“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.

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 11 (2022), Issue 1
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 11 (2022), Issue 1

Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2022
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Volume 11 (2022), Issue 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.

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Preview:

How citizens perceive social crises is heavily influenced by the information sources they use and their individual characteristics. These strongly impact how the information received is processed and interpreted. This should also be true in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic that started to shake up the world in early 2020. Based on recent research in political communication, we hypothesize that institutional trust in media, politics, and science, as well as right-wing populist attitudes, should influence how people think about this crisis, which was managed by politics based on scientific expertise and covered intensively by the media. Therefore, this paper asks how the use of different information sources, the trust in these sources, and right-wing populist attitudes influenced the perception of the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic during the first phase of the first lockdown in Germany. It draws on data from a quantitative online quota-survey of German citizens and concludes on the basis of segmentation analysis, first, that even in the early days of the pandemic, sizeable segments of the population were either skeptical or completely denied the risks of the pandemic, questioned the scientific consensus around it and rejected mitigating measures. Second, besides right-wing populist attitudes and several other factors, the segments significantly differed in their degree of trust in traditional media, politics, and science as sources of information. We discuss the results in light of the necessity to build, preserve, and restore trust in media, science, and politics as a prerequisite for crisis prevention, communication, and management.

Bibliography

  1. Aalberg, T., & Curran, J. (Eds.) (2012). How media inform democracy. A comparative approach. Routledge. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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, & Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  15. teme, 3, 175–191. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  20. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  26. discussion. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 21–62. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  29. Dalton, R. J. (2017). The participation gap: Social status and political inequality. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  32. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  33. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  34. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  35. Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  38. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Wiley. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  39. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How americans produce apathy in everyday life. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  40. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar 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). Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  48. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation. New directions for democratic reform. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  49. Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  52. Fitzgerald, J. (2013). What does “political” mean to you? Political Behavior, 35(3), 453– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  53. 479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9212-2 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  59. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Sage. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  64. Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts. A user’s guide. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  68. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  70. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  71. Habermas, J. (1994). Three normative models of democracy. Constellations, 1(1), 1–10. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.1994.tb00001.x Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  74. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd edition). Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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.), Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  84. Strategic Communication: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 96–114). Routledge. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  94. Knops, A. (2006). Delivering deliberation’s emancipatory potential. Political Theory, 34(5), 594–623. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  97. Kruglanski, A. W., & Fishman, S. (2009). The need for cognitive closure. In M. R. Leary & Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  99. Lafont, C. (2020). Democracy without shortcuts. A participatory conception of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  101. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. Whittlesey House. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  105. .2016.1224160 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  107. Maia, R. C. (2012). Deliberation, the media and political talk. Hampton Press. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  109. Manin, B. (1987). On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  110. 368. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  111. Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  113. Mansbridge, J. (2015). A minimalist definition of deliberation. In P. Heller & V. Rao (Eds.), Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  114. Deliberation and Development (pp. 27–50). World Bank Group. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  118. Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. In M. Delli Carpini, Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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:// Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  121. doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1118448 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  126. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side. Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  127. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  128. Neblo, M. A. (2015). Deliberative democracy between theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  130. Nir, L. (2017). Disagreement in political discussion. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  131. Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  133. .2017.1330965 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  135. Parkinson, J. (2018). Deliberative systems. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  136. M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (pp. 432–446). Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  139. Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  140. Podschuweit, N. (2017). Interpersonal communication: Media influence on. In P. Rössler, Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  143. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  145. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  153. 538. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12051 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  162. Steiner, J. (2012). The foundations of deliberative demoncracy. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  164. Strandberg, K., & Grönlund, K. (2018). Online deliberation. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  170. Tanasoca, A (2020). Deliberation naturalized: Improving real existing deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  173. polisci.11.081306.070555 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  174. Tönnies, F. (1963 [1887]). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft [Community and society]. Kohlhammer. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  184. on the philosophy of science]. Mohr. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  185. Wessler, H. (2018). Habermas and the media. Polity. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  186. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-7
  187. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  206. Gray, J. (2013). Feeding on the Web: Online social support in the breastfeeding context. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  207. Communication Research Reports, 30(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.20 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  208. 12.746219 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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/ Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  246. 300. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00099 Open Google Scholar 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, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-73
  248. S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. B. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated Interpersonal Communication (pp. 290–308). Routledge. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  266. Bruner, J. (1991). The Narrative Construction of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(Autumn), 1–21. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  308. Politik [Narratives of populism: Narrative patterns and structes of populist politics]. In Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  310. lism]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22374-8 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  319. Schoen, H. (2014). Wahlkampfforschung [Election campaign research]. In J. W. Falter & Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  321. Auflage). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531- 93094-7 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98
  328. Sukalla, F. (2019). Narrative Persuasion [Narrative persuasion]. Nomos. https://doi. org/10.5771/9783845283661 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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/ Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  341. Chryst, B., Marlon, J., van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  349. ence, 18(2), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507082890 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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/ Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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, Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  369. 25715 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  380. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  381. 498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  382. Ladd, J. M. (2010). The role of media distrust in partisan voting. Political Behavior, 32, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  383. 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9123-z Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  394. 2946 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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/ Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  404. 372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12314 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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, Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  419. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12024 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-132
  422. gramme analysis]. Media Perspektiven, 10-11/2020, 591-598. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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., Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  426. Hasking, P., Murray, E., Nock, M. K., Pinder-Amaker, S., Sampson, N. A., Stein, Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  428. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  429. Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  430. M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 94– 124). Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  435. 528. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  436. 017.1302344 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  437. Corrigan, P. W., Powell, K. J., & Michaels, P. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  445. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2005). Persuasiveness of narratives. In T. C. Brock & Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  446. M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 117–142). Sage. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  454. 10810730802198813 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  459. 039488.2015.1046916 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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:// Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  464. doi.org/10.1080/10810730802487406 Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  466. 018-1608-9 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  469. tb00265.x Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  473. Vogel, D. L., Wade, N. G., & Haake, Open Google Scholar 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- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  475. 0167.53.3.325 Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar 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– Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  478. 1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169
  479. 2019.1606874 Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-169

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media