparency and user control are crucial for the fulfilment of democratic freedoms and human rights. However, users' desire for such features in NRS has not yet been sufficiently examined. Therefore, this study set out to comparatively examine how individual-level characteristics contribute to the desirability of transparency and user control in NRS across five nations (Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States; N = 5079). We show that the desire for features of responsible NRS is shaped by individual-level characteristics like NRS-related concerns and algorithmic awareness but does not always manifest equally across different national settings. By considering the audience's view on features of responsible NRS, our study can be a stepping stone towards responsible journalistic AI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates how the acceptance of data-driven political campaigning depends on four different message characteristics. A vignette study was conducted in 25 countries with a total of 14,390 respondents who all evaluated multiple descriptions of political advertisements. Relying on multi-level models, we find that in particular the source and the issue of the message matters. Messages that are sent by a party the respondent likes and deal with a political issue the respondent considers important are rated more acceptable. Furthermore, targeting based on general characteristics instead of individual ones is considered more acceptable, as is a general call to participate in the upcoming elections instead of a specific call to vote for a certain party. Effects differ across regulatory contexts, with the negative impact of both individual targeting and a specific call to vote for a certain party being in countries that have higher levels of legislative regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite increasing academic attention, several questions about fact-checking remain unanswered. First, it remains unclear to what extent fact-checks are effective across different political and media contexts. Second, we know little on whether features of the fact-check itself influence its success. Conducting an experiment in 16 European countries, this study aims to fill these gaps by examining two features of fact-checks that may affect their success: whether fact-checks include the political source of the misinformation, and the source of the fact-check itself. We find that fact-checks are successful in debunking misperceptions. Moreover, this debunking effect is consistent across countries. Looking at features of fact-checks, we find no indication that it matters whether fact-checks include the political source of the misinformation claim. Comparing fact-checks from independent organizations with those from public broadcasters, we do find, however, that who the fact-checker is matters, especially in combination with trust in this source. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study investigates user perceptions of news media's employment of news recommender systems (NRS) and their relation to trust in media outlets. A cross-sectional survey (n = 5079) in the United Kingdom, United States, Poland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland shows that higher algorithmic knowledge, users' perceived skills, and news aggregator use correspond to increased perceptions that news media use NRS. Moreover, higher perceived NRS use of specific news outlets is associated with lower trust in those outlets but perceived benefits and concerns related to NRS moderate this relationship. Our findings highlight the need for media organizations to ensure a responsible and transparent use of such systems, highlight benefits for users, and address concerns to avoid misperceptions of their NRS use and maintain user trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]