#8
Puedes dudar de lo que quieras, pero siempre parecerá mucho más arbitrario tu comentario que un artículo que sigue la metodología. Nada te impide realizar una revisión bibliográfica y publicar una refutación si encuentras errores en la metodología utilizada.
ASI es como funciona la ciencia y el método científico, de cualquier otra manera estás refutando un artículo científico con bastantes referencias (1) usando tu sesgo como fuente (eso te garantizo que NO sigue el método científico).
(1)
Bago, Bence, David G. Rand, and Gordon Pennycook. 2020. Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 149: 1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Balmas, Meital. 2014. When fake news becomes real: Combined exposure to multiple news sources and political attitudes of inefficacy, alienation, and cynicism. Communication Research 41: 430–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baptista, João Pedro, and Anabela Gradim. 2020. Understanding fake news consumption: A review. Social Sciences 9: 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baptista, João Pedro, and Anabela Gradim. 2021. “Brave New World” of Fake News: How It Works. Javnost-The Public 28: 426–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baptista, João Pedro, and Anabela Gradim. 2022a. A Working Definition of Fake News. Encyclopedia 2: 632–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baptista, João Pedro, and Anabela Gradim. 2022b. Online disinformation on Facebook: The spread of fake news during the Portuguese 2019 election. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 30: 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baptista, João Pedro, and Marlene Loureiro. 2018. Ideologia Política Esquerda-Direita–Estudo Exploratório do Eleitorado Português. Interações: Sociedade e as novas modernidades 35: 57–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baptista, João Pedro, Elisete Correia, Anabela Gradim, and Valeriano Piñeiro-Naval. 2021a. The influence of political ideology on fake news belief: The Portuguese case. Publications 9: 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baptista, João Pedro, Elisete Correia, Anabela Gradim, and Valeriano Piñeiro-Naval. 2021b. A ciência cognitiva e a crença em fake news: Um estudo exploratório. Eikon 9: 103–14. [Google Scholar]
Baptista, João Pedro, Elisete Correia, Anabela Gradim, and Valeriano Piñeiro-Naval. 2021c. Partisanship: The true ally of fake news? a comparative analysis of the effect on belief and spread. Revista Latina de Comunicacion Social 79: 23–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Barnidge, Matthew, Albert Gunther, Jinha Kim, Yangsun Hong, Mallory Perryman, Swee Kiat Tay, and Sandra Knisely. 2020. Politically motivated selective exposure and perceived media bias. Communication Research 47: 82–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bennett, W. Lance, and Shanto Iyengar. 2008. A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication 58: 707–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bennett, W. Lance, and Steven Livingston. 2018. The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication 33: 122–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brashier, Nadia M., and Daniel L. Schacter. 2020. Aging in an era of fake news. Current Directions in Psychological Science 29: 316–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burger, Axel M., Stefan Pfattheicher, and Melissa Jauch. 2020. The role of motivation in the association of political ideology with cognitive performance. Cognition 195: 104124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Byrne, Kaileigh A., Crina D. Silasi-Mansat, and Darrell A. Worthy. 2015. Who chokes under pressure? The Big Five personality traits and decision-making under pressure. Personality and Individual Differences 74: 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Calvillo, Dustin P., Abraham Rutchick, and Ryan J. Garcia. 2021b. Individual Differences in Belief in Fake News about Election Fraud after the 2020 US Election. Behavioral Sciences 11: 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Calvillo, Dustin P., Bryan J. Ross, Ryan J. B. Garcia, Thomas J. Smelter, and Abraham M. Rutchick. 2020. Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science 11: 1119–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Calvillo, Dustin P., Ryan Garcia, Kian Bertrand, and Tommi A. Mayers. 2021a. Personality factors and self-reported political news consumption predict susceptibility to political fake news. Personality and Individual Differences 174: 110666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Deppe, Kristen D., Frank J. Gonzalez, Jayme Neiman, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Jackson Pahlke, Kevin Smith, and John R. Hibbing. 2015. Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: A look at the Cognitive Reflection Test and ideology. Judgment and Decision Making 10: 314–31. [Google Scholar]
Ditto, Peter H., Brittany S. Liu, Cory J. Clark, Sean P. Wojcik, Eric E. Chen, Rebecca H. Grady, Jared B. Celniker, and Joanne F. Zinger. 2019. At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14: 273–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Douglas, Christopher. 2018. Religion and Fake News: Faith-Based Alternative Information Ecosystems in the US and Europe. Review of Faith and International Affairs 16: 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Douglas, Karen M., Joseph E. Uscinski, Robbie Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka, Turkay Nefes, Chen Siang Ang, and Farzin Deravi. 2019. Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology 40: 3–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Dubois, Elizabeth, and Grant Blank. 2018. The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication and Society 21: 729–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Effron, Daniel A., and Medha Raj. 2019. Misinformation and Morality: Encountering Fake-News Headlines Makes Them Seem Less Unethical to Publish and Share. Psychological Science 31: 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Egelhofer, Jana Laura, and Sophie Lecheler. 2019. Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: A framework and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association 43: 97–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Faragó, Laura, Anna Kende, and Péter Krekó. 2019. We only believe in news that we doctored ourselves: The connection between partisanship and political fake news. Social Psychology 51: 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fessler, Daniel M. T., Anne C. Pisor, and Colin Holbrook. 2017. Political Orientation Predicts Credulity Regarding Putative Hazards. Psychological Science 28: 651–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Fletcher, Richard, Alessio Cornia, Lucas Graves, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2018. Measuring the Reach of “Fake News” and Online Disinformation in Europe. Oxford: Reuters Institute Factsheet, University of Oxford, Oxford. Available online: https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/INFORMIT.807732061612771 (accessed on 5 October 2022).
Freire, André. 2006. Esquerda e Direita na Política Europeia: Portugal, Espanha e Grécia em Perspectiva Comparada. Lisboa: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. [Google Scholar]
Frischlich, Lena, Jens H. Hellmann, Felix Brinkschulte, Martin Becker, and Mitja D. Back. 2021. Right-wing authoritarianism, conspiracy mentality, and susceptibility to distorted alternative news. Social Influence 16: 24–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Garrett, R. Kelly, Erik C. Nisbet, and Emily L. Lynch. 2013. Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking? The role of contextual cues and naïve theory. Journal of Communication 63: 617–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Garrett, R. Kelly, Shira Dvir Gvirsman, Benjamin K. Johnson, Yariv Tsfati, Rachel Neo, and Aysenur Dal. 2014. Implications of pro-and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research 40: 309–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gelfert, Alex. 2018. Fake news: A definition. Informal Logic 38: 84–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Grady, Rebecca Hofstein, Peter Ditto, and Elizabeth Loftus. 2021. Nevertheless, partisanship persisted: Fake news warnings help briefly, but bias returns with time. Cognitive Research 6: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grinberg, Nir, Kenneth Joseph, Lisa Friedland, Briony Swire-Thompson, and David Lazer. 2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science 363: 374–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Guess, Andrew, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua Tucker. 2019. Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances 5: eaau4586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Hameleers, Michael, and Sophie Minihold. 2020. Constructing discourses on (un) truthfulness: Attributions of reality, misinformation, and disinformation by politicians in a comparative social media setting. Communication Research, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hameleers, Michael. 2020. My reality is more truthful than yours: Radical right-wing politicians’ and citizens’ construction of “fake” and “truthfulness” on social media—Evidence from the United States and The Netherlands. International Journal of Communication 14: 1135–52. [Google Scholar]
Holbert, R. Lance. 2005. A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist 49: 436–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hopp, Toby, Patrick Ferrucci, and Chris J. Vargo. 2020. Why do people share ideologically extreme, false, and misleading content on social media? A self-report and trace data–based analysis of countermedia content dissemination on Facebook and Twitter. Human Communication Research 46: 357–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horner, Christy Galleta, Dennis Galletta, Jennifer Crawford, and Abhijeet Shirsa
Portada
mis comunidades
otras secciones
#2 termodinámica!