Lacuna publics: advancing a typology of disinformation-susceptible publics using the motivation-attitude-knowledge framework

Abstract

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, this study sought to validate the conceptualization and operationalization of lacuna publics, conceptulized as knowledge-deficient, extreme pro-and/or anti-issue activists about controversial social issues. Second, this study advanced a typology of disinformation-susceptible publics, classifying individuals into disinformation-immune, disinformation-vulnerable, disinformation-receptive, and disinformationamplifying publics based on their issue-specific motivation, attitudes, and knowledge deficiency. In doing so, this study helps refocus scholarly attention on disinformation campaigns and how to possibly mitigate their effects. Surveys were conducted among American adults to understand lacuna publics' information behaviors compared to those of non-lacuna publics, and to identify individuals who comprise the four disinformationsusceptible publics conceptualized in this study. Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed (120 words) ARTICLE HISTORY

Cutting the Bunk: Comparing the Solo and Aggregate Effects of Prebunking and Debunking Covid-19 Vaccine Misinformation

“…As previously mentioned, questions have been raised about the validity of the traditional threat perception construct (Banas & Richards, 2017). Moreover, prior attitudes have been repeatedly demonstrated as consequential to beliefs in misinformation and corrective interventions, whether they are prebunking or debunking messages (Cook et al, 2017; Ecker et al, 2022; Krishna, 2017, 2021; Lewandowsky et al, 2020; van der Linden et al, 2017; Wood, 2007). This seems to provide further support for the necessity of future research on the motivational rather than apprehensive function of threat (Banas & Richards, 2017).…”

“…It is plausible that a message refuting claims that the vaccine is unsafe may draw more reactance from this group than a message that simply warns about the general prevalence of vaccine misinformation without any refutations. Although the role of prior attitudes has been empirically linked to susceptibility to misinformation (Krishna, 2017, 2021) as well as effective inoculation strategies (Cook et al, 2017; van der Linden et al, 2017; Wood, 2007), how prior attitudes will interact with differing inoculation message types remains untested.…”

“…Beyond raising perceived misinformation threat levels, ultimately the goal of inoculation messages is to foster greater resistance to persuasion and increase support for beneficial behaviors. Previous studies have shown that this can include increased ability to recognize misinformation (Amazeen, 2021; Amazeen & Muddiman, 2018), increased belief in accurate claims (van der Linden et al, 2017; Vraga et al, 2020), and increased support for/intention to adopt beneficial behavior (Bolsen & Druckman, 2015; Jolley & Douglas, 2017), all of which are conditioned by prior attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Ecker et al, 2022; Krishna, 2017, 2021; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). It stands to reason that these effects are causally related: ability to recognize misinformation leads to greater likelihood of believing accurate information which, in turn, will increase intentions to engage in beneficial behavior.…”

“…In other words, inoculation messages appear to offer both prophylactic and therapeutic benefits. To extend this to other domains, such as vaccine misinformation, knowing prior attitudes and/ or beliefs is important as prior attitudes have been shown as determinants of who is more receptive as well as resistant to misinformation (Krishna, 2017(Krishna, , 2021.…”

Missing Voices: Examining How Misinformation-Susceptible Individuals From Underrepresented Communities Engage, Perceive, and Combat Science Misinformation

“…To understand marginalized populations' lived experiences with mis-and disinformation related to science, we undertook a qualitative approach, conducting two focus groups with adults from the Black and Latino communities, respectively. Leveraging past research on misinformation-susceptible publics (Krishna, 2017(Krishna, , 2021, this study reveals how misinformation-vulnerable and misinformation-receptive publics from among underrepresented and marginalized groups engage with science-related topics and interpret potential intervention message strategies.…”