Browsing by Author "De Vreese, Claes"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Can AI-Attributed News Challenge Partisan News Selection? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment
(SAGE Publications, 2025) Zoizner, Alon; Matthes, Jörg; Corbu, Nicoleta; De Vreese, Claes; Esser, Frank; Koc-Michalska, Karolina; Schemer, Christian; Theocharis, Yannis; Zilinsky, Jan
With artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly shaping newsroom practices, scholars debate how citizens perceive news attributed to algorithms versus human journalists. Yet, little is known about these preferences in today’s polarized media environment, where partisan news consumption has surged. The current study explores this issue by providing a comprehensive and systematic examination of how citizens evaluate AI-attributed news compared to human-based news from like-minded and cross-cutting partisan sources. Using a preregistered conjoint experiment in the United States (N = 2,011) that mimics a high-choice media environment, we find that citizens evaluate AI-attributed news as negatively as cross-cutting news sources, both in terms of attitudes (perceived trustworthiness) and behavior (willingness to read the news story), while strongly preferring like-minded sources. These patterns remain stable across polarizing and non-polarizing issues and persist regardless of citizens’ preexisting attitudes toward AI, political extremity, and media trust. Our findings thus challenge more optimistic views about AI’s potential to facilitate exposure to diverse viewpoints. Moreover, they suggest that increased automation of news production faces both public mistrust and substantial reader resistance, raising concerns about the future viability of AI in journalism.
Misinformation Detection in the Context of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Evidence From Original Survey Data Collected in 19 Democracies
(Oxford University Press, 2024) Gehle, Luisa; Hameleers, Michael; Tulin, Marina; De Vreese, Claes; Aalberg, Toril; Van Aelst, Peter; Cardenal, Ana S.; Corbu, Nicoleta; Van Erkel, Patrick
It can be difficult for citizens to discern factually accurate information from mis- and disinformation. Particularly in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the omnipresence of counterfactual narratives, propaganda, and partisan content may increase the likelihood that citizens select and accept mis -or disinformation. To assess citizens’ performance in discerning false statements from factually accurate information on the war, we utilized original survey data across 19 countries (N = 19,037) with soft quotas for age, education, and gender to approximate population characteristics. Our main findings indicate that people perform relatively well in discerning factually accurate information from false statements and that self-perceived media literacy and the need for cognition corresponds with better performance. Stronger pro-Russia views on the war correspond with a lower performance in misinformation detection, whereas anti-Russia attitudes are associated with better evaluations of the statements’ truthfulness. We find little cross-country variation in these patterns. As a key implication, we show that discernment between factually accurate information and mis- or disinformation is driven by both accuracy and partisan motivation and that these effects are similar across most different national contexts.
Why do Citizens Choose to Read Fact-Checks in the Context of the Russian War in Ukraine? The Role of Directional and Accuracy Motivations in Nineteen Democracies
(Sage, 2024) Tulin, Marina; Hameleers, Michael; De Vreese, Claes; Aalberg, Toril; Corbu, Nicoleta; Van Erkel, Patrick F. A.
The recent surge of false information accompanying the Russian invasion of Ukraine has re-emphasized the need for interventions to counteract disinformation. While fact-checking is a widely used intervention, we know little about citizen motivations to read fact-checks. We tested theoretical predictions related to accuracy-motivated goals (i.e., seeking to know the truth) versus directionally-motivated goals (i.e., seeking to confirm existing beliefs) by analyzing original survey data (n = 19,037) collected in early April to late May 2022 in nineteen countries, namely Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and USA. Survey participants read ten statements about the Russian war in Ukraine and could opt to see fact-checks for each of these statements. Results of mixed models for three-level hierarchical data (level 1: statements, level 2: individuals, and level 3: countries) showed that accuracy motivations were better explanations than directional motivations for the decision to read fact-checks about the Russian war in Ukraine.