“Fake News” Is What Happens to Others: Russians’ Perceptions of Groups Vulnerable to Disinformation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2026.2.3115Keywords:
media consumption, fake news, disinformation, third-person effect, media trust, mass communicationAbstract
This article examines how Russians conceptualize the groups most vulnerable to fake news. Drawing on 119 semi-structured interviews conducted in spring 2024, I find clear evidence of the third-person effect: participants believe that disinformation primarily threatens “others” who differ from them on salient dimensions. Age is the most common basis for dividing society into “us” (relatively protected) and “them” (more vulnerable). Age is invoked as a biological (mental state, emotional susceptibility), social (lifestyle), or generational (socialization contexts) variable. Younger respondents typically see older people as more at risk — either lacking the skills or the motivation to verify information — whereas older respondents view youth as more susceptible due to insufficient maturity. Media consumption patterns form a second key fault line. Television audiences assume that internet users are more likely to fall for fakes, while internet users believe the opposite. Highly news-engaged individuals regard themselves as more competent at identifying disinformation and, therefore better protected. Less engaged individuals, in turn, claim they encounter fake news less often and, since perfect detection is impossible, consider themselves less vulnerable than heavy news consumers. Respondents who are more educated, more professionally successful, or living in large cities also perceive themselves as better protected than those who differ on these dimensions. Methodologically, I show that the foundations of the third-person effect are heterogeneous, making generic survey items about “self” versus “others” difficult to interpret. People load very different meanings into “others” (the youth, the elderly, small-town residents, etc.), effectively answering different questions.
Acknowledgments. The study was implemented in the framework of the Basic Research Program at HSE University.
References
Вырковский А. В., Шамсутдинова Ю. Ф. Категория доверия к массмедиа в условиях информационной турбулентности: время обновлять концепции? // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2024. № 6. С. 182—203. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.6.2529.
Vyrkovsky A. V., Shamsutdinova Y. F. (2024) The Category of Trust in Mass Media in the Conditions of Information Turbulence: Time to Update the Concepts? Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 6. P. 182—203. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.6.2529. (In Russ.)
Дорофеева В. В. Фейковые новости в современном медиапространстве // Вопросы теории и практики журналистики. 2019. № 4. С. 774—786. https://doi.org/10.17150/2308-6203.2019.8(4).774-786.
Dorofeeva V. V. (2019) Fake News in Modern Media Space. Theoretical and Practical Issues of Journalism. No. 4. P. 774—786. https://doi.org/10.17150/2308-6203.2019.8(4).774-786. (In Russ.)
Зуйкина К. Л., Соколова Д. В. Специфика контента российских фейковых новостей в Интернете и на телевидении // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 10: Журналистика. 2019. № 4. С. 3—22.
Zuikina K. L., Sokolova D. V. (2019) The Specifics of Russian Fake News Content on the Internet and Television. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 10: Journalism. No. 4. P. 3—22. (In Russ.)
Казун А. Д. «Народные теории» фейковых новостей // Полис. Политические исследования. 2025а. № 6. С. 73—85. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.06.06.
Kazun A. D. (2025a) Folk Theories of Fake News. Polis. Political Studies. No. 6. P. 73—85. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.06.06. (In Russ.)
Казун А. Д. «Очернить светлое и чистое, обелить темное и грязное»: представления россиян о потенциальных рисках фейковых новостей // Интеракция. Интервью. Интерпретация. 2025б. Т. 17. № 3. С. 35—54. https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2025.17.3.2.
Kazun A. D. (2025b) “To Tarnish the Bright and Pure, to Whitewash the Dark and Dirty”: Russians’ Perceptions of the Potential Risks of Fake News. Interaction. Interview. Interpretation. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 35—54. https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2025.17.3.2. (In Russ.)
Казун А. Д., Петрова Д. В. Борьба без надежды: Общественные представления о способах противодействия фейковым новостям // Полития: Анализ. Хроника. Прогноз. 2025. № 3. С. 108—126. https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2025-118-3-108-126.
Kazun A. D., Petrova D. V. (2025) Fighting Without Hope: Public Perceptions of Strategies for Countering Fake News. Politeia: Analysis. Chronicle. Forecast. No. 3. P. 108—126. https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2025-118-3-108-126. (In Russ.)
Петрова Д. В. Потребление новостей в сельской местности: (не)доверие и стратегии верификации информации // Мониторинг общественного мнения: Экономические и социальные перемены. 2024. № 4. С. 91—114. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.4.2572.
Petrova D. V. (2024) News Consumption in Rural Area: (Dis)Trust and Verification Strategies. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 4. P. 91—114. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.4.2572. (In Russ.)
Ушкин С. Г. Не только социальные сети: каналы распространения фейковых новостей в представлениях населения // Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. 2024. № 2. С. 162—176. https://doi.org/10.46539/gmd.v6i2.460.
Ushkin S. G. (2024) Not Only Social Networks: Channels of Dissemination of Fake News in the Views of the Population. Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 162—176. https://doi.org/10.46539/gmd.v6i2.460. (In Russ.)
Banning S. A. (2001) Do You See What I See?: Third-Person Effects on Public Communication Through Self-Esteem, Social Stigma, and Product Use. Mass Communication and Society. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 127—147. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0402_01.
Brown J. D. (1986) Evaluations of Self and Others: Self-Enhancement Biases in Social Judgments. Social Cognition. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 353—376.
Büchi M., Just N., Latzer M. (2016) Modeling the Second-Level Digital Divide: A Five-Country Study of Social Differences in Internet Use. New Media & Society. Vol. 18. No. 11. P. 2703—2722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815604154.
Chambers J. (2008) Explaining False Uniqueness: Why We are Both Better and Worse Than Others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. No. 2. P. 878—894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00076.x.
Cohen J., Mutz D., Price V., Gunther A. (1988) Perceived Impact on Defamation: An Experiment on Third-Person Effects. Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 52. No. 2. P. 161—173. https://doi.org/10.1086/269092.
Corbu N., Oprea D.-A., Frunzaru V. (2022) Romanian Adolescents, Fake News, and the Third-Person Effect: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Children and Media. Vol. 16. No. 3. P. 387—405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2021.1992460.
Corbu N., Oprea D.-A., Negrea-Busuioc E., Radu L. (2020) ‘They Can’t Fool Me, But They Can Fool the Others!’ Third Person Effect and Fake News Detection. European Journal of Communication. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 165—180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120903686.
Davison W. P. (1983) The Third-Person Effect in Communication. Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 47. No. 1. 1—15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763.
Egelhofer J. L., Lecheler S. (2019) Fake News as a Two-Dimensional Phenomenon: A Framework and Research Agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 97—116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1602782.
Eveland JR. W. P., Nathanson A. I., Detenber B. H., McLeod D. M. (1999) Rethinking the Social Distance Corollary: Perceived Likelihood of Expsoure and the Third-Person Perception. Communication Research. Vol. 26. No. 3. P. 275—302. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003001.
Gibbon P., Durkin K. (1995) The Third Person Effect: Social Distance and Perceived Media Bias. European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 25. No. 5. P. 597—602. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250509.
Gunther A. C. (1995) Overrating the X-Rating: The Third-Person Perception and Support for Censorship of Pornography. Journal of Communication. Vol. 45. No. 1. P. 27—38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00712.x.
Gunther A. C., Storey J. D. (2003) The Influence of Presumed Influence. Journal of Communication. Vol. 53. No. 2. P. 199—215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x.
Guo L., Johnson B. G. (2020) Third-Person Effect and Hate Speech Censorship on Facebook. Social Media + Society. Vol. 6. No. 2. Art. 2056305120923003. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120923003.
Hoffner C., Buchanan M., Anderson J. D., Hubbs L. A., Kamigaki S. K., Kowalczyk L., Pastorek A., Plotkin R. S., Silberg K. J. (1999) Support for Censorship of Television Violence: The Role of the Third-Person Effect and News Exposure. Communication Research. Vol. 26. No. 6. P. 726—742. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026006004.
Jang S. M., Kim J. K. (2018) Third Person Effects of Fake News: Fake News Regulation and Media Literacy Interventions. Computers in Human Behavior. No. 80. P. 295—302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.034.
Kim M. (2025) A Direct and Indirect Effect of Third-Person Perception of COVID-19 Fake News on Support for Fake News Regulation on Social Media: Investigating the Role of Negative Emotions and Political Views. Mass Communication and Society. Vol. 28. No. 2. P. 229—252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2023.2227601.
Lev-On A. (2017) The Third-Person Effect on Facebook: The Significance of Perceived Proficiency. Telematics and Informatics. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 252—260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.07.002.
Liu P. L., Huang L. V. (2020) Digital Disinformation About COVID-19 and the Third-Person Effect: Examining the Channel Differences and Negative Emotional Outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. Vol. 23. No. 11. P. 789—793. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0363.
Luo M., Hancock J. T., Markowitz D. M. (2022) Credibility Perceptions and Detection Accuracy of Fake News Headlines on Social Media: Effects of Truth-Bias and Endorsement Cues. Communication Research. Vol. 49. No. 2. P. 171—195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921321.
McCombs M. (2014) Setting the Agenda: Mass Media and Public Opinion. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press.
McLaughlin B., Gotlieb M. R., Mills D. J. (2023) Caught in a Dangerous World: Problematic News Consumption and Its Relationship to Mental and Physical Ill-Being. Health Communication. Vol. 38. No. 12. P. 2687—2697. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2106086.
McLeod D. M., Detenber B. H., Eveland Jr. W. P. (2001) Behind the Third-Person Effect: Differentiating Perceptual Processes for Self and Other. Journal of Communication. Vol. 51. No. 4. P. 678—695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02902.x.
McLeod D. M., Eveland W. P., Nathanson A. I. (1997) Support for Censorship of Violent and Misogynic Rap Lyrics: An Analysis of the Third-Person Effect. Communication Research. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 153—174. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024002003.
Meirick P. C. (2005) Rethinking the Target Corollary: The Effects of Social Distance, Perceived Exposure, and Perceived Predispositions on First-Person and Third-Person Perceptions. Communication Research. Vol. 32. No. 6. P. 822—843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205281059.
Nelson J. L., Lewis S. C. (2023) Only “Sheep” Trust Journalists? How Citizens’ Self-Perceptions Shape Their Approach to News. New Media & Society. Vol. 25. No. 7. P. 1522―1541. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211018160.
Pardun C. J., McKeever R., Bedingfield S. (2017) Smoke Gets in Their Eyes? Third-Person Effects of Electronic Cigarette Advertising. Journal of Promotion Management. Vol. 23. No. 5. P. 708—726. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2017.1297980.
Park S.-Y. (2005) The Influence of Presumed Media Influence on Women’s Desire to Be Thin. Communication Research. Vol. 32. No. 5. P. 594—614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279350.
Paul B., Salwen M. B., Dupagne M. (2000) The Third-Person Effect: A Meta-Analysis of the Perceptual Hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society. Vol. 3. No. 1. 57—85. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04.
Peiser W., Peter J. (2000) Third-Person Perception of Television-Viewing Behavior. Journal of Communication. Vol. 50. No. 1. P. 25—45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02832.x.
Perloff R. M. (1999) The Third Person Effect: A Critical Review and Synthesis. Media Psychology. Vol. 1. No. 4. 353—378. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0104_4.
Perloff R. M., Shen L. (2023) The Third-Person Effect 40 Years After Davison Penned It: What We Know and Where We Should Traverse. Mass Communication and Society. Vol. 26. No. 3. P. 384—413. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2134802.
Rojas H., Shah D. V., Faber R. J. (1996) For the Good of Others: Censorship and the Third-Person Effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 163—186. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/8.2.163.
Ross L. (1977) The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 10. P. 173—220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3.
Rucinski D., Salmon C. T. (1990) The ‘Other’ as the Vulnerable Voter: A Study of the Third-Person Effect in the 1988 U.S. Presidential Campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 345—368. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/2.4.345.
Russmann U., Hess A. (2020) News Consumption and Trust in Online and Social Media: An In-Depth Qualitative Study of Young Adults in Austria. International Journal of Communication. Vol.14. P. 3184—3201.
Salwen M. B., Dupagne M. (1999) The Third-Person Effect: Perceptions of the Media’s Influence and Immoral Consequences. Communication Research. Vol. 26. No. 5. P. 523—549. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026005001.
Schmierbach M., Andsager J., Banning S., Chung M., Lyons B., McLeod D. M., Meirick P. C., Pan Z., Rojas H., Sun Y. (2023) Another Point of View: Scholarly Responses to the State of Third-Person Research. Mass Communication and Society. Vol. 26. No. 3. P. 359—383. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2023.2193512.
Silva G. M. (2012) Folk cConceptualizations of Racism and Antiracism in Brazil and South Africa. Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 35. No. 3. P. 506—522. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.589523.
Ștefăniță O., Corbu N., Buturoiu R. (2018) Fake News and the Third-Person Effect: They are More Influenced than Me and You. Journal of Media Research. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 5—23.
Sun Y., Pan Z., Shen L. (2008) Understanding the Third-Person Perception: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis. Journal of Communication. Vol. 58. No. 2. P. 280—300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00385.x.
Svenson O. (1981) Are We All Less Risky and More Skillful Than Our Fellow Drivers? Acta Psychologica. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 143—148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(81)90005-6.
Tsfati Y., Cohen J. (2012) Perceptions of Media and Media Effects. In: Valdivia A. N. (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies. Vol. 5: Media Effects/Media Psychology. Chichester, West Sussex; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. P. 128—146. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems995.
Van Dijk J. A. G. M. (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi:: SAGE Publications.
Van Dijk J. A. G. M. (2017) Digital Divide: Impact of Access. In: Rössler P. (ed.-in-chief), Hoffner C. A., van Zoonen L. (assoc. eds.) The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. P. 1—11. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0043.
Vu H. T., Guo L., McCombs M. E. (2014) Exploring “the World Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads”: A Network Agenda-Setting Study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Vol. 91. No. 4. P. 669—686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699014550090.
Yang F., Horning M. (2020) Reluctant to Share: How Third Person Perceptions of Fake News Discourage News Readers from Sharing “Real News” on Social Media. Social Media + Society. Vol. 6. No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120955173.
Zell E., Strickhouser J. E., Sedikides C., Alicke M. D. (2020) The Better-Than-Average Effect in Comparative Self-Evaluation: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 146. No. 2. P. 118—149. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000218.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Анастасия Дмитриевна Казун

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.




