There is a vast research tradition examining the antecedents that lead people to be politically persuaded. However, political opinion and attitude change in social media has received comparatively scarce attention. This study seeks to shed light on this strand of the literature by theoretically advancing and empirically testing a structural equation model linking online social media, and fake news exposure, with political discussion and political persuasion in social media. Drawing on autoregressive causal tests from two waves of US survey panel data collected in 2019 and 2020, our results indicate that online, social media fake news, and political discussion are all positive predictors of individual political attitude change. Furthermore, structural equation tests reveal that online and social media news lead individuals to be exposed to fake news, which, in turn, predict higher levels of political discussion, ultimately facilitating political persuasion in the social media realm. Limitations and further suggestions for future research are also included in the study.
AllcottH.GentzkowM. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10/gc5t4c
2.
AllcottH.GentzkowM.YuC. (2019). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics, 6(2), 2053168019848554. https://doi.org/10/ggff7j
AnspachN. M. (2017). The new personal influence: How our Facebook friends influence the news we read. Political Communication, 34(4), 590–606.
6.
Ardèvol-AbreuA.BarnidgeM.de ZúñigaH. G. (2017). Communicative antecedents of political persuasion: Political discussion, citizen news creation, and the moderating role of strength of partisanship. Mass Communication and Society, 20(2), 169–191.
7.
AriasE. (2019). How does media influence social norms? Experimental evidence on the role of common knowledge. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 561–578.
8.
AsurS.HubermanB. A. (2010). Predicting the future with social media [Conference session]. 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, Toronto, ON, Canada, Vol. 1, pp. 492–499.
9.
AwangZ. (2014). A handbook on SEM for academicians and practitioners: The step by step practical guides for the beginners. Bandar Baru Bangi, MPWS Rich Resources, 10(3), 32–45.
10.
AzzimontiM.FernandesM. (2018). Social media networks, fake news, and polarization. National Bureau of Economic Research.
11.
BakshyE.RosennI.MarlowC.AdamicL. (2012). The role of social networks in information diffusion. ArXiv:1201.4145 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4145
12.
BalmasM. (2014). When fake news becomes real: Combined exposure to multiple news sources and political attitudes of inefficacy, alienation, and cynicism. Communication Research, 41(3), 430–454. https://doi.org/10/f5tnms
13.
BastickZ. (2021). Would you notice if fake news changed your behavior? An experiment on the unconscious effects of disinformation. Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106633. https://doi.org/10/ghk5s9
14.
BodeL.VragaE. K. (2018). See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Communication, 33(9), 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10/gdgzp3
15.
BohnerG.ErbH.-P.SieberF. (2008). Information processing approaches to persuasion: Integrating assumptions from the dual- and single-processing perspectives. In CranoW. D.PrislinR. (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 161–188). Psychology Press.
16.
BoydD.EllisonN. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.org/10/gzn
17.
BrundidgeJ. (2010a). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700. https://doi.org/10/b7mbng
18.
BrundidgeJ. (2010b). Political discussion and news use in the contemporary public sphere: The “accessibility” and “traversability” of the Internet. Javnost - The Public, 17(2), 63–81. https://doi.org/10/gh35gp
19.
BurnellP.ReeveA. (1984). Persuasion as a political concept. British Journal of Political Science, 14(4), 393–410. https://doi.org/10/bdhsdc
20.
ChadwickA.VaccariC.O’LoughlinB. (2018). Do tabloids poison the well of social media? Explaining democratically dysfunctional news sharing. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4255–4274. https://doi.org/10/gdccxn
21.
ChaffeeS. H.KanihanS. F. (1997). Learning about politics from the mass media. Political Communication, 14(4), 421–430.
22.
ChangJ.-H.ZhuY.-Q.WangS.-H.LiY.-J. (2018). Would you change your mind? An empirical study of social impact theory on Facebook. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 282–292. https://doi.org/10/gh4mfr
23.
CobbM. D.KuklinskiJ. H. (1997). Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 88. https://doi.org/10/b4cz3f
24.
CollianderJ. (2019). “This is fake news”: Investigating the role of conformity to other users’ views when commenting on and spreading disinformation in social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 202–215. https://doi.org/10/ggcgpd
25.
ConroyN. K.RubinV. L.ChenY. (2015). Automatic deception detection: Methods for finding fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10/gfkdfm
26.
DiehlT.WeeksB. E.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2016). Political persuasion on social media: Tracing direct and indirect effects of news use and social interaction. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1875–1895. https://doi.org/10/f8336n
27.
DimitrovaD. V.ShehataA.StrömbäckJ.NordL. W. (2014). The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research, 41(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10/b2f36w
28.
EllisonN. B.VitakJ.SteinfieldC.GrayR.LampeC. (2011). Negotiating privacy concerns and social capital needs in a social media environment. In TrepteS.ReineckeL. (Eds.), Privacy online (pp. 19–32). Springer.
29.
FaragóL.KendeA.KrekóP. (2020). We only believe in news that we doctored ourselves: The connection between partisanship and political fake news. Social Psychology, 51(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10/gf876t
30.
FeldmanL. (2011). The opinion factor: The effects of opinionated news on information processing and attitude change. Political Communication, 28(2), 163–181. https://doi.org/10/fdqx36
31.
FeldmanL.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2012). Climate on cable: the nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10/fgk5p4
32.
FishkinJ. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press.
33.
FletcherR.NielsenR. K. (2018). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450–2468. https://doi.org/10/gc7mvk
34.
GerberA. S.GreenD. P.LarimerC. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10/bj6qz2
35.
Gil de ZúñigaH. (2017). Attributes of interpersonal political discussion as antecedents of cognitive elaboration. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 157(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.157.65
36.
Gil de ZúñigaH.Ardèvol-AbreuA.Casero-RipollésA. (2019). WhatsApp political discussion, conventional participation and activism: Exploring direct, indirect and generational effects. Information, Communication & Society, 24(2), 201–218.
37.
GildeZúñigaH.Ardèvol-AbreuA.DiehlT.PatiñoM. G.LiuJ. H. (2019). Trust in institutional actors across 22 Countries. Examining political, science, and media trust around the world. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 74, 237–262.
38.
Gil de ZúñigaH.BarnidgeM.DiehlT. (2018). Political persuasion on social media: A moderated moderation model of political discussion disagreement and civil reasoning. The Information Society, 34(5), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2018.1497743
39.
Gil de ZúñigaH.ChenT. C. (2019) Digital media and politics: Effects of the great information and communication divides. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(3), 365–373, https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1662019
40.
Gil de ZúñigaH.DiehlT.HuberB.LiuJ. H. (2019). The citizen communication mediation model across countries: A multilevel mediation model of news use and discussion on political participation. Journal of Communication, 69(2), 144–167.
41.
Gil de ZúñigaH.ValenzuelaS.WeeksB. E. (2016). Motivations for political discussion: antecedents and consequences on civic engagement. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12086
GoyanesM.BorahP.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2021). Social media filtering and democracy: Effects of social media news use and uncivil political discussions on social media unfriending. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106759
GuoL.VargoC. (2020). “Fake news” and emerging online media ecosystem: An integrated intermedia agenda-setting analysis of the 2016 US presidential election. Communication Research, 47(2), 178–200. https://doi.org/10/gfkdft
46.
HaL.Andreu PerezL.RayR. (2021). Mapping recent development in scholarship on fake news and misinformation, 2008 to 2017: Disciplinary contribution, topics, and impact. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 290–315. https://doi.org/10/ghjkm7
47.
HalpernD.GibbsJ. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10/f4tj3x
48.
HermidaA.FletcherF.KorellD.LoganD. (2012). Share, like, recommend: Decoding the social media news consumer. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 815–824. https://doi.org/10/gcx595
49.
HuckfeldtR.JohnsonP. E.SpragueJ. (2005). Individuals, dyads, and networks: Autoregressive patterns of political influence. In ZuckermanA. S. (Ed.), The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior (pp. 21–48). Temple University Press.
50.
IyengarS.SimonA. F. (2000). New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 149–169. https://doi.org/10/c9fmgk
51.
JacobsL. R.CookF. L.CarpiniM. X. D. (2009). Talking together: Public deliberation and political participation in America. University of Chicago Press.
52.
JahngM. R. (2018). From reading comments to seeking news: Exposure to disagreements from online comments and the need for opinion-challenging news. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 15(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10/gdf335
53.
JankowskiN. W. (2018). Researching fake news: A selective examination of empirical studies. Javnost - The Public, 25(1–2), 248–255.
54.
JohansenM. S.JoslynM. R. (2008). Political persuasion during times of crisis: The effects of education and news media on citizens’ factual information about Iraq. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(3), 591–608.
55.
KahneJ.BowyerB. (2018). The political significance of social media activity and social networks. Political Communication, 35(3), 470–493. https://doi.org/10/gdskjv
56.
KaplanA. M.HaenleinM. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10/gzr
57.
KeeleL.WolakJ. (2008). Contextual sources of ambivalence. Political Psychology, 29(5), 653–673. https://doi.org/10/cnkb8m
58.
KhanM. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236–247. https://doi.org/10/f9fkd6
59.
KimY.ChenH.-T.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2013). Stumbling upon news on the Internet: Effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2607–2614. https://doi.org/10/f5djrt
60.
KimY.HsuS.-H.de ZúñigaH. G. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498–516. https://doi.org/10/f42bmm
61.
LaddJ. M.LenzG. S. (2008). Exploiting a rare shift in communication flows to document news media persuasion: The 1997 United Kingdom general election. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1189811
62.
LaneD. S.LeeS. S.LiangF.KimD. H.ShenL.WeeksB. E.KwakN. (2019). Social media expression and the political self. Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49–72.
63.
LazerD. M. J.BaumM. A.BenklerY.BerinskyA. J.GreenhillK. M.MenczerF.MetzgerM. J.NyhanB.PennycookG.RothschildD.SchudsonM.SlomanS. A.SunsteinC. R.ThorsonE. A.WattsD. J.ZittrainJ. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10/gc3jgv
64.
LeeJ. K.ChoiJ.KimC.KimY. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702–722. https://doi.org/10/cnkc
65.
LeeJ.ChoiY. (2017). Shifting from an audience to an active public in social viewing: Focusing on the discussion network. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 301–310.
66.
LuoM.HancockJ. T.MarkowitzD. M. (2020). Credibility perceptions and detection accuracy of fake news headlines on social media: Effects of truth-bias and endorsement cues. Communication Research, 49(2), 171–195. https://doi.org/10/ggxq7b
67.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10/dnd7p4
68.
MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063. https://doi.org/10/f6rfc5
69.
MoravecP.MinasR.DennisA. R. (2018). Fake news on social media: People believe what they want to believe when it makes no sense at all. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3269541
70.
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838. https://doi.org/10/bwsf88
71.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
72.
MutzD. C.MartinP. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10/ggd49z
73.
MutzD. C.SnidermanP. M.BrodyR. A. (Eds.). (1996). Political persuasion and attitude change. University of Michigan Press.
74.
O’keefeD. J. (2015). Persuasion: Theory and research. Sage Publications.
75.
PerloffR. M. (2008). Political Persuasion. In DillardJ. P.ShenL. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice. (pp. 258–277). SAGE
76.
PerloffR. M. (2020). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the twenty- first century. Routledge.
77.
PettyR. E. (2018). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Routledge.
78.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1
79.
RappD. N.SalovichN. A. (2018). Can’t we just disregard fake news? The consequences of exposure to inaccurate information. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 232–239. https://doi.org/10/gf3gq2
SimonsH. W. (1976). persuasion: Understanding, practice, and analysis. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
82.
TandocE. C.LimZ. W.LingR. (2018). Defining “fake news”: A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10/gdgzp5
83.
TurcotteJ.YorkC.IrvingJ.SchollR.PingreeR. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520–535.
84.
ValenzuelaS. (2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: The roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 920–942. https://doi.org/10/f425zn
85.
ValenzuelaS.KimY.Gil de ZunigaH. (2012). Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10/fqwn6r
86.
Van NoordenR. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature News, 512(7513), 126. https://doi.org/10/t6v
87.
VelasquezA.RojasH. (2017). Political expression on social media: The role of communication competence and expected outcomes. Social Media + Society, 3(1), 2056305117696521.
88.
VosoughiS.RoyD.AralS. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10/gc3jt6
89.
WardleC.DerakhshanH. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe Report, 27, 1–107.
90.
WeeksB. E.Ardèvol-AbreuA.GildeZúñigaH. (2015). Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(2), 214–239. https://doi.org/10/ggnfr5
91.
WeeksB. E.GildeZúñigaH. (2021). What’s next? Six observations for the future of political misinformation research. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 277–289. https://doi.org/10/gf9nw8
92.
WeiksnerG. M.FoggB. J.LiuX. (2008). Six patterns for persuasion in online social networks. In Oinas-KukkonenH.HasleP.HarjumaaM.SegerståhlK.ØhrstrømP. (Eds.), Persuasive technology (Vol. 5033, pp. 151–163). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
93.
WhitingA.WilliamsD. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362–369. https://doi.org/10/gf6hs4
94.
WoodW. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539–570. https://doi.org/10/b7c9s6
95.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press
