Open Access

Sharing, commenting, and reacting to Danish misinformation: A case study of cognitive attraction on Facebook

Petra de Place Bak

Petra de Place Bak

Department of Media and Journalism Studies, Aarhus UniversityDenmark
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Bak, Petra de Place
 and 
Ethan Weed

Ethan Weed

Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus UniversityDenmark
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Weed, Ethan
  
Apr 12, 2025
Sharing, commenting, and reacting to Danish misinformation: A case study of cognitive attraction on Facebook's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Download Cover
Published Online: Apr 12, 2025
Page range: 55 - 75
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2025-0003
Keywords
© 2025 Petra de Place Bak et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Mock example of how the posts might lookComments: The image of cars included in the mock post was generated by ChatGPT Plus.
Mock example of how the posts might lookComments: The image of cars included in the mock post was generated by ChatGPT Plus.

Figure 2

Proportion of factors by Covid status (per cent)
Proportion of factors by Covid status (per cent)

Figure 3

Co-occurrences of factors of attraction (row baseline, per cent)Comments: The row is the baseline, which means that, for example, of the times that intergroup-related information is present, it co-occurs with social information 28 per cent of the time, threat-related information 79 per cent of the time, and so on, whereas of the times social information occurs, it co-occurs with intergroup-related information 51 per cent of the time. The difference in percentage is caused by a difference in frequency between the categories.
Co-occurrences of factors of attraction (row baseline, per cent)Comments: The row is the baseline, which means that, for example, of the times that intergroup-related information is present, it co-occurs with social information 28 per cent of the time, threat-related information 79 per cent of the time, and so on, whereas of the times social information occurs, it co-occurs with intergroup-related information 51 per cent of the time. The difference in percentage is caused by a difference in frequency between the categories.

Figure 4

Incidence rate ratios of predictor variables on total engagementComments: Values lower than 1 have a negative influence on engagement, while values above 1 have a positive influence. Dots indicate the median of the posterior distributions, as do the values above each point. Whiskers indicate 95 per cent credible intervals, and bars indicate 50 per cent credible intervals.
Incidence rate ratios of predictor variables on total engagementComments: Values lower than 1 have a negative influence on engagement, while values above 1 have a positive influence. Dots indicate the median of the posterior distributions, as do the values above each point. Whiskers indicate 95 per cent credible intervals, and bars indicate 50 per cent credible intervals.

Categories and descriptions

Category Description
Social The content concerns intense and noticeable social relationships (e.g., gossip, cheating, group alliances, controversies) but also everyday interactions and relationships (e.g., friends, family).
Threat-related The content concerns possible threats (e.g., illness, violent acts, dangerous situations, death, and unvoluntary abortion).
Positive The content expresses emotions that can be considered overall as positive (e.g., amusement, love, joy, etc.).
Negative The content expresses emotions that can be considered overall as negative (e.g., sadness, regret, fear, anger, etc.).
Intergroup-related The content concerns intergroup relationships, differences, or attitudes based on group membership (e.g., based in cultural, religious, social, and value differences).

Incidence rate ratios for total and subtypes of engagement (i_e_, comments, shares, and reactions)

Predictors Total Comments Shares Reactions
Video 21.66 (14.07) 3.19 (1.91) 52.52 (43.2) 3.02 (1.69)
Image 8.25 (3.18) 2.8 (1.25) 12.54 (7.44) 3.72 (1.44)
Positivity 3.36 (2.4) 1.85 (1.34) 2.76 (2.85) 2.51 (1.6)
Negativity 2.98 (1.21) 2.28 (0.92) 4.46 (2.32) 1.65 (0.6)
Intergroup info 2.73 (1.06) 0.99 (0.39) 3.86 (1.86) 2.54 (0.88)
Social info 0.88 (0.41) 1.08 (0.48) 0.92 (0.55) 0.96 (0.37)
Threat info 0.57 (0.26) 0.82 (0.42) 0.87 (0.45) 0.65 (0.27)
Covid 0.4 (0.16) 0.15 (0.07) 0.38 (0.2) 0.36 (0.13)
Emojis 0.11 (0.04) 0.77 (0.3) 0.05 (0.02) 0.22 (0.07)
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
2 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Social Sciences, Communication Science, Public and Political Communication, Mass Communication
Journal RSS Feed