A Self-Righteous, Not a Virtuous, Circle: Proposing a New Framework for Studying Media Effects on Knowledge and Political Participation in a Social Media Environment

Lee, S., & Valenzuela, S. (2024).

Social Media + Society, 10(2).

https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241257953

Abstract

To explain the participatory effects of news exposure, communication scholars have long relied upon the “virtuous circle” framework of media use and civic participation. That is, news consumption makes people more knowledgeable, and trustful toward institutions and political processes, making them active and responsible citizens, which then leads them to engage in various political activities. In a social media environment, however, the applicability of the “virtuous circle” is increasingly dubious. A mounting body of empirical research indicates that news consumption via social media does not necessarily yield actual information gains. Instead, it often fosters a false perception of being well-informed and politically competent, thereby stimulating political engagement. Furthermore, selective information consumption and interaction within like-minded networks on social media frequently exacerbate animosity toward opposing political factions, which can serve as a catalyst for political involvement. In light of these findings, we propose replacing the “virtuous circle” framework for a “self-righteous” one. In this new model, social media news users develop a heightened sense of confidence in their knowledge, regardless of its accuracy, and consequently become more inclined to engage in politics by reinforcing the perception that the opposing side is inherently wrong and that achieving victory is imperative.

Here are some thoughts:

Political participation is widely recognized as a fundamental indicator of a healthy democracy, and the role of news media in fostering this participation has been extensively studied. Traditionally, exposure to news has been associated with increased political knowledge and participation, forming a "virtuous circle" where informed citizens engage more actively in democratic processes. However, recent changes in the political landscape, such as the rise of populism, misinformation, and deepening partisan divides, challenge the applicability of this framework. The study proposes a shift from the "virtuous circle" to a "self-righteous cycle" of news consumption and political participation, particularly in the context of social media.

This new model suggests that political participation driven by social media news consumption often stems from users feeling informed, despite being misinformed, and from increased animosity toward opposing political groups. The study highlights the role of partisan selective exposure on social media, which fosters political engagement through heightened emotions and animosity rather than through trust and informed understanding. This shift underscores the need for a revised theoretical model to better understand the contemporary media and political environment, emphasizing the importance of critical scrutiny and accurate information in fostering genuine political knowledge and participation.

The Value of Not Knowing: Partisan Cue-Taking and Belief Updating of the Uninformed, the Ambiguous, and the Misinformed

Jianing Li & Michael W Wagner

Journal of Communication, Volume 70,

Issue 5, October 2020, Pages 646–669.

https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa022

Abstract

The problem of a misinformed citizenry is often used to motivate research on misinformation and its corrections. However, researchers know little about how differences in informedness affect how well corrective information helps individuals develop knowledge about current events. We introduce a Differential Informedness Model that distinguishes between three types of individuals, that is, the uninformed, the ambiguous, and the misinformed, and establish their differences with two experiments incorporating multiple partisan cues and issues. Contrary to the common impression, the U.S. public is largely uninformed rather than misinformed of a wide range of factual claims verified by journalists. Importantly, we find that the success of belief updating after exposure to corrective information (via a fact-checking article) is dependent on the presence, the certainty, and the accuracy of one’s prior belief. Uninformed individuals are more likely to update their beliefs than misinformed individuals after exposure to corrective information. Interestingly, the ambiguous individuals, regardless of whether their uncertain guesses were correct, do not differ from uninformed individuals with respect to belief updating.

From the Discussion Section

First, and contrary to the impression that many citizens are misinformed, the majority of our respondents are uninformed of a wide range of claims important enough to be verified by journalists. Only a small group of respondents hold confident, inaccurate beliefs.  This builds on the work of Pasek et al. (2015) by distinguishing between the uninformed, who admit that they “don’t know,” the ambiguous, who take a guess with varying degrees of accuracy, and the misinformed, who hold steadfast false beliefs. In the current environment where concerns over misinformation often lead to heightened attention to belief accuracy, our findings highlight the necessity to bridge between work on political ignorance and misperception and the benefit of leveraging belief accuracy, belief presence and belief certainty to better assess public informedness.

(emphasis added)

A pdf of the research is here.