arbiter
JournalsAccount

Reconciling discrepancies between low estimates of misinformation exposure versus high perceived threats: a theoretical overview and a future research agenda

Michael Hameleers

Communication Theory2025https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaf021article
ABDC A
Weight
0.37

Abstract

The alarm on misinformation’s scope and alleged unprecedented democratic consequences is ringing louder than ever. At the same time, empirical research on the prevalence and effects of misinformation does not offer univocal support for a salient threat. News users, however, are very concerned about misinformation and their ability to detect it. In this paper, we forward four potential reasons for the discrepancy between concerns about misinformation and empirical evidence on its scope and effects: (1) the weaponization and amplification of threats related to misinformation; (2) non-aligning conceptualizations of misinformation between news users, media practitioners, and academics; (3) a lack of attention to low- versus high-resilient contexts of mis- and disinformation; and (4) a conflation between prevalence and impact. By mapping these potential causes of prevailing discrepancies, this paper aims to contribute to a better theoretical understanding of the nature of misinformation’s threats that should form the empirical basis for effective interventions.

1 citation

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaf021

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{michael2025,
  title        = {{Reconciling discrepancies between low estimates of misinformation exposure versus high perceived threats: a theoretical overview and a future research agenda}},
  author       = {Michael Hameleers},
  journal      = {Communication Theory},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaf021},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Reconciling discrepancies between low estimates of misinformation exposure versus high perceived threats: a theoretical overview and a future research agenda

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.