Too Much Alarmism? Experimental Insights into Misinformation Communication

The rise of mis- and disinformation poses a profound challenge to democratic societies by eroding trust in institutions, distorting political discourse, and deepening polarization. Alarmist narratives about misinformation underscore its potential to undermine democratic values, yet emerging evidence suggests such approaches may have unintended consequences, including reduced news credibility, heightened support for restrictive speech regulation, and increased dissatisfaction with democracy. This study examines how different communication frames—alarmist, balanced, and reassurance—affect public perceptions, emotional responses, and engagement with mis- and disinformation. Using a preregistered experimental design fielded in Austria and the Czech Republic (n = 2300 per country), we tested the effects of three distinct frames. The alarmist frame portrays misinformation as an imminent threat to democracy; the balanced frame combines acknowledgment of the threat with messages emphasizing individual agency; and the reassurance frame downplays the threat of misinformation. Key outcomes assessed include perceived threats to democracy, emotional well-being, trust in information sources, willingness to engage in counter-speech behaviors, polarization, and satisfaction with democracy. Our preliminary findings indicate that alarmist frames heighten perceived threats to democracy but also intensify polarization compared to balanced and reassurance frames. Both balanced and reassurance frames improve emotional well-being, with all interventions unexpectedly boosting positive emotions, suggesting an activating effect. Notably, balanced frames significantly enhance counter-speech behavior, indicating their potential to foster constructive civic engagement. Reassurance frames reduce perceived threats to democracy, offering a stabilizing influence on public confidence. Importantly, we observed no significant impact of any frame on satisfaction with democracy, challenging fears that alarmist narratives erode democratic trust. Alarmist frames were found to increase trust in personal networks, while balanced frames decreased trust in social networking platforms, highlighting subtle yet meaningful shifts in trust dynamics. While results will be tested in more detail, first findings already illuminate the nuanced effects of communication strategies on public responses to misinformation. Balanced frames emerge as particularly effective in encouraging active engagement while minimizing negative consequences, offering practical insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to bolster democratic resilience. This study contributes to the growing discourse on misinformation mitigation by emphasizing the importance of strategically balancing urgency with reassurance to promote informed and proactive citizen engagement.