Data & (Mis)information – Reading Materials/Articles
Table of Contents
Data & (Mis)information – Reading Materials/Articles..........................................................................1
Article 1: The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2014).....4
What Framing is and what it is not.................................................................................................4
Nonverbal Frames: An argument for Equivalence Designs.............................................................5
Article 2: Communicating climate change to a local but diverse audience: on the positive impact of
locality framing (Degeling & Koolen, 2021)........................................................................................6
Aim of the study:............................................................................................................................6
Results:...........................................................................................................................................6
Article 3: The 7 deadly sins of psychology. A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific
practice (Chapter 1: The sin of bias) (Chambers, 2017)......................................................................7
Introduction....................................................................................................................................7
A brief history of “Yes Man”...........................................................................................................7
Neophilia: When the Positive and New Trumps the Negative but True.........................................7
Replicating concepts instead of experiments.................................................................................8
Reinventing history.........................................................................................................................9
The battle against bias....................................................................................................................9
Article 4: Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing and reporting psychological studies: A
checklist to avoid p-hacking (Wicherts, et al., 2016)........................................................................10
Introduction..................................................................................................................................10
DF’s in Hypothesizing Phase.........................................................................................................10
DF’s in the Design Phase...............................................................................................................10
DF’s in the Data Collection Phase.................................................................................................10
DF’s in the Analysis Phase.............................................................................................................10
DF’s in the Reporting Phase..........................................................................................................11
Discussion.....................................................................................................................................11
Article 5: Graphics lies, misleading visuals: Reflections on the challenges and pitfalls of evidence-
driven visual communication (Cairo, 2015)......................................................................................12
Introduction..................................................................................................................................12
Becoming a good liar....................................................................................................................12
The ignorance of evidence-driven communicators.......................................................................13
Conclusion: Fighting Noise with Knowledge.................................................................................13
Article 6: Truncating bar graphs persistently misleads viewers (Yang, Restrepo, Stanley & Marsh,
2021)................................................................................................................................................15
, Aim of the study:..........................................................................................................................15
Methods.......................................................................................................................................15
Study 1..........................................................................................................................................15
Study 2..........................................................................................................................................15
Study 3..........................................................................................................................................16
Study 4..........................................................................................................................................16
Study 5..........................................................................................................................................17
Overall results & discussion..........................................................................................................17
Article 7: Don’t Trust Your Eyes: Image Manipulation in the Age of DeepFakes (Langguth,
Pogorelov, Brenner, Filkuková & Schroeder, 2021)..........................................................................18
Aim of the article..........................................................................................................................18
Technology of Deepfakes..............................................................................................................18
Countermeasures.........................................................................................................................19
Known Deepfake Cases.................................................................................................................19
Projected Future Development....................................................................................................20
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................20
Article 8: Social Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (Klein & Nera, 2020)........................................21
Aim of the article:.........................................................................................................................21
Characterizing social psychology..................................................................................................21
History of research on conspiracy theories in social psychology..................................................21
Theoretical modelling in social psychology: an example..............................................................22
Correlations..................................................................................................................................22
Study designs................................................................................................................................22
Main scales used to measure belief in Conspiracy Theories.........................................................23
The contributions of social psychology to the understanding of conspiracy theories..................23
Limitations....................................................................................................................................23
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................24
Article 9: “These Are Just Stories, Mulder”: Exposure to Conspiracist Fiction Does Not Produce
Narrative Persuasion (Nera, Pantazi & Klein, 2018)..........................................................................25
Aim of the study...........................................................................................................................25
Study design.................................................................................................................................25
Study 1..........................................................................................................................................25
Study 2..........................................................................................................................................26
General Conclusion.......................................................................................................................26
Article 10: Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking
(Lewandowsky & Van der Linden, 2021)..........................................................................................28
, Aim of the article..........................................................................................................................28
Introduction..................................................................................................................................28
Countermeasures.........................................................................................................................28
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................30
Article 11: When (fake) news feels true. Intuitions of truth and the acceptance and correction of
misinformation (Schwarz & Jalbert, 2021)........................................................................................31
Aim of the article:.........................................................................................................................31
Evaluating Truth............................................................................................................................31
Implications for Social Media........................................................................................................32
Implications for the Correction of Misinformation.......................................................................33
Article 1: The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2014).....2
Article 2: Communicating climate change to a local but diverse audience: on the positive impact of
locality framing (Degeling & Koolen, 2021)........................................................................................4
Article 3: The 7 deadly sins of psychology. A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific
practice (Chapter 1: The sin of bias) (Chambers, 2017)......................................................................5
Article 4: Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing and reporting psychological studies: A
checklist to avoid p-hacking (Wicherts, et al., 2016)..........................................................................8
Article 5: Graphics lies, misleading visuals: Reflections on the challenges and pitfalls of evidence-
driven visual communication (Cairo, 2015)......................................................................................10
Article 6: Truncating bar graphs persistently misleads viewers (Yang, Restrepo, Stanley & Marsh,
2021)................................................................................................................................................13
Article 7: Don’t Trust Your Eyes: Image Manipulation in the Age of DeepFakes (Langguth,
Pogorelov, Brenner, Filkuková & Schroeder, 2021)..........................................................................16
Article 8: Social Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (Klein & Nera, 2020)........................................19
Article 9: “These Are Just Stories, Mulder”: Exposure to Conspiracist Fiction Does Not Produce
Narrative Persuasion (Nera, Pantazi & Klein, 2018)..........................................................................23
Article 10: Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking
(Lewandowsky & Van der Linden, 2021)..........................................................................................25
Article 11: When (fake) news feels true. Intuitions of truth and the acceptance and correction of
misinformation (Schwarz & Jalbert, 2021).......................................................................................28
, Article 1: The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions
(Scheufele & Iyengar, 2014)
Aim of the article: provide an assessment of the state of research on framing, and examine how the
concept of framing has been used across different disciplines.
What Framing is and what it is not
Framing effects refer to communication effects that are not due to differences in what is being
communicated, but rather to variations in how a given piece of information is being presented (or
framed) in public discourse.
Equivalence vs. Emphasis Framing
Equivalence Framing: framing to describe subtle differences in the definition of choice alternatives.
Subject in these experiments were provided choices that were identical in their expected value, but
which differed in the terms used to describe the choice options (e.g., fixed probability of “winning” or
“losing”, some amount of money).
Tversky & Kahneman demonstrated that:
- Human choice was contingent on the description of choice problems.
- When presented with outcomes defined as potential gains, people showed risk aversion and
chose the more certain payoff.
- When presented with identical outcomes defined in terms of potential loss instead of gain,
people became risk seekers and preferred the outcome with the less certain payoff.
Emphasis Framing: observed framing effects that represent differences in opinion that cannot be
attributed exculsively to differences in presentation. Emphasis-based frames not only vary the
perspective or underlying dimension for considering an event (e.g., freedom of speech in the case of
some particular dissenting group), but they also differ in several other respects. Therefore, this view
on framing makes it much more difficult to obsserve framing effects per se.
Framing, Priming, and Agenda Setting: Distinguishing Framing from Related Concepts
There is a difference between salience-based effects, such as priming and agenda setting, and
applicability effects, such as framing, which assume that the effect of a message depends on the
degree to which some aspects of that message resonate with (or are applicable to) a recipient’s
existing underlying cognitive schemas.
Agenda setting: refers tot he transfer of salience from mass media to audiences. If a particular issue
is covered more frequently or prominently in news outlets, audiences are also more likely to
attribute importance tot he issue.
Priming: can be seen as a logical extension of agenda-setting processes. Priming is a phenomenon
whereby exposure to one stimulus influences a repsonse to a subsequent stimulus. It can also be
explained as the process that occurs after a construct is presented as highly salient to audiences.
Framing: involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and
make them more salient in a communicating tekst, in such a way as to promote a particular problem
definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item
described. (Entman, 1993)
Table of Contents
Data & (Mis)information – Reading Materials/Articles..........................................................................1
Article 1: The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2014).....4
What Framing is and what it is not.................................................................................................4
Nonverbal Frames: An argument for Equivalence Designs.............................................................5
Article 2: Communicating climate change to a local but diverse audience: on the positive impact of
locality framing (Degeling & Koolen, 2021)........................................................................................6
Aim of the study:............................................................................................................................6
Results:...........................................................................................................................................6
Article 3: The 7 deadly sins of psychology. A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific
practice (Chapter 1: The sin of bias) (Chambers, 2017)......................................................................7
Introduction....................................................................................................................................7
A brief history of “Yes Man”...........................................................................................................7
Neophilia: When the Positive and New Trumps the Negative but True.........................................7
Replicating concepts instead of experiments.................................................................................8
Reinventing history.........................................................................................................................9
The battle against bias....................................................................................................................9
Article 4: Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing and reporting psychological studies: A
checklist to avoid p-hacking (Wicherts, et al., 2016)........................................................................10
Introduction..................................................................................................................................10
DF’s in Hypothesizing Phase.........................................................................................................10
DF’s in the Design Phase...............................................................................................................10
DF’s in the Data Collection Phase.................................................................................................10
DF’s in the Analysis Phase.............................................................................................................10
DF’s in the Reporting Phase..........................................................................................................11
Discussion.....................................................................................................................................11
Article 5: Graphics lies, misleading visuals: Reflections on the challenges and pitfalls of evidence-
driven visual communication (Cairo, 2015)......................................................................................12
Introduction..................................................................................................................................12
Becoming a good liar....................................................................................................................12
The ignorance of evidence-driven communicators.......................................................................13
Conclusion: Fighting Noise with Knowledge.................................................................................13
Article 6: Truncating bar graphs persistently misleads viewers (Yang, Restrepo, Stanley & Marsh,
2021)................................................................................................................................................15
, Aim of the study:..........................................................................................................................15
Methods.......................................................................................................................................15
Study 1..........................................................................................................................................15
Study 2..........................................................................................................................................15
Study 3..........................................................................................................................................16
Study 4..........................................................................................................................................16
Study 5..........................................................................................................................................17
Overall results & discussion..........................................................................................................17
Article 7: Don’t Trust Your Eyes: Image Manipulation in the Age of DeepFakes (Langguth,
Pogorelov, Brenner, Filkuková & Schroeder, 2021)..........................................................................18
Aim of the article..........................................................................................................................18
Technology of Deepfakes..............................................................................................................18
Countermeasures.........................................................................................................................19
Known Deepfake Cases.................................................................................................................19
Projected Future Development....................................................................................................20
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................20
Article 8: Social Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (Klein & Nera, 2020)........................................21
Aim of the article:.........................................................................................................................21
Characterizing social psychology..................................................................................................21
History of research on conspiracy theories in social psychology..................................................21
Theoretical modelling in social psychology: an example..............................................................22
Correlations..................................................................................................................................22
Study designs................................................................................................................................22
Main scales used to measure belief in Conspiracy Theories.........................................................23
The contributions of social psychology to the understanding of conspiracy theories..................23
Limitations....................................................................................................................................23
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................24
Article 9: “These Are Just Stories, Mulder”: Exposure to Conspiracist Fiction Does Not Produce
Narrative Persuasion (Nera, Pantazi & Klein, 2018)..........................................................................25
Aim of the study...........................................................................................................................25
Study design.................................................................................................................................25
Study 1..........................................................................................................................................25
Study 2..........................................................................................................................................26
General Conclusion.......................................................................................................................26
Article 10: Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking
(Lewandowsky & Van der Linden, 2021)..........................................................................................28
, Aim of the article..........................................................................................................................28
Introduction..................................................................................................................................28
Countermeasures.........................................................................................................................28
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................30
Article 11: When (fake) news feels true. Intuitions of truth and the acceptance and correction of
misinformation (Schwarz & Jalbert, 2021)........................................................................................31
Aim of the article:.........................................................................................................................31
Evaluating Truth............................................................................................................................31
Implications for Social Media........................................................................................................32
Implications for the Correction of Misinformation.......................................................................33
Article 1: The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2014).....2
Article 2: Communicating climate change to a local but diverse audience: on the positive impact of
locality framing (Degeling & Koolen, 2021)........................................................................................4
Article 3: The 7 deadly sins of psychology. A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific
practice (Chapter 1: The sin of bias) (Chambers, 2017)......................................................................5
Article 4: Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing and reporting psychological studies: A
checklist to avoid p-hacking (Wicherts, et al., 2016)..........................................................................8
Article 5: Graphics lies, misleading visuals: Reflections on the challenges and pitfalls of evidence-
driven visual communication (Cairo, 2015)......................................................................................10
Article 6: Truncating bar graphs persistently misleads viewers (Yang, Restrepo, Stanley & Marsh,
2021)................................................................................................................................................13
Article 7: Don’t Trust Your Eyes: Image Manipulation in the Age of DeepFakes (Langguth,
Pogorelov, Brenner, Filkuková & Schroeder, 2021)..........................................................................16
Article 8: Social Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (Klein & Nera, 2020)........................................19
Article 9: “These Are Just Stories, Mulder”: Exposure to Conspiracist Fiction Does Not Produce
Narrative Persuasion (Nera, Pantazi & Klein, 2018)..........................................................................23
Article 10: Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking
(Lewandowsky & Van der Linden, 2021)..........................................................................................25
Article 11: When (fake) news feels true. Intuitions of truth and the acceptance and correction of
misinformation (Schwarz & Jalbert, 2021).......................................................................................28
, Article 1: The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions
(Scheufele & Iyengar, 2014)
Aim of the article: provide an assessment of the state of research on framing, and examine how the
concept of framing has been used across different disciplines.
What Framing is and what it is not
Framing effects refer to communication effects that are not due to differences in what is being
communicated, but rather to variations in how a given piece of information is being presented (or
framed) in public discourse.
Equivalence vs. Emphasis Framing
Equivalence Framing: framing to describe subtle differences in the definition of choice alternatives.
Subject in these experiments were provided choices that were identical in their expected value, but
which differed in the terms used to describe the choice options (e.g., fixed probability of “winning” or
“losing”, some amount of money).
Tversky & Kahneman demonstrated that:
- Human choice was contingent on the description of choice problems.
- When presented with outcomes defined as potential gains, people showed risk aversion and
chose the more certain payoff.
- When presented with identical outcomes defined in terms of potential loss instead of gain,
people became risk seekers and preferred the outcome with the less certain payoff.
Emphasis Framing: observed framing effects that represent differences in opinion that cannot be
attributed exculsively to differences in presentation. Emphasis-based frames not only vary the
perspective or underlying dimension for considering an event (e.g., freedom of speech in the case of
some particular dissenting group), but they also differ in several other respects. Therefore, this view
on framing makes it much more difficult to obsserve framing effects per se.
Framing, Priming, and Agenda Setting: Distinguishing Framing from Related Concepts
There is a difference between salience-based effects, such as priming and agenda setting, and
applicability effects, such as framing, which assume that the effect of a message depends on the
degree to which some aspects of that message resonate with (or are applicable to) a recipient’s
existing underlying cognitive schemas.
Agenda setting: refers tot he transfer of salience from mass media to audiences. If a particular issue
is covered more frequently or prominently in news outlets, audiences are also more likely to
attribute importance tot he issue.
Priming: can be seen as a logical extension of agenda-setting processes. Priming is a phenomenon
whereby exposure to one stimulus influences a repsonse to a subsequent stimulus. It can also be
explained as the process that occurs after a construct is presented as highly salient to audiences.
Framing: involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and
make them more salient in a communicating tekst, in such a way as to promote a particular problem
definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item
described. (Entman, 1993)
