Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39564356›Full record

ArticlePolitical communication2024

Justifying an Invasion: When Is Disinformation Successful?

Jan Zilinsky, Yannis Theocharis, Franziska Pradel, Marina Tulin, Claes de Vreese, Toril Aalberg, Ana Sofía Cardenal, Nicoleta Corbu, Frank Esser, Luisa Gehle and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Political communication, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Jan ZilinskyDepartment of Governance, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7208-8759
Yannis TheocharisDepartment of Governance, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7209-9669
Franziska PradelDepartment of Governance, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4559-0772
Marina TulinFaculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4962-1698
Claes de VreesePolitical Communication, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6676-7816
Toril AalbergSociology and Political Science, Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5461-1470
Ana Sofía CardenalLaw and Political Science, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1540-8004
Nicoleta CorbuFaculty of Communication and Public Relations, Scoala Nationala de Studii Politice si Administrative, Bucuresti, Romania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9606-9827
Frank EsserInternational & Comparative Media Research, Universität Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1627-1521
Luisa GehlePolitical Communication & Journalism, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5475-106X
Denis HalagieraSocial Communication, Uniwersytet im Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Poznan, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5575-0624
Michael HameleersPolitical Communication, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8038-5005
David Nicolas HopmannPolitical Science and Public Management, Syddansk Universitet, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1089-0193
Karolina Koc-MichalskaCommunication, culture & languages department, Audencia Business School, Nantes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5354-5616
Jörg MatthesCommunication, Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9408-955X
Christian SchemerPolitical Communication, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7808-2240
Václav ŠtětkaCommunication and Media, Loughborough University, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8381-3645
Jesper StrömbäckJournalism Media and Communication, University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7392-9791
Ludovic TerrenLaw and Political Science, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7075-7573
Sergio SplendoreSocial and Political Sciences, Universita degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5324-4496
James StanyerCommunication and Media, Loughborough University, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4477-0678
Agnieszka StępińskaSocial Communication, Uniwersytet im Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Poznan, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7361-2986
Peter Van AelstDepartment of Political Science, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2548-0309
Alon ZoiznerFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5574-3475

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

conflictConspiracy thinkingpublic opinionRussiasocial mediaUkraine

Identifiers

PMID39564356
PMCPMC11573309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.