“I don’t care, ’cause I don’t trust them!” The impact of information sources, institutional trust, and right-wing populist attitudes on the perception of the COVID-19 pandemic during the first lockdown in Germany.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Bibliographische Infos

Cover der Ausgabe: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Jahrgang 11 (2022), Heft 1
Open Access Vollzugriff

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Jahrgang 11 (2022), Heft 1

Autor:innen:
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyrightjahr
2022
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Kapitelinformationen

Open Access Vollzugriff

Jahrgang 11 (2022), Heft 1

“I don’t care, ’cause I don’t trust them!” The impact of information sources, institutional trust, and right-wing populist attitudes on the perception of the COVID-19 pandemic during the first lockdown in Germany.

Autor:innen:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Kapitelvorschau:

Wie Bürgerinnen und Bürger soziale Krisen wahrnehmen, wird stark von den Informationsquellen, die sie nutzen, und von ihren individuellen Eigenschaften beeinflusst. Diese wirken sich stark darauf aus, wie die erhaltenen Informationen verarbeitet und interpretiert werden. Dies dürfte auch für die COVID-19-Pandemie gelten, die Anfang 2020 die Welt zu erschüttern begann. Auf der Grundlage neuerer Forschungen zur politischen Kommunikation stellen wir die Hypothese auf, dass institutionelles Vertrauen in Medien, Politik und Wissenschaft sowie rechtspopulistische Einstellungen die Art und Weise beeinflussen, wie Menschen über diese Krise denken, die von der Politik auf der Grundlage wissenschaftlicher Expertise gemanagt und von verschiedenen Medien intensiv behandelt wurde. In diesem Beitrag wird daher der Frage nachgegangen, wie die Nutzung verschiedener Informationsquellen, das Vertrauen in diese Quellen und rechtspopulistische Einstellungen die Wahrnehmung der Schwere der COVID-19-Pandemie während der ersten Phase des ersten Lockdowns in Deutschland beeinflusst haben. Die Studie stützt sich auf Daten einer quantitativen Online-Quotenbefragung von Bundesbürgern und -bürgerinnen und kommt auf der Grundlage einer Segmentierungsanalyse zu dem Schluss, dass erstens bereits in den ersten Tagen der Pandemie Teile der Bevölkerung die Risiken der Pandemie entweder skeptisch sahen oder ganz leugneten, den wissenschaftlichen Konsens in Frage stellten und Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der Pandemie ablehnten. Zweitens unterschieden sich die identifizierten Segmente neben rechtspopulistischen Einstellungen und mehreren anderen Faktoren erheblich in ihrem Vertrauen in traditionelle Medien, Politik und Wissenschaft als Informationsquellen. Wir diskutieren die Ergebnisse vor dem Hintergrund der Notwendigkeit, Vertrauen in Medien, Wissenschaft und Politik aufzubauen, zu erhalten und wiederherzustellen, um Krisenprävention, -kommunikation und -management zu ermöglichen.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Aalberg, T., & Curran, J. (Eds.) (2012). How media inform democracy. A comparative approach. Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  2. Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., Mayer, A. K., & Ryan, J. B. (2010). Politics, expertise, and interdependence within electorates. In J. E. Leighley (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior (pp. 278–299). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  3. Amsalem, E., & Nir, L. (2019). Does interpersonal discussion increase political knowledge? A meta-analysis. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0093650219866357 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  4. Anderson, C. J., & Paskeviciute, A. (2005). Macro-politics and micro-behavior. Mainstream politics and the frequency of political discussion in contemporary democracies. In A. Zuckerman (Ed.), The Social Logic of Politics. Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior (pp. 228–248). Temple University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  5. Bächtiger, A. (2016). Empirische Deliberationsforschung [Empirical deliberation research]. In W. O. Lembcke, C. Ritzi, & S. G. Schaal (Eds.), Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie, Band 2: Empirische Demokratietheorien (pp. 251–278). Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  6. Bächtiger, A., & Parkinson, J. (2019). Mapping and measuring deliberation. Towards a new deliberative quality. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  7. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy. Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  8. Bassili, J. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.637 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  9. Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Need-to-belong theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  10. E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 121–140). SAGE. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  11. Beauvais, E. (2018). Deliberation and equality. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 144– 155). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  12. Bennett, S. E., Lickinger, R. S., & Rhine, S. L. (2000). Political talk over here, over there, over time. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 99–119. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  13. Bessette, J. M. (1994). The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and american national government. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  14. Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. MIT Press. Bohman, J. (2006). Deliberative democracy and the epistemic benefits of diversity. Epis- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  15. teme, 3, 175–191. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  16. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  17. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12(4), 398-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00276.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  18. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  19. Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2013). Personality approaches to political behavior. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 23–58). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  20. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  21. Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative Democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0090591709332336 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  22. Chambers, S. (2012). Deliberation and mass democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative Systems. Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (pp. 52–71). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  23. Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. P. Hamlin & P. N. Pettit (Eds.), The Good Polity. Normative Analysis of the State (pp. 18–34). Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  24. Conover, P. J., & Miller, P. R. (2018). Taking everyday political talk seriously. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 378–391). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  25. Conover, P. J., & Searing, D. D. (2005). Studying ‚Everyday political talk‘ in the deliberative system. Acta Politica, 40(3), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500113 Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., & Crewe, I. M. (2002). The deliberative potential of political Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  26. discussion. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 21–62. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  27. Cowan, S. K., & Baldassarri, D. (2018). “It could turn ugly”: Selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks. Social Networks, 52, 1–17. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.04.002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  28. Craig, S. C., & Maggiotto, M. A. (1982). Measuring political efficacy. Political Methodology, 8(3), 85–109. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  29. Dalton, R. J. (2017). The participation gap: Social status and political inequality. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  30. De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the contents and pocesses of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(4), 346–365. https://doi. org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1376 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  31. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  32. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  33. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  34. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  35. Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  36. Dryzek, J. S. (2016). Symposium commentary: Reflections on the theory of deliberative systems. Critical Policy Studies, 10(2), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.20 16.1170620 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  37. Dunn, J. (2018). Setting the people free: The story of democracy (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  38. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Wiley. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  39. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How americans produce apathy in everyday life. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  40. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  41. Ellerbrock, S. (2022). Partisan agreement and disagreement in voters’ discussant networks: Contextual constraints and partisan selectivity in a changing electorate. In R. Schmitt-Beck, S. Roßteutscher, H. Schoen, B. Weßels, & C. Wolf (Eds.), The Changing German Voter. Oxford University Press (forthcoming). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  42. Eveland, W. P., Hutchens, M. J., & Morey, A. (2012). Social networks and political knowledge. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 240–252). SAGE. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  43. Eveland, W. P., Hutchens, M. J., & Morey, A. C. (2013). Political network size and its antecedents and consequences. Political Communication, 30(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10584609.2012.737433 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  44. Eveland, W. P., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1082–1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01598.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  45. Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015–1035. https://doi.org/10.2307/2778746 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  46. Felicetti, A. (2014). Citizen forums in the deliberative system. Democratic Theory, 1(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2014.010210 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  47. Fischer, C. S. (2011). Still connected. Family and friends in America since 1970. Russell Sage Foundation. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  48. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation. New directions for democratic reform. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  49. Yale University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  50. Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak. Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  51. Fishkin, J. (2018). Democracy when the people are thinking. Revitalizing our politics through public deliberation. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  52. Fitzgerald, J. (2013). What does “political” mean to you? Political Behavior, 35(3), 453– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  53. 479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9212-2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  54. Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–1190. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444809357927 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  55. Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  56. Fuchs, D. (2014). Empirische Deliberationsforschung – eine kritische Diskussion [Empirical deliberation research – A critical discussion]. In C. Landwehr & R. Schmalz-Bruns (Eds.), Deliberative Demokratie in der Diskussion. Herausforderungen, Bewährungsprobleme, Kritik (pp. 169–201). Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  57. Gärtner, L., Wuttke, A., & Schoen, H. (2021). Who talks and who listens? How political involvement influences the potential for democratic deliberation in everyday political talk. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 17(2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.16997/ jdd.983 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  58. Gastil, J. (2000). By popular demand. Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. University of California Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  59. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Sage. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  60. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr044 Gerber, M., Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Reber, S., & Rohr, S. (2018). Deliberative abilities Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  61. and influence in a transnational deliberative poll (EuroPolis). British Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 1093–1118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000144 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  62. GESIS (2019). Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften [General social survey] ALLBUS 2018 (ZA5270), data file version 2.0.0 (https://doi.org/10.4232/ 1.13250). GESIS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  63. Glover, T. D. (2018). Ordinary political conversation in seemingly nonpolitical leisure: All talk and no action? Leisure Sciences, 40(7), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/014904 00.2018.1534626 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  64. Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts. A user’s guide. Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  65. Goodin, R. E. (2008). Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  66. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(3), 1360–1380. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  67. Grill, C., Schmitt-Beck, R., & Metz, M. (2018). S‘udying the ‘Conversations ’f Democracy’: Research design and data collection. Working Paper 173. MZES. https://www.mzes. unimannheim.de/publications/wp/wp-173.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  68. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  69. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1999). Democratic disagreement. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative Politics (pp. 243–279). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  70. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  71. Habermas, J. (1994). Three normative models of democracy. Constellations, 1(1), 1–10. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.1994.tb00001.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  73. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  74. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd edition). Stanford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  75. Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  76. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. P. (2003). Stellung im Beruf als Ersatz für eine Berufsklassifikation zur Ermittlung von sozialem Prestige [Occupational position as proxy for a classification of occupational prestige]. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 27(53), 114–127. doi:https:// nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-207760 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  77. Huckfeldt, R. (2017). Taking interdependence seriously: Platforms for understanding political communication. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 695–712). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  78. Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., & Levine, J. (1995). Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 1025–1054. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  79. Huckfeldt, R., Ikeda, K. i., & Pappi, F. U. (2005). Patterns of disagreement in democratic politics: Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 497–514. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  80. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement. The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  81. Huckfeldt, R., & Morehouse Mendez, J. (2008). Moths, flames, and political engagement. Managing disagreement within communication networks. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 83–96. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  82. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication. Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  83. Hutchens, M. J. (2017). How we talk and why it matters. In A. Dudo & L. Kahlor (Eds.), Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  84. Strategic Communication: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 96–114). Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  85. Ikeda, K.I., & Richey, S. (2012). Social networks and Japanese democracy: The beneficial impact of interpersonal communication in East Asia. Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  86. Jacobs, L. R., Cook, F. L., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2009). Talking together. Public deliberation and political participation in America. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  87. Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.172 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  88. Jennstål, J., Uba, K., & Öberg , P. (2021). Deliberative civic culture: Assessing the prevalence of deliberative conversational norms. Political Studies, 69(2), 366–389. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0032321719899036 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  89. Johnston, R., & Pattie, C. (2006). Putting voters in their place. Geography and elections in Great Britain. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  90. Kim, J., & Kim, E. J. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18(1), 51–70. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  91. Klofstad, C. A., McClurg, S. D., & Rolfe, M. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/ nfp032 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  92. Klofstad, C. A., Sokhey, A., & McClurg, S. D. (2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 120–134. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  93. Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (1997). What sort of equality does deliberative democracy require? In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy. Essays on reason and politics (pp. 279-319). MIT Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  94. Knops, A. (2006). Delivering deliberation’s emancipatory potential. Political Theory, 34(5), 594–623. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  95. Kock, C., & Villadsen, L. S. (2017). Rhetorical citizenship: Studying the discursive crafting and enactment of citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 21(5), 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13621025.2017.1316360 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  96. Kratz, A. (2019). Politische Sachfragen [Political issues]. In S. Roßteutscher, R. Schmitt-Beck, H. Schoen, B. Weßels, & C. Wolf (Eds.), Zwischen Polarisierung und Beharrung: Die Bundestagswahl 2017 (pp. 229–245). Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  97. Kruglanski, A. W., & Fishman, S. (2009). The need for cognitive closure. In M. R. Leary & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  98. R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 343– 353). Guilford Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  99. Lafont, C. (2020). Democracy without shortcuts. A participatory conception of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  100. Landwehr, C. (2020). Deliberative Beteiligungsverfahren [Deliberative participation methods]. In T. Faas, O. W. Gabriel, & J. Maier (Eds.), Politikwissenschaftliche Einstellungs- und Verhaltensforschung: Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Studium (pp. 413–434). Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  101. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. Whittlesey House. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  102. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968 [1944]). The people’s choice. How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  103. Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C., Katz, N., & Neblo, M. (2010). The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27, 248–274. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  104. Linvill, D., Mazer, J. P., & Boatwright, B. C. (2016). Need for cognition as a mediating variable between aggressive communication traits and tolerance for disagreement. Communication Research Reports, 33(4), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  105. .2016.1224160 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  106. Lup, O. (2011). The relevance of micro social contexts for individual political engagement: A comparative analysis. PhD thesis. Budapest: Central European University. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  107. Maia, R. C. (2012). Deliberation, the media and political talk. Hampton Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  108. Maia, R. C., Hauber, G., Choucair, T., & Crepalde, N. J. (2021). What kind of disagreement favors reason-giving? Analyzing online political discussions across the broader public sphere. Political Studies, 69(1), 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719894708 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  109. Manin, B. (1987). On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  110. 368. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  111. Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  112. Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement (pp. 211–242). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  113. Mansbridge, J. (2015). A minimalist definition of deliberation. In P. Heller & V. Rao (Eds.), Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  114. Deliberation and Development (pp. 27–50). World Bank Group. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  115. Martí, J. L. (2017). Pluralism and consensus in deliberative democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(5), 556–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13698230.2017.1328089 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  116. McClurg, S., Klofstad, C., & Sokhey, A. (2018). Discussion networks. In J. N. Victor, A. H. Montgomery, & M. Lubell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks (pp. 515–533). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  117. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2678628 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  118. Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. In M. Delli Carpini, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  119. L. Huddy, & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in Micropolitics: Political Decisionmaking, Deliberation and Participation (pp. 151–193). JAI Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  120. Mill, J. S. (1991 [1861]). Considerations on representative government. Prometheus Books. Morey, A. C., & Eveland, W. P. (2016). Measures of political talk frequency: Assessing reliability and meaning. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(1), 51–68. https:// Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  121. doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1118448 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  122. Morey, A. C., Eveland, W. P., & Hutchens, M. J. (2012). The “Who” matters: Types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication, 29(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2011.641070 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  123. Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27, 49–69. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  124. Moscrop, D. R., & Warren, M. E. (2016). When is deliberation democratic? Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), Article 4. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/ art4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  125. Moy, P., & Gastil, J. (2006). Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication, 23(4), 443– 460. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  126. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side. Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  127. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  128. Neblo, M. A. (2015). Deliberative democracy between theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  129. Newton, K., & Zmerli, S. (2011). Three forms of trust and their association. European Political Science Review, 3(02), 169–200. https://doi.org/110.1017/S1755773910000330 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  130. Nir, L. (2017). Disagreement in political discussion. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  131. Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  132. Nolas, S.-M., Varvantakis, C., & Aruldoss, V. (2017). Talking politics in everyday family lives. Contemporary Social Science, 12(1-2), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  133. .2017.1330965 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  134. Owen, D., & Smith, G. (2015). Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the dystemic turn. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jopp.12054 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  135. Parkinson, J. (2018). Deliberative systems. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  136. M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 432–446). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  137. Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.) (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  138. Perry, B. L., Pescosolido, B. A., & Borgatti, S. P. (2018). Egocentric network analysis. Foundations, methods, and models. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  139. Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  140. Podschuweit, N. (2017). Interpersonal communication: Media influence on. In P. Rössler, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  141. C. A. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0137 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  142. Podschuweit, N., & Jakobs, I. (2017). “It’s about politics, stupid!”: Common understandings of interpersonal political communication. Communications, 42(4), 391–414. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2017-0021 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  143. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  144. Quinlan, S., Shephard, M., & Paterson, L. (2015). Online discussion and the 2014 Scottish independence referendum: Flaming keyboards or forums for deliberation? Electoral Studies, 38, 192–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.02.009 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  145. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  146. Richardson, B., & Beck, P. A. (2007). The flow of political information: Personal discussants, the media, and partisans. In R. Gunther, J. R. Montero, & H.-J. Puhle (Eds.), Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents (pp. 183–207). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  147. Robinson, J. P. (1976). Interpersonal influence in election campaigns: Two-step-flow hypotheses. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 304–319. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  148. Rosenberg, S. W. (2014). Citizen competence and the psychology of deliberation. In S. Elstub & P. McLaverty (Eds.), Deliberative Democracy. Issues and Cases (pp. 98–117). Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  149. Schäfer, A. (2019). Dissimilarity in interpersonal communication and political change. PhD Thesis. Mannheim: University of Mannheim. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  150. Scheuch, E. K. (1965). Die Sichtbarkeit politischer Einstellungen im alltäglichen Verhalten [The visibility of political attitudes in everyday behavior]. In E. K. Scheuch & R. Wil- denmann (Eds.), Zur Soziologie der Wahl (pp. 169–214). Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  151. Schmitt-Beck, R. (2000). Politische Kommunikation und Wählerverhalten. Ein internationaler Vergleich [Political communication and electoral behavior. An international comparison]. VS Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  152. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Lup, O. (2013). Seeking the soul of democracy: A review of recent research into citizens’ political talk culture. Swiss Political Science Review, 19(4), 513– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  153. 538. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12051 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  154. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Partheymüller, J. (2016). A two-stage theory of discussant influence on vote choice in multi-party systems. British Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 321–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000301 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  155. Schmitt-Beck, R., Roßteutscher, S., Schoen, H., Weßels, B., & Wolf, C. (2022). A New Era of Electoral Instability, in: R. Schmitt-Beck, S. Roßteutscher, H. Schoen, B. Weßels & C. Wolf (Eds.), The Changing German Voter (pp. 3-24). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  156. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Schäfer, A. (2020). Interpersonale Kommunikation [Interpersonal communication]. In T. Faas, O. W. Gabriel, & J. Maier (Eds.), Politikwissenschaftliche Einstellungs- und Verhaltensforschung (pp. 121–140). Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  157. Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies of Mass Communication, 14, 297-309. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  158. Settle, J. E., & Carlson, T. N. (2019). Opting Out of Political Discussions. Political Communication, 36(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1561563 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  159. Song, H., & Boomgaarden, H. (2019). Personalities discussing politics: The effects of agreement and expertise on discussion frequency and the moderating role of personality traits. International Journal of Communication, 12, 92–115. https://ijoc.org/index. php/ijoc/article/view/8469 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  160. Spies, D. C., & Franzmann, S. T. (2019). Party competition and vote choice. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 71(1), 313–342. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11577-019-00611-z Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  161. Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative politics in action. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  162. Steiner, J. (2012). The foundations of deliberative demoncracy. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  163. Straits, B. C. (1991). Bringing strong ties back in. Interpersonal gateways to political information and influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 432–448. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  164. Strandberg, K., & Grönlund, K. (2018). Online deliberation. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  165. J. Mansbridge, & M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 365–377). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  166. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12. http:/services.bepress.com/jpd/vol3/iss1/art12 Sullivan, J. L., & Transue, J. E. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  167. selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 625–650. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  168. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  169. Talisse, R. B. (2012). Deliberation. In D. Estlund (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy (pp. 204–222). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  170. Tanasoca, A (2020). Deliberation naturalized: Improving real existing deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  171. Tarde, G. (1969 [1989]). Opinion and conversation. In T. N. Clark (Ed.), Gabriel Tarde – On Communication and Social Influence: Selected Papers (pp. 297–318). University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  172. Testa, P. F., Hibbing, M. V., & Ritchie, M. (2014). Orientations toward conflict and the conditional effects of political disagreement. The Journal of Politics, 76(03), 770–785. Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  173. polisci.11.081306.070555 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  174. Tönnies, F. (1963 [1887]). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft [Community and society]. Kohlhammer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  175. Torcal, M., & Maldonado, G. (2014). Revisiting the dark side of political deliberation: The effects of media and political discussion on political interest. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(3), 679–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu035 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  176. Tully, J. (2002). The unfreedom of the Moderns in comparison to their Ideals of constitutional democracy. Modern Law Review, 65(2), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 2230.00375 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  177. Urbinati, N. (2010). Unpolitical democracy. Political Theory, 38(1), 65–92. https://doi. org/10.1177/0090591709348188 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  178. Van Deth, J. W. (1990). Interest in politics. In M. K. Jennings & J. W. van Deth (Eds.), Continuities in Political Action (pp. 275–312). de Gruyter. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  179. Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Harper Row. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  180. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. E., Sidney, V., Kay Lehman, S., & Henry, E. B. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  181. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Burns, N. (2005). Family ties: Understanding the intergenerational transmission of political participation. In A. S. Zuckerman (Ed.), The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior (pp. 95–114). Temple University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  182. Völker, B. (2016). Convivium (Who is friends with whom?). In G. Ritzer (Ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc134. pub2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  183. Von Kleist, H. (1951 [1805]). On the gradual construction of thoughts during speech. German Life and Letters, 5(1), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0483.1951.tb01029.x Weber, M. (1988 [1922]). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre [Collected papers Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  184. on the philosophy of science]. Mohr. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  185. Wessler, H. (2018). Habermas and the media. Polity. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  186. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  187. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  188. Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M., & Enikolopov, R. (2020). Political effects of the internet and social media. Annual Review of Economics, 12(1), 415–438. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  189. Bachl, M. (2016). Online health information seeking in Europe: Do digital divides persist? Studies in Communication and Media, 5(4), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192- 4007-2016-4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  190. Barrera, M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(4), 413–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00922627 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  191. Betsch, C., Brewer, N. T., Brocard, P., Davies, P., Gaissmaier, W., Haase, N., Leask, J., Renkewitz, F., Renner, B., Reyna, V. F., Rossmann, C., Sachse, K., Schachinger, A., Siegrist, M., & Stryk, M. (2012). Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. Vaccine, 30(25), 3727–3733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.02.025 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  192. Betsch, C., Schmid, P., Korn, L., Steinmeyer, L., Heinemeier, D., Eitze, S., Küpke, N. K., & Böhm, R. (2019). Impfverhalten psychologisch erklären, messen und verändern [Psychological antecedents of vaccination: Definitions, measurement, and interventions]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz, 62(4), 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-019-02900-6 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  193. Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  194. Byström, E., Lindstrand, A., Bergström, J., Riesbeck, K., & Roth, A. (2020). Confidence in the National Immunization Program among parents in Sweden 2016 – A cross-sectional survey. Vaccine, 38(22), 3909–3917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.01.078 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  195. Chung, J. E. (2014). Social networking in online support groups for health: How online social networking benefits patients. Journal of Health Communication, 19(6), 639– 659. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.757396 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  196. Cline, R. J. W., & Haynes, K. M. (2001). Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: The state of the art. Health Education Research, 16(6), 671–692. https://doi. org/10.1093/her/16.6.671 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  197. Coulson, N. S. (2005). Receiving social support online: An analysis of a computer-mediated support group for individuals living with irritable bowel syndrome. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 8(6), 580–584. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.580 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  198. Coursaris, C. K., & Liu, M. (2009). An analysis of social support exchanges in online HIV/ AIDS self-help groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 911–918. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.006 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  199. Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19(2), 154–174. https://doi. org/10.1177/009365092019002002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  200. Dworkin, J., Connell, J., & Doty, J. (2013). A literature review of parents’ online behavior. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(2). https://doi. org/10.5817/CP2013-2-2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  201. Eichhorn, K. C. (2008). Soliciting and providing social support over the Internet: An investigation of online eating disorder support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01431.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  202. Ekram, S., Debiec, K. E., Pumper, M. A., & Moreno, M. A. (2019). Content and commentary: HPV vaccine and YouTube. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 32(2), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2018.11.001 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  203. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Englesakis, M., Rizo, C., & Stern, A. (2004). Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: Systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. BMJ, 328(7449), 1166. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.328.7449.1166 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  204. Fadda, M., Allam, A., & Schulz, P. J. (2015). Arguments and sources on Italian online forums on childhood vaccinations: Results of a content analysis. Vaccine, 33(51), 7152– 7159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.007 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  205. Ginossar, T. (2008). Online participation: A content analysis of differences in utilization of two online cancer communities by men and women, patients and family members. Health Communication, 23(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701697100 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  206. Gray, J. (2013). Feeding on the Web: Online social support in the breastfeeding context. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  207. Communication Research Reports, 30(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.20 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  208. 12.746219 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  209. Harmsen, I. A., Mollema, L., Ruiter, R. A., Paulussen, T. G., de Melker, H. E., & Kok, G. (2013). Why parents refuse childhood vaccination: A qualitative study using online focus groups. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1183. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13- 1183 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  210. Holt-Lunstad, J., & Uchino, B. N. (2015). Social support and health. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. V. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behaviors: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 183–204). Wiley. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  211. Informationsgemeinschaft zur Feststellung der Verbreitung von Werbeträgern (IVW). (2019). Online-Nutzungsdaten [Online audience data]. Retrieved from: http://auswei- sung.ivw-online.de/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  212. Jiang, S., & Street, R. L. (2017). Pathway linking internet health information seeking to better health: A moderated mediation study. Health Communication, 32(8), 1024– 1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1196514 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  213. Kata, A. (2010). A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28(7), 1709–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022 Keating, D. M. (2013). Spirituality and support: A descriptive analysis of online social sup- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  214. port for depression. Journal of Religion and Health, 52(3), 1014–1028. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10943-012-9577-x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  215. Keelan, J., Pavri, V., Balakrishnan, R., & Wilson, K. (2010). An analysis of the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine debate on MySpace blogs. Vaccine, 28(6), 1535–1540. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.11.060 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  216. Keelan, J., Pavri-Garcia, V., Tomlinson, G., & Wilson, K. (2007). YouTube as a source of information on immunization: A content analysis. JAMA, 298(21), 2481. https://doi. org/10.1001/jama.298.21.2482 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  217. Kim, H., Han, J. Y., & Seo, Y. (2020). Effects of Facebook comments on attitude toward vaccines: The roles of perceived distributions of public opinion and perceived vaccine efficacy. Journal of Health Communication, 25(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 0810730.2020.1723039 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  218. Kreps, G. L. (2008). Strategic use of communication to market cancer prevention and control to vulnerable populations. Health Marketing Quarterly, 25(1–2), 204–216. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07359680802126327 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  219. Lee, S. Y., & Hawkins, R. (2010). Why do patients seek an alternative channel? The effects of unmet needs on patients’ health-related Internet use. Journal of Health Communication, 15(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730903528033 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  220. Limaye, R., & Salmon, D. (2017). Increasing demand for vaccines: The role of communication. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 10(1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/175 38068.2017.1299980 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  221. Link, E., & Baumann, E. (2020). Nutzung von Gesundheitsinformationen im Internet: Personenbezogene und motivationale Einflussfaktoren [Use of health information on the internet: Personal and motivational influencing factors]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz, 63, 681–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00103-020-03144-5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  222. Link, E., Baumann, E., & Früh, H. (2016). Online discourses about pregnancy: Privacy as a ‘price’ for supportive communication? Journal of Health and Communication, 8, 54–64. Retrieved from: http://communicationandhealth.ro/upload/number8/ELENA- LINK.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  223. Link, E., Baumann, E., Linn, A., Fahr, A., Schulz, P., & Abuzahra, M. E. (2021). Influencing factors of online health information seeking in selected European countries: Analysis of country specifics. European Journal of Health Communication, 2(1), 29–55. https:// doi.org/10.47368/ejhc.2021.002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  224. Love, B., Crook, B., Thompson, C. M., Zaitchik, S., Knapp, J., LeFebvre, L., Jones, B., Donovan-Kicken, E., Eargle, E., & Rechis, R. (2012). Exploring psychosocial support online: A content analysis of messages in an adolescent and young adult cancer community. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(10), 555–559. https:// doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0138 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  225. Maier, D., Waldherr, A., Miltner, P., Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A., Keinert, A., Pfetsch, B., Heyer, G., Reber, U., Häussler, T., Schmid-Petri, H., & Adam, S. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19 312458.2018.1430754 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  226. Malik, S., & Coulson, N. S. (2011). The therapeutic potential of the Internet: Exploring self-help processes in an Internet forum for young people with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology Nursing, 34(6), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1097/ SGA.0b013e318237a9ba Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  227. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Retrieved from: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168ssoar-395173 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  228. Meng, J., Martinez, L., Holmstrom, A., Chung, M., & Cox, J. (2017). Research on social networking sites and social support from 2004 to 2015: A narrative review and directions for future research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0325 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  229. Meppelink, C. S., Smit, E. G., Fransen, M. L., & Diviani, N. (2019). “I was right about vaccination”: Confirmation bias and health literacy in online health information seeking. Journal of Health Communication, 24(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/1081 0730.2019.1583701 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  230. Modanloo, S., Stacey, D., Dunn, S., Choueiry, J., & Harrison, D. (2019). Parent resources for early childhood vaccination: An online environmental scan. Vaccine, 37(51), 7493– 7500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.075 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  231. Mohanty, S., Leader, A. E., Gibeau, E., & Johnson, C. (2018). Using Facebook to reach adolescents for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Vaccine, 36(40), 5955– 5961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.060 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  232. Mohd Roffeei, S. H., Abdullah, N., & Basar, S. K. R. (2015). Seeking social support on Facebook for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84(5), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmed- inf.2015.01.015 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  233. Nan, X., & Daily, K. (2015). Biased assimilation and need for closure: Examining the effects of mixed blogs on vaccine-related beliefs. Journal of Health Communication, 20(4), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.989343 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  234. National Cancer Institute. (2017). Health Information National Trends Survey: HINTS FDA 2017, Cycle 2. Retrieved from: https://hints.cancer.gov/view-questions-topics/ question-details.aspx?PK_Cycle=9&qid=757. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  235. Nicholson, M. S., & Leask, J. (2012). Lessons from an online debate about measles– mumps–rubella (MMR) immunization. Vaccine, 30(25), 3806–3812. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.10.072 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  236. Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHealth Literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e9. https:// doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  237. Oh, H. J., & Lee, B. (2012). The effect of computer-mediated social support in online communities on patient empowerment and doctor-patient communication. Health Communication, 27(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.567449 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  238. Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. (2014). How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 30(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.053 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  239. Ratzan, S. C., Bloom, B. R., El-Mohandes, A., Fielding, J., Gostin, L. O., Hodge, J. G., Ho- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  240. tez, P., Kurth, A., Larson, H. J., Nurse, J., Omer, S. B., Orenstein, W. A., Salmon, D., & Rabin, K. (2019). The Salzburg statement on vaccination acceptance. Journal of Health Communication, 24(5), 581–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2019.1622611 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  241. Reifegerste, D., & Bachl, M. (2019). Informationssuche als Beziehungstat. Der Zusammenhang zwischen relationalen Faktoren und Motiven der stellvertretenden Suche nach Gesundheitsinformationen [Information seeking as an act of relationship: The association of relational variables with motives and frequency of surrogate health information seeking]. Studies in Communication and Media, 8(3), 378–412. https://doi. org/10.5771/2192-4007-2019-3-378 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  242. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2019). stm: An R Package for Structural Topic Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 91(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss. v091.i02 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  243. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., Albertson, B., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1064–1082. https://doi. org/10.1111/ajps.12103 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  244. Rosselli, R., Martini, M., & Bragazzi, N. L. (2016). The old and the new: Vaccine hesitancy in the era of the Web 2.0. Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 57(1), 47–50. Retrieved from: https://www.jpmh.org/index.php/ jpmh/article/view/572/pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  245. Schofield, A., & Mimno, D. (2016). Comparing apples to apple: The effects of stemmers on topic models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4, 287– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  246. 300. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00099 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  247. Tanis, M. (2008). What makes the internet a place to seek social support? In E. A. Konijn, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  248. S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. B. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated Interpersonal Communication (pp. 290–308). Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  249. Tanis, M. (2012). Online social support groups. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  250. Teoh, D. (2019). The power of social media for HPV vaccination–Not fake news! American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 39(1), 75–78. https://doi. org/10.1200/EDBK_239363 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  251. Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022146510395592 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  252. Thomson, A., Robinson, K., & Vallée-Tourangeau, G. (2016). The 5As: A practical taxonomy for the determinants of vaccine uptake. Vaccine, 34(8), 1018–1024. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.065 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  253. van Ingen, E., Utz, S., & Toepoel, V. (2016). Online coping after negative life events: Measurement, prevalence, and relation with Internet activities and well-being. Social Science Computer Review, 34(5), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315600322 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  254. World Health Organization (WHO). (2019). Substantial decline in global measles deaths, but disease still kills 90 000 per year. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/news- room/26-10-2017-substantial-decline-in-global-measles-deaths-but-disease-still-kills- 90-000-per-year Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  255. Antoniades, A., Miskimmon, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2010). Great power politics and strategic narratives (Working Paper Nr. 7). Brighton. The Centre for Global Political Economy, University of Sussex. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file. php?name=cgpe-wp07-antoniades-miskimmon-oloughlin.pdf&site=359 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  256. Austin, J. L. (1972). Zur Theorie der Sprechakte: (How to do things with words) [On the theory of speech acts]. Reclam. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  257. Barthes, R. (1975). An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative. New Literary History, 6(2), 237–272. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  258. Bebnowski, D. (2015). Die Alternative für Deutschland: Aufstieg und gesellschaftliche Repräsentanz einer rechten populistischen Partei [The Alternative for Germany: Rise and social representation of a right-wing populist party]. Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  259. Berbuir, N., Lewandowsky, M., & Siri, J. (2015). The AfD and its sympathisers: Finally a right-wing populist movement in Germany? German Politics, 24(2), 154–178. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2014.982546 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  260. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  261. Betz, H.-G. (2001). Rechtspopulismus und Ethnonationalismus: Erfolgsbedingungen und Zukunftschancen [Right-wing populism and ethno-nationalism: Conditions for success and opportunities for the future]. In C. Leggewie & R. Münch (Hrsg.), Politik im 21. Jahrhundert (S. 122–140). Suhrkamp. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  262. Betz, H.-G. (2017). Nativism Across Time and Space. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12260 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  263. Bieber, C. (2013). Von der Datenautobahn zum Social Web: Bundestagswahlkämpfe in Zeiten des Internet [From the information highway to the social web: Election campaigns in the age of the internet]. Politische Bildung, 46(1), 68–84. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  264. Boehm, A. (1994). Grounded Theory – wie aus Texten Modelle und Theorien gemacht werden [Grounded Theory – how texts are turned into models and theories]. In A. Boehm, A. Mengel, & T. Muhr (Hrsg.), Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft: Bd. 14. Texte verstehen: Konzepte, Methoden, Werkzeuge (S. 121–140). UVK. https://nbn-re- solving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-14429 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  265. Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. P. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  266. Bruner, J. (1991). The Narrative Construction of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(Autumn), 1–21. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  267. Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz. (2020, 29. Juni). Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz stuft AfD-Teilorganisation „Der Flügel“ als gesichert rechtsextremistische Bestrebung ein [Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifies AfD sub-organisation Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  268. „Der Flügel“ as a right-wing extremist endeavour] [Press release]. https://www.verfas- sungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/pressemitteilung-2020-1-afd. html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  269. Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies, 47(1), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00184 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  270. Decker, F. (2004). Der neue Rechtspopulismus [The new right-wing populism] (2., überarbeitete Auflage). Leske + Budrich. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  271. Decker, F. (2016). Die „Alternative für Deutschland“ aus der vergleichenden Sicht der Parteienforschung [The „Alternative for Germany“ from the comparative perspective of party research]. In A. Häusler (Hrsg.), Die Alternative für Deutschland: Programmatik, Entwicklung und politische Verortung (S. 7–23). Springer VS. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-10638-6_2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  272. Diehl, P. (2018). Rechtspopulismus und Massenmedien: Eine explosive Mischung [Rightwing populism and mass media: An explosive mixture]. In J. Schellhöh, J. Reichertz, V. Heins, & A. Flender (Hrsg.), Großerzählungen des Extremen: Neue Rechte, Populismus, Islamismus, War on Terror (S. 87–98). transcript. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  273. Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., & Büchel, F. (2017). Populism and social media: how politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1109–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1207697 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  274. Engesser, S., Fawzi, N., & Larsson, A. O. (2017). Populist online communication: Introduction to the special issue. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1279– 1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328525 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  275. Ernst, N., Blassnig, S., Engesser, S., Büchel, F., & Esser, F. (2019). Populists prefer social media over talk shows: An analysis of populist messages and stylistic elements across six countries. Social Media + Society, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118823358 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  276. Ernst, N., Engesser, S., Büchel, F., Blassnig, S., & Esser, F. (2017). Extreme parties and populism: An analysis of Facebook and Twitter across six countries. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1347–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/136911 8X.2017.1329333 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  277. Ernst, N., Esser, F., Blassnig, S., & Engesser, S. (2019). Favorable opportunity structures for populist communication: Comparing different types of politicians and issues in social media, television and the press. The international journal of press/politics, 24(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218819430 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  278. Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1–22. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  279. Flender, A. (2018). Populismus und Demokratie: Anmerkungen zu einer beziehungsreichen Geschichte [Populism and democracy: Notes on a history rich in relationships]. In J. Schellhöh, J. Reichertz, V. Heins, & A. Flender (Hrsg.), Großerzählungen des Extremen: Neue Rechte, Populismus, Islamismus, War on Terror (S. 59–68). transcript. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  280. Freeman, M. (2015). Narrative as a mode of understanding: Method, theory, praxis. In A. de Fina & A. Georgakopoulou (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Narrative Analysis (S. 21– 37). Wiley. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  281. Friedrichsen, M., & Kohn, R. A. (2015). Digitale Politikvermittlung: Chancen und Risiken interaktiver Medien [Digital political mediation: Opportunities and risks of interactive media] (2., korrigierte Auflage). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658- 06571-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  282. Gadinger, F., Jarzebski, S., & Yildiz, T. (Hrsg.). (2014a). Politische Narrative [Political narratives]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02581-6 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  283. Gadinger, F., Jarzebski, S., & Yildiz, T. (2014b). Politische Narrative: Konturen einer politikwissenschaftlichen Erzähltheorie [Political Narratives: Contours of narrative theory for political science]. In F. Gadinger, S. Jarzebski, & T. Yildiz (Hrsg.), Politische Narrative (S. 3–38). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02581-6_1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  284. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  285. Groshek, J., & Engelbert, J. (2013). Double differentiation in a cross-national comparison of populist political movements and online media uses in the United States and the Netherlands. New Media & Society, 15(2), 183–202. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444812450685 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  286. Haller, A. (2019). Die Online-Kampagnen im Bundestagswahlkampf 2017 [Online campaigns in the German general election 2017]. In C. Holtz-Bacha (Hrsg.), Die (Massen-) Medien im Wahlkampf (S. 49–72). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658- 24824-6_3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  287. Hartleb, F. (2013). Die Wandlungsfähigkeit von und die Herausforderung durch Populismus, Extremismus und Terrorismus in Europa [The mutability of and the challenge posed by populism, extremism and terrorism in Europe]. In S. Schieren (Hrsg.), Politische Bildung: Bd. 4. Populismus, Extremismus, Terrorismus (S. 9–31). Wochenschau-Verl. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  288. Häusler, A. (Hrsg.). (2016). Die Alternative für Deutschland: Programmatik, Entwicklung und politische Verortung [The Alternative for Germany: Program, development and political positioning]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10638-6 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  289. Häusler, A. (Hrsg.). (2018). Völkisch-autoritärer Populismus: Der Rechtsruck in Deutschland und die AfD [Ethnic-authoritarian populism: The shift to the right in Germany and the AfD]. VSA Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  290. Hawkins, K. A., Carlin, R. E., Littvay, L., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (Hrsg.). (2019). Extremism and democracy: Bd. 42. The ideational approach to populism: Concept, theory, and analysis. Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  291. Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2020). Stuck in a nativist spiral: Content, selection, and effects of right-wing populists’ communication on Facebook. Political Communication, 37(3), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1661890 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  292. Hentschke, J. (2017). Diskursangebote und Anschlussdiskurse: Kleinparteien im Bundestagswahlkampf 2013. [Small parties in the 2013 federal election campaign: Discourse offers and follow-up discourses] Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  293. Hyvärinen, M. (2015). Analyzing narrative genres. In A. de Fina & A. Georgakopoulou (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Narrative Analysis (S. 178–194). Wiley. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  294. Jagers, J., & Walgrave, S. (2007). Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research, 46(3), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00690.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  295. Januschek, F., & Reisigl, M. (Hrsg.). (2014). Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie (OBST): Bd. 86. Populismus in der digitalen Mediendemokratie [Populism in the digital media democracy] (1. Aufl.). Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr. https://ebookcentral. proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=6518723 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  296. Jarren, O., & Donges, P. (2017). Politische Kommunikation in der Mediengesellschaft [Political communication in the media society]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-658-16572-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  297. Jarzebski, S. (2020). Erzählte Politik: Politische Narrative im Bundestagswahlkampf [Narrated politics: Political narratives in the general election campaign]. Springer VS. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31013-4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  298. Kalsnes, B. (2016). The Social Media paradox explained: Comparing political parties’ Facebook strategy versus practice. Social Media + Society, 2(2), 1-11. https://doi. org/10.1177/2056305116644616 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  299. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1241–1257. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522952 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  300. Kopke, C. (2017). Verschwörungsmythen und Feindbilder in der AfD und in der neuen Protestbewegung von rechts [Conspiracy myths and images of the enemy in the AfD and in the new protest movement from the right]. Neue Kriminalpolitik, 29(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.5771/0934-9200-2017-1-49 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  301. Koschorke, A. (2012). Wahrheit und Erfindung: Grundzüge einer Allgemeinen Erzähltheorie [Truth and invention: Basic principles of a general narrative theory]. S. Fischer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  302. Lewandowsky, M. (2014). Populismus in sozialen Netzwerken: Die Beispiele AfD und pro Deutschland [Populism in social networks: The examples of AfD and pro Deutschland]. In F. Januschek & M. Reisigl (Hrsg.), Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie (OBST): Bd. 86. Populismus in der digitalen Mediendemokratie (1. Aufl., S. 19–46). Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  303. Lucht, J., Udris, L., & Vogler, D. (2017). Politische Inszenierungen: Eine Inhalts- und Resonanzanalyse der Facebook-Seiten bundesdeutscher Parteien [Political stagings: A content and resonance analysis of the Facebook pages of German political parties]. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  304. Martinelli, A. (2016). Populism and the crisis of representative democracy. In A. Martinelli (Hrsg.), Populism on the Rise: Democracies Under Challenge? (S. 13–32). Edizioni Epoké – ISPI. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  305. Moffitt, B. (2015). How to perform crisis: A model for understanding the key role of crisis in contemporary populism. Government and Opposition, 50(2), 189–217. https://doi. org/10.1017/gov.2014.13 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  306. Molyneux, M., & Osborne, T. (2017). Populism: a deflationary view. Economy and Society, 46(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2017.1308059 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  307. Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541–563. Müller, M. (2019). Narrative des Populismus: Erzählmuster und -strukturen populistischer Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  308. Politik [Narratives of populism: Narrative patterns and structes of populist politics]. In Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  309. M. Müller & J. Precht (Hrsg.), Narrative des Populismus (S. 1–10). Springer VS. Müller, M., & Precht, J. (Hrsg.). (2019). Narrative des Populismus [Narratives of popu- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  310. lism]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22374-8 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  311. Nassehi, A. (2016). Einfache Erklärungen – komplexe Welt [Simple explanations – complex world]. Politische Meinung, 61(539), 17–22. https://www.kas.de/docu- ments/252038/253252/7_dokument_dok_pdf_46054_1.pdf/17b54cef-47f8-7122- 8059-0d6ea50101f2?t=1539650419997 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  312. Ociepka, B. (2005). Populismus und Massenmedien: Anmerkungen zur Rolle der Medien [Populism and mass media: Notes on the role of the media]. In R. von Thadden & A. Hofmann (Hrsg.), Populismus in Europa – Krise der Demokratie? (S. 31–42). Wallstein. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  313. Patterson, M., & Monroe, K. R. (1998). Narrative in political science. Annual Reviews of Political Science, 1, 315–331. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  314. Podschuweit, N., & Haßler, J. (2015). Wahlkampf mit Kacheln, sponsored ads und Käseglocke: Der Einsatz des Internet im Bundestagswahlkampf 2013 [Election campaign with tiles, sponsored ads and cheese covers: The use of the internet in the 2013 Bundestag election campaign.]. In C. Holtz-Bacha (Hrsg.), Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf (S. 13–39). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06151-7_2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  315. Priester, K. (2012). Rechter und linker Populismus: Annäherung an ein Chamäleon [Rightwing and left-wing populism: Approach to a chameleon]. Campus. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  316. Prince, G. (1980). Aspects of a Grammar of Narrative. Poetics Today, 1(3), 49–63. Reinemann, C. (2017). Populismus, Kommunikation, Medien: Ein Überblick über die For- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  317. schung zu populistischer politischer Kommunikation [Populism, communication, media: An overview of research on populist political communication]. Zeitschrift für Politik, 64(2), 167–190. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26429680 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  318. Reinemann, C., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., Strömbäck, J., & de Vreese, C. (2016). Populist political communication: Toward a model of its causes, forms, and effects. In T. Aalberg, F. Esser, C. Reinemann, J. Strömbäck, & C. de Vreese (Hrsg.), Routledge Research in Communication Studies. Populist Political Communication in Europe (S. 12–28). Taylor and Francis. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  319. Schoen, H. (2014). Wahlkampfforschung [Election campaign research]. In J. W. Falter & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  320. H. Schoen (Hrsg.), Handbuch. Handbuch Wahlforschung (S. 661–728). Springer VS. Schulz, W. (2011). Politische Kommunikation [Political communication] (3., überarbeitete Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  321. Auflage). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531- 93094-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  322. Shenhav, S. R. (2006). Political narratives and political reality. International Political Science Review, 27(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512106064474 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  323. Siri, J. (2018). The Alternative for Germany after the 2017 election. German Politics, 27(1), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2018.1445724 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  324. Somers, M. R. (1994). The narrative constitution of identity: A relational and network approach. Theory and Society, 23, 605–649. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  325. Stavrakakis, Y., Katsambekis, G., Kioupkiolis, A., Nikisianis, N., & Siomos, T. (2018). Populism, anti-populism and crisis. Contemporary Political Theory, 17(1), 4–27. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-017-0142-y Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  326. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung [Grounded Theory: Basics of qualitative social science]. Beltz. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  327. Strübing, J. (2014). Grounded Theory: Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen Fundierung eines pragmatistischen Forschungsstils [On the social-theoretical and epistemological foundation of a pragmatist research style] (3. Aufl.). Springer VS. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19897-2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  328. Sukalla, F. (2019). Narrative Persuasion [Narrative persuasion]. Nomos. https://doi. org/10.5771/9783845283661 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  329. Viehöver, W. (2014). Erzählungen im Feld der Politik, Politik durch Erzählungen: Überlegungen zur Rolle der Narrationen in den politischen Wissenschaften [Narratives in the field of politics, politics through narration: Thoughts on the role of narrative in the political sciences]. In F. Gadinger, S. Jarzebski, & T. Yildiz (Hrsg.), Politische Narrative (S. 67–92). Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  330. Wojcieszak, M., & Kim, N. (2016). How to improve attitudes toward disliked groups. Communication Research, 43(6), 785–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215618480 Zulianello, M., Albertini, A. & Ceccobelli, D. (2018). A populist zeitgeist? The communication strategies of Western and Latin American political leaders on Facebook. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  331. The international journal of press/politics, 23(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1940161218783836 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  332. Agley, J., & Xiao, Y. (2021). Misinformation about COVID-19: Evidence for differential latent profiles and a strong association with trust in science. BMC Public Health, 21(89) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10103-x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  333. Akkerman, A., Mudde, C., & Zaslove, A. (2014). How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies, 47(9), 1324–1353. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0010414013512600 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  334. Allport, G. W., & Postman, L. (1946). An analysis of rumor. Public Opinion Quarterly, 10(4), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/10.4.501 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  335. Andreadis, I., Cremonesi, C., Kartsounidou, E., Kasprowicz, D., & Hess, A. (2019). Attitudinal and behavioral responses to populist communication: The impact of populist message elements on populist attitudes and voting intentions. In C. Reinemann, J. Stanyer, T. Aalberg, F. Esser, & C. H. de Vreese (Eds.), Communicating populism: Comparing actor perceptions, media coverage, and effects on citizens in Europe (pp. 207– 232). New York. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  336. Ariely, G. (2015). Trusting the press and political trust: A conditional relationship. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 25(3), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/174 57289.2014.997739 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  337. Blom, A. G., Wenz, A., Rettig, T., Reifenscheid, M., Naumann, E., Möhring, K., Lehrer, R., Krieger, U., Juhl, S., Friedel, S., Fikel, M., & Cornesseet, E. (2020). Das Leben in Deutschland im Ausnahmezustand. Bericht zur Lage vom 20. März bis 09. Juli 2020 [Life in Germany in a state of emergency. Report on the situation between March 20 and July 9, 2020]. https://www.uni-mannheim.de/gip/corona-studie/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  338. Boberg, S., Quandt, T., Schatto-Eckrodt, T., & Frischlich, L. (2020). Pandemic populism: Facebook pages of alternative news media and the Corona crisis – A computational content analysis. ArXiv: 2004.02566 [Cs.SI]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.02566 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  339. Bostrom, A., Böhm, G., & O’Connor, R. E. (2013). Targeting and tailoring climate change communications. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.234 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  340. Castanho Silva, B., Jungkunz, S., Helbling, M., & Littvay, L. (2020). An empirical comparison of seven populist attitudes scales. Political Research Quarterly, 73(2), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919833176 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  341. Chryst, B., Marlon, J., van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  342. C. (2018). Global warming’s “Six Americas Short Survey”: Audience segmentation of climate change views using a four question instrument. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 1109–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1508047 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  343. COSMO (2020). COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO). Last retrieved 10-7-2020 via https://projekte.uni-erfurt.de/cosmo2020/cosmo-analysis.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  344. de Vreese, C. H., Esser, F., Aalberg, T., Reinemann, C., & Stanyer, J. (2018). Populism as an expression of political communication content and style: A new perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(4), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1940161218790035 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  345. Deloitte (2020). Mediennutzung in Zeiten von COVID-19. Konsumenten setzen verstärkt auf Qualität und digitale Formate [Media use in times of COVID-19. Consumers go for quality and digital formats]. https://www2.deloitte.com/de/de/pages/technology- media-and-telecommunications/articles/mediennutzung-covid-19.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  346. Der Spiegel (2020). Made in China. https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/index-2020-6.html Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2018). Why conspiracy theories matter: A social psychological analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 256–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1537428 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  347. Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019). The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change, 9, 111–119. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  348. Fawzi, N. (2019). Untrustworthy news and the media as ‘enemy of the people?’. How a populist worldview shapes recipients’ attitudes toward the media. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 24(2), 146-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218811981 Featherstone, H., Weitkamp, E., Ling, K., & Burnet, F. (2009). Defining issue-based publics for public engagement: Climate change as a case study. Public Understanding of Sci- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  349. ence, 18(2), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507082890 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  350. Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency [FADA] (2021). Diskriminierungserfahrungen im Zusammenhang mit der Corona-Krise [Experiences of discrimination in the context oft he Corona pandemic]. https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/was-wir-machen/ projekte/Corona/Corona_node.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  351. Fraune, C., & Knodt, M. (2018). Sustainable energy transformations in an age of populism, post-truth politics, and local resistance. Energy Research & Social Science, 43, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.029 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  352. Funke, M., Schularick, M., & Trebesch, C. (2016). Going to extremes: Politics after financial crises, 1870–2014. European Economic Review, 88, 227-260. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.03.006 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  353. Gauchat, G. (2018). Trust in climate scientists. Nature Climate Change, 8, 458–459. http:// doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0147-4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  354. Gemenis, K., Katsanidou, A., & Vasilopoulou, S. (2012, April 3–5). The politics of antienvironmentalism: Positional issue framing by the European radical right [Conference presentation]. 62nd Annual Political Studies Association Conference 2012, Belfast, United Kingdom. http://doc.utwente.nl/97963/1/The_politics_of_anti-environmental- ism.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  355. Geurkink, B., Zaslove, A., Sluiter, R., & Jacobs, K. (2020). Populist attitudes, political trust, and external political efficacy: Old wine in new bottles? Political Studies, 68(1), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719842768 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  356. GfK [Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung] (2020). COVID-19 – Changes in online behavior across Europe. https://www.gfk.com/insights/covid-19-changes-in-online-media-use-in- times-of-crisis Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  357. Goldberg, M., Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2020). For the first time, the Alarmed are now the largest of Global Warming’s Six Americas. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/for-the-first-time-the- alarmed-are-now-thelargest-of-global-warmings-six-americas/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  358. Gollwitzer, A., Martel, C., Brady, W., J., Knowles, ED., & van Bavel, J. (2020). Partisan differences in physical distancing predict infections and mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (May 24, 2020). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3609392 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  359. Hameleers, M., Bos, L., & de Vreese, C. H. (2017a). ‘They did it’: The effects of emotionalized blame attribution in populist communication. Communication Research, 44(6), 870–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644026 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  360. Hameleers, M., Bos, L., & de Vreese, C. H. (2017b). The appeal of media populism: The media preferences of citizens with populist attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 20(4), 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1291817 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  361. Hameleers, M., Reinemann, C., Schmuck, D., & Fawzi, N. (2019). The persuasiveness of populist communication: Conceptualizing the effects and political consequences of populist communication from a social identity perspective. In C. Reinemann, J. Stanyer, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  362. T. Aalberg, F. Esser, & C. H. de Vreese (Eds.), Communicating populism: Comparing actor perceptions, media coverage, and effects on citizens in Europe (pp. 143–167). New York. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  363. Hameleers, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2020). To whom are “the people” opposed? Conceptualizing and measuring citizens’ populist attitudes as a multidimensional construct. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 30(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.10 80/17457289.2018.1532434 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  364. Hanitzsch, T., van Dalen, A., & Steindl, N. (2018). Caught in the nexus: A comparative and longitudinal analysis of public trust in the press. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217740695 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  365. Hart, P.S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi. org/10.1177/0093650211416646 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  366. Hine, D. W., Phillips, W. J., Driver, A. B., & Morrison, M. (2017). Audience segmentation and climate change communication. In D. W. Hine, W. J. Phillips, A. B. Driver, & M. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science (pp. 441–459). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.390 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  367. Hmielowski, J. D., Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866–883. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963662513480091 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  368. Holt, K., Ustad Figenschou, T., & Frischlich, L. (2019). Key dimensions of alternative news media. Digital Journalism, 7(7), 860–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.16 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  369. 25715 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  370. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  371. Huber, R. A. (2020). The role of populist attitudes in explaining climate change skepticism and support for environmental protection. Environmental Politics, 29(6), 959–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1708186 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  372. Hunger, S., & Paxton, F. (2021). What’s in a buzzword? A systematic review of the state of populism research in political science. Political Science Research and Methods, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.44 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  373. Jackob, N. (2012). The tendency to trust as individual predisposition – exploring the associations between interpersonal trust, trust in the media and trust in institutions. Communications, 37(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2012-0005 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  374. Jungkunz, S. (2021). Political polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Political Science, 3:622512. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.622512 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  375. Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424. http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2182588 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  376. Kahan, D. M., Ellen, P., Dawson, E., & Paul, S. (2013). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2319992 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  377. Kaiser, J. (2017). Public spheres of skepticism: Climate skeptics’ online comments in the German networked public sphere. International Journal of Communication, 11, 1661– 1682. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  378. Kammermann, L., & Dermont, C. (2018). How beliefs of the political elite and citizens on climate change influence support for Swiss energy transition policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 43, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.010 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  379. Krämer, B. (2014). Media populism: A conceptual clarification and some theses on its effects. Communication Theory, 24(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12029 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  380. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  381. 498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  382. Ladd, J. M. (2010). The role of media distrust in partisan voting. Political Behavior, 32, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  383. 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9123-z Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  384. Lehmann, P., & Zehnter, L. (2022). The self-proclaimed defender of freedom: The AfD and the pandemic. Government and Opposition, 1-19. doi:10.1017/gov.2022.5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  385. Leiserowitz, A., Thaker, J., Feinberg, G., & Cooper, D. (2013). Global warming’s six Indias: An audience segmentation analysis. Yale University. https://doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.2.23171.91688 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  386. Lörcher, I., & Taddicken, M. (2017). Discussing climate change online. Topics and perceptions in online climate change communication in different online public arenas. Journal of Science Communication, 16(2), A03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16020203 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  387. Lowrey, W. (2004). Media dependency during a large-scale social disruption: The case of September 11. Mass Communication & Society, 7(3), 339–357. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0703_5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  388. Marquart, O. (2020, May 13). Wer geht auf “Hygiene-Demos”? Protest-Forscher erklärt das Phänomen [Who takes part in “hygiene-demonstrations”? Protest-researcher explains the phenomenon]. Watson. https://politik.watson.de/deutschland/ interview/719609720-wer-geht-auf-hygiene-demos-protest-forscher-erklaert-das-coro- na-phaenomen Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  389. Maurer, M., Reinemann, C., & Kruschinski, S. (2021). Einseitig, unkritisch, regierungsnah? Eine empirische Studie zur Qualität der journalistischen Berichterstattung über die Corona-Pandemie [One-sided, uncritical, close to the government? An empirical study about the quality of journalistic coverage of the Corona-pandemic]. https://ru- dolf-augstein-stiftung.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Studie-einseitig-unkritisch-re- gierungsnah-reinemann-rudolf-augstein-stiftung.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  390. Mazzoleni, G., Stewart, J., & Horsfield, B. (2003). The media and neo-populism: A Contemporary comparative analysis. Westport, CT. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  391. Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 473–491. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963662520924259 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  392. Merkley, E. (2020) Anti-intellectualism, populism, and motivated resistance to expert consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(1), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz053 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  393. Metag, J., Füchslin, T., & Schäfer, M. S. (2017). Global warming’s five Germans: A typology of German’s views on climate change and patterns of media use and information. Public Understanding of Science, 26(4), 434–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515592558 Morrison, M., Duncan, R., Sherley, C., & Parton, K. (2013). A comparison between attitudes to climate change in Australia and the United States. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 20(2), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2012.76 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  394. 2946 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  395. Motta, M. (2018). The dynamics and political implications of anti-intellectualism in the United States. American Politics Research, 46(3), 465–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1532673X17719507 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  396. Müller, P., Schemer, C., Wettstein, M., Schulz, A., Wirz, D. S., Engesser, S., & Wirth, W. (2017). The polarizing impact of news coverage on populist attitudes in the public: Evidence from a panel study in four European democracies. Journal of Communication, 67(6), 968–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12337 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  397. Müller, P., & Schulz, A. (2019) Alternative media for a populist audience? Exploring political and media use predictors of exposure to Breitbart, Sputnik, and Co. Information, Communication & Society, 4(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1646778 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  398. Myers, T. A., Maibach E., Peters E., & Leiserowitz A. (2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments. PLoS ONE, 10(7): e0133103. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour- nal.pone.0120985 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  399. Nielsen (2020). COVID-19: Tracking the impact on media consumption. https://www. nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2020/covid-19-tracking-the-impact-on-media-con- sumption/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  400. Quandt, T. M., Boberg, S., Schatto-Eckrodt, T., & Frischlich, L. (2020). Pandemic news: Facebook pages of mainstream news media and the Coronavirus crisis – A computational content analysis. ArXiv: 2005.13290v2 [cs.SI]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.13290v2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  401. Priebe, M. (2020, February 3). Wie Rassisten das Coronavirus für sich nutzen [How racists use the Corona virus to their advantage]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. https://www. faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/gesundheit/coronavirus/coronavirus-in-china-sinophobie- und-rassismus-im-netz-16614102.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  402. Ramiro, L., & Gomez, R. (2017). Radical-left populism during the Great Recession: Podemos and its competition with the established radical left. Political Studies, 65(1_ suppl), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716647400 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  403. Rooduijn, M. (2019). State of the field: How to study populism and adjacent topics? A plea for both more and less focus. European Journal of Political Research, 58(1), 362– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  404. 372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12314 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  405. Rogers, K., Jakes, L., & Swanson, A. (2020, March 18). Trump defends using ‘Chinese Virus’ label, ignoring growing criticism. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2020/03/18/us/politics/china-virus.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  406. Rountree, C., & Prentice, G. (2021). Segmentation of intentions towards COVID-19 vaccine acceptance through political and health behaviour explanatory models. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 1–15. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021- 02852-4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  407. Schäfer, M. S. (2018). Climate change communication in Germany. In M. C. Nisbet, S. S. Ho, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  408. E. Markowitz, S. O’Neill, M. S. Schäfer, & J. Thaker (Eds.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication (pp. 265–285). Oxford. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  409. Schäfer, M. S., Füchslin, T., Metag, J., Kristiansen, S., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2018). The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 836–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517752886 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  410. Schaller, S., & Carius, A. (2019). Convenient Truths: Mapping climate agendas of right-wing populist parties in Europe. adelphi. https://www.adelphi.de/en/publication/convenient- truths Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  411. Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A., & Schäfer, M. (2013). Media attention for climate change around the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1233–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.020 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  412. Schulz, A., Müller, P., Schemer, C., Wirz, D. S., Wettstein, M., & Wirth, W. (2018). Measuring populist attitudes on three dimensions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(2), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw037 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  413. Schulz, A., Wirth, W., & Müller, P. (2020). We are the people and you are fake news: A social identity approach to populist citizens’ false consensus and hostile media perceptions. Communication Research, 47(2), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218794854 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  414. Spence, P. R., & Lachlan, K. A. (2016). Recurring challenges and emerging threats. Crisis and the new millennium. In A. Schwarz, M. W. Seeger, & C. Auer (Eds.), The handbook of international crisis communication research (pp. 212–223). New York. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118516812.ch20 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  415. Stöber, S. (2020, May 1). “Hygienedemos”. Jahrmarkt der kruden Ideen [“Hygiene-demonstrations”. Fair of weird ideas]. tagesschau.de. https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/ corona-demos-101.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  416. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  417. UN.org (2020). UN tackles ‘infodemic’ of misinformation and cybercrime in COVID-19 crisis. https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-tackling- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  418. %E2%80%98infodemic%E2%80%99-misinformation-and-cybercrime-covid-19 Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  419. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12024 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  420. Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C. H., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stepinska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R., Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  421. Van Stekelenburg, A., Schaap, G., Veling, H., & Buijzen, M. (2020). Correcting misperceptions: The causal role of motivation in corrective science communication about vaccine and food safety. Science Communication, 42(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019898256 Weiß, H.-J., Wagner, M., & Maurer, T. (2020). Aktuelle Fernsehberichterstattung über die Corona-Krise. Daten des Nachrichtenmonitors und der ARD/ZDF-Programmanalyse [TV coverage about the Corona-crisis. Data from the news monitor and the ARD/ZDF pro- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  422. gramme analysis]. Media Perspektiven, 10-11/2020, 591-598. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  423. Wise, D., & McLaughlin, B. (2016). In media we distrust: The interplay of message, context, and media trust on campaign message effects. Electronic News, 10(2), 105–120. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1931243116647769 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  424. Zhou, J. (2016). Boomerangs versus javelins: How polarization constrains communication on climate change. Environmental Politics, 25(5), 788–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401 6.2016.1166602 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  425. Auerbach, R. P., Mortier, P., Bruffaerts, R., Alonso, J., Benjet, C., Cuijpers, P., Demyttenaere, K., Ebert, D. D., Green, J. G., Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  426. Hasking, P., Murray, E., Nock, M. K., Pinder-Amaker, S., Sampson, N. A., Stein, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  427. D. J., Vilagut, G., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Kessler, R. C. (2018). The WHO World Mental Health Survey’s international college student project: Prevalence and distribution of mental disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(7), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000362 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  428. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  429. Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  430. M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 94– 124). Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  431. Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. P. (2016). Metaanalytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446–467. https://doi. org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  432. Caputo, N. M., & Rouner, D. (2011). Narrative processing of entertainment media and mental illness stigma. Health Communication, 26(7), 595–604. https://doi. org/10.1080/10410236.2011.560787 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  433. Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327825MCS0403_01 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  434. Cohen, J., Weimann-Saks, D., & Mazor-Tregerman, M. (2018). Does character similarity increase identification and persuasion? Media Psychology, 21(3), 506– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  435. 528. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  436. 017.1302344 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  437. Corrigan, P. W., Powell, K. J., & Michaels, P. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  438. J. (2013). The effects of news stories on the stigma of mental illness: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 201(3), 179–182. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD. 0b013e3182848c24 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  439. de Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, J. W. J. (2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39(6), 802–823. htt- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  440. ps://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093650211408594 Ebert, D. D., Mortier, P., Kaehlke, F., Bruffaerts, R., Baumeister, H., Auerbach, R. P., Alonso, J., Vilagut, G., Martínez, K. U., Lochner, C., Cuijpers, P., Kuechler, A.-M., Green, J., Hasking, P., Lapsley, C., Sampson, N. A., Kessler, R. C., & WHO World Mental Health-International College Student Initiative collaborators (2019). Barriers of mental health treatment utilization among first-year college students: First cross-national results from the WHO World Mental Health Internation- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  441. al College Student Initiative. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 28(2), e1782. https://doi. org/10.1002/mpr.1782 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  442. Fox, A. B., Earnshaw, V. A., Taverna, E. C., & Vogt, D. (2018). Conceptualizing and measuring mental illness stigma: The mental illness stigma framework and critical review of measures. Stigma and health, 3(4), 348–376. https://doi. org/10.1037/sah0000104 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  443. Gaus, Q., Jolliff, A., & Moreno, M. A. (2021). A content analysis of YouTube depression personal account videos and their comments. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 3, 100050. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100050 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  444. Goepfert, N. C., von Heydendorff, S. C., Dreßing, H., & Bailer, J. (2019). Effects of stigmatizing media coverage on stigma measures, self-esteem, and affectivity in persons with depression – an experimental controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12888-019-2123-6 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  445. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2005). Persuasiveness of narratives. In T. C. Brock & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  446. M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 117–142). Sage. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  447. Griffiths, K. M., Christensen, H., Jorm, A. F., Evans, K., & Groves, C. (2004). Effect of web-based depression literacy and cognitive-behavioural therapy interventions on stigmatising attitudes to depression: Randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science, 185, 342–349. https:// doi.org/10.1192/bjp.185.4.342 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  448. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  449. Hildersley, R., Potts, L., Anderson, C., & Henderson, C. (2020). Improvement for most, but not all: Changes in newspaper coverage of mental illness from 2008 to 2019 in England. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 29. https://doi. org/10.1017/S204579602000089X Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  450. Hoeken, H., Kolthoff, M., & Sanders, J. (2016). Story perspective and character similarity as drivers of identification and narrative persuasion. Human Communication Research, 42(2), 292–311. https:// doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12076 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  451. Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1991). Perceiving and responding to mass media characters. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 63–101). Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  452. Hoffner, C., & Cohen, E. L. (2012). Responses to obsessive compulsive disorder on monk among series fans: Parasocial relations, presumed media influence, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 650–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012. 732136 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  453. Klin, A., & Lemish, D. (2008). Mental disorders stigma in the media: Review of studies on production, content, and influences. Journal of Health Communication, 13(5), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  454. 10810730802198813 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  455. Ma, Z. (2017). How the media cover mental illnesses: A review. Health Education, 117(1), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/ HE-01-2016-0004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  456. Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 393–421. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.56.091103.070137 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  457. McKeever, R. (2015). Vicarious experience: Experimentally testing the effects of empathy for media characters with severe depression and the intervening role of perceived similarity. Health Communication, 30(11), 1122–1134. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10410236.2014.921969 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  458. Mirnezami, H. F., Jacobsson, L., & Edin-Liljegren, A. (2016). Changes in attitudes towards mental disorders and psychiatric treatment 1976–2014 in a Swedish population. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 70(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/08 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  459. 039488.2015.1046916 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  460. Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-Education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  461. Niederkrotenthaler, T., & Till, B. (2020). Effects of suicide awareness materials on individuals with recent suicidal ideation or attempt: Online randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 217(6), 693–700. https://doi. org/10.1192/bjp.2019.259 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  462. Peng, W., Lee, M., & Heeter, C. (2010). The effects of a serious game on role-taking and willingness to help. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 723–742. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01511.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  463. Reavley, N. J., Cvetkovski, S., & Jorm, A. F. (2011). Sources of information about mental health and links to help seeking: Findings from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46(12), 1267–1274. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0301-4 Romer, D., & Bock, M. (2008). Reducing the stigma of mental illness among adolescents and young adults: The effects of treatment information. Journal of Health Communication, 13(8), 742–758. https:// Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  464. doi.org/10.1080/10810730802487406 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  465. Ross, A. M., Morgan, A. J., Jorm, A. F., & Reavley, N. J. (2019). A systematic review of the impact of media reports of severe mental illness on stigma and discrimination, and interventions that aim to mitigate any adverse impact. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 54(1), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  466. 018-1608-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  467. Schomerus, G., Matschinger, H., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2009). The stigma of psychiatric treatment and help seeking intentions for depression. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 259(5), 298–306. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00406-009-0870-y Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  468. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173–191. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  469. tb00265.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  470. Tal-Or, N., & Cohen, J. (2010). Understanding audience involvement: Conceptualizing and manipulating identification and transportation. Poetics, 38(4), 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poet- ic.2010.05.004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  471. Tukachinsky, R. (2014). Experimental manipulation of psychological involvement with media. Communication Methods and Measures, 8(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19312458.2013.873777 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  472. van Krieken, K., & Sanders, J. (2017). Health communication| engaging doctors and depressed patients: Effects of referential viewpoint and role similarity in health narratives. International Journal of Communication, 11, 19. Retrieved from htt- ps://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/ view/6276 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  473. Vogel, D. L., Wade, N. G., & Haake, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  474. S. (2006). Measuring the self-stigma associated with seeking psychological help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  475. 0167.53.3.325 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  476. Vyncke, B., & van Gorp, B. (2018). An experimental examination of the effectiveness of framing strategies to reduce mental health stigma. Journal of Health Communication, 23(10–11), 899–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2018. 1538272 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  477. Wang, W. (2020). Exemplification and stigmatization of the depressed: Depression as the main topic versus an incidental topic in national US news coverage. Health Communication, 35(8), 1033– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  478. 1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  479. 2019.1606874 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  480. Wang, X. (2018). Responses to HIV public service announcements: The mediating role of attitude toward the ad and source identification. Intercultural Communication Studies, 27(1), 114–124. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  481. Whitley, R., & Wang, J. (2017). Good news? A longitudinal analysis of newspaper portrayals of mental illness in Canada 2005 to 2015. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 62(4), 278–285. https://doi. org/10.1177/0706743716675856 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169

Zitation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download Kapitel (PDF)

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Per E-Mail teilen

Medien