School of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2023 Jan 19;18(1):e0278639. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278639. eCollection 2023.
This article seeks to quantify the extent to which Americans hold beliefs that are consistent with interpreting satiric news literally, and to assess whether factors known to promote misperceptions work differently depending on whether the source of the misperception is satire. We also test the robustness of those factors across a diverse set of real-world falsehoods. The study uses secondary data analysis, relying on data drawn from a 12-wave six-month panel conducted in 2019. Analyses focus on participants' beliefs about 120 falsehoods derived from high-profile political content in circulation before each survey wave, including 48 based on satiric news. A non-trivial number of participants believed claims originating in satire, but it is less than the proportion who believed falsehoods derived from other misleading content. Results also confirm the robustness of established predictors of misperceptions while demonstrating that the associations differ in magnitude between satiric and non-satiric news.
本文旨在量化美国人持有与字面解读讽刺新闻相一致的观点的程度，并评估已知会导致误解的因素是否会根据误解的来源（是讽刺新闻）而有所不同。我们还测试了这些因素在一组多样化的真实虚假信息中的稳健性。该研究使用了二次数据分析，依赖于 2019 年进行的为期六个月的 12 波面板调查中抽取的数据。分析集中在参与者对每个调查波之前传播的高知名度政治内容中得出的 120 个虚假信息的看法，其中 48 个基于讽刺新闻。相当数量的参与者相信源自讽刺新闻的说法，但低于相信源自其他误导性内容的虚假信息的比例。结果还证实了既定误解预测因素的稳健性，同时表明讽刺新闻和非讽刺新闻之间的关联在幅度上有所不同。
