Reconciling discrepancies between low estimates of misinformation exposure versus high perceived threats: a theoretical overview and a future research agenda

Abstract The alarm on misinformation’s scope and alleged unprecedented democratic consequences is ringing louder than ever. At the same time, empirical research on the prevalence and effects of misinformation does not offer univocal support for a salient threat. News users, however, are very concerned about misinformation and their ability to detect it. In this paper, we forward four potential reasons for the discrepancy between concerns about misinformation and empirical evidence on its scope and effects: (1) the weaponization and amplification of threats related to misinformation; (2) non-aligning conceptualizations of misinformation between news users, media practitioners, and academics; (3) a lack of attention to low- versus high-resilient contexts of mis- and disinformation; and (4) a conflation between prevalence and impact. By mapping these potential causes of prevailing discrepancies, this paper aims to contribute to a better theoretical understanding of the nature of misinformation’s threats that should form the empirical basis for effective interventions.