Four Paths To Misperceptions: A Panel Study On Resistance Against Journalistic Evidence

Citizens' misperceptions on critical issues such as climate change, migration, or health are viewed as a major problem in today's democratic systems. A large body of literature shows how inaccurate information might lead to misperceptions despite of corrections and retractions. This study highlights individuals' acts of resistance against journalistic reporting as a driver of misperceptions. Based on the framework of resistance strategies, we examine four processes which enable individuals to arrive at political realities that differ from the facts that are reported in the legacy media: 1) avoidance of the evidence; 2) biased evaluation of journalists' expert opinion as a form of biased processing; 3) contesting the content and source of evidence; and 4) bolstering attitudes by seeking out like-minded discussions. We apply this theoretical model to explain misperceptions on the political Ibiza scandal and misperceptions about climate change policies in Austria. Findings from a two-wave panel study in the Austrian election context (N = 523) suggest that misperceptions stem in part from wrong inferences about journalistic expert opinion. Moreover, individuals that engage in source derogation of legacy media are able to uphold their misperceptions in the face of opposing evidence.

Automated summary

This study highlights how individuals' resistance against journalistic reporting can lead to misperceptions on critical issues such as climate change and migration. Individuals avoid evidence, biased evaluation of journalists' opinion, contesting evidence source and content, and seeking like-minded discussions to arrive at political realities that differ from facts reported in legacy media. Additionally, wrong inferences about journalistic expert opinion and source derogation of legacy media contribute to the maintenance of misperceptions despite opposing evidence.