| Literature DB >> 33809331 |
Greta Castellini1,2, Mariarosaria Savarese1,2, Guendalina Graffigna1,2.
Abstract
In the Italian context, the diffusion of online fake news about food is becoming increasingly fast-paced and widespread, making it more difficult for the public to recognize reliable information. Moreover, this phenomenon is deteriorating the relation with public institutions and industries. The purpose of this article is to provide a more advanced understanding of the individual psychological factors and the social influence that contributes to the belief in food-related online fake news and the aspects that can increase or mitigate this risk. Data were collected with a self-report questionnaire between February and March 2019. We obtained 1004 valid questionnaires filled out by a representative sample of Italian population, extracted by stratified sampling. We used structural equation modelling and the multi-group analyses to test our hypothesis. The results show that self-evaluation negatively affects the social-influence, which in turn positively affects the belief in online fake news. Moreover, this latter relationship is moderated by the readiness to change. Our results suggest that individual psychological characteristics and social influence are important in explaining the belief in online fake news in the food sector; however, a pivotal role is played by the motivation of lifestyle change. This should be considered to engage people in clear and effective communication.Entities:
Keywords: food consumption; interpersonal influence; motivation for change; online fake news; self-evaluation
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33809331 PMCID: PMC8001592 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18062934
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The hypothesized model.
Demographic profiles of the sample (N = 1004).
| n | % | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | ||
| Male | 497 | 49.5 |
| Female | 507 | 50.5 |
| 2. Age | ||
| 18–25 | 117 | 11.7 |
| 26–35 | 149 | 14.9 |
| 36–45 | 198 | 19.7 |
| 46–55 | 218 | 21.7 |
| 56–65 | 233 | 23.2 |
| 66–75 | 88 | 8.8 |
| 3. Level of education | ||
| Low education level | 136 | 13.5 |
| Senior high | 561 | 55.9 |
| College or university | 307 | 30.6 |
| 4. Main household food purchaser | ||
| Yes, just me | 527 | 52.5 |
| Yes, with others | 451 | 44.9 |
| No | 26 | 2.6 |
| 5. Income level | ||
| Until 600 € | 40 | 4 |
| 601–900 € | 54 | 5.4 |
| 901–1200 € | 95 | 9.5 |
| 1201–1500 € | 148 | 14.8 |
| 1501–1800 € | 129 | 12.8 |
| 1801–2550 € | 179 | 17.8 |
| 2551–3550 € | 146 | 14.6 |
| More than 3550 € | 83 | 8.3 |
| Missing | 130 | 12.9 |
| 6. Profession | ||
| Employed | 663 | 66 |
| Unemployed/retired | 341 | 34 |
| 7. Inhabited center size | ||
| Until 10000 inhabitants | 478 | 47.6 |
| 10/30,000 inhabitants | 140 | 14 |
| 30/100,000 inhabitants | 149 | 14.8 |
| More than 100,000 | 230 | 22.9 |
| Missing | 8 | 0.8 |
| 8. Geographic area | ||
| North–West | 261 | 26 |
| North–East | 190 | 18.9 |
| Centre | 199 | 19.8 |
| South and Islands | 354 | 35.3 |
Note: € = euro.
Confirmatory factor analysis properties.
| Scale | Stand. Factor Loadings | SE |
| CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Self Evaluation scale | 0.84 | 0.64 | |||
| CSES 1 (items 9, 8, 2, 5) | 0.77 | 0.02 | *** | ||
| CSES 2 (items 4, 10, 7, 3) | 0.81 | 0.02 | *** | ||
| CSES 3 (items 6, 11, 1, 12) | 0.82 | 0.02 | *** | ||
| Interpersonal Influence | 0.80 | 0.53 | |||
| Item 1 | 0.93 | 0.02 | *** | ||
| Item 2 | 0.87 | 0.02 | *** | ||
| Item 3 | 0.46 | 0.03 | *** | ||
| Item 4 | 0.53 | 0.02 | *** |
Note. *** p < 0.001; N = 1004; X2 20.619; df = 12; p = n.s; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.03 (LO90 = 0.00, HI90 = 0.05). CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; SE = standard errors.
Inter-correlations between two latent variables.
| Mean | Standard | Core Self Evaluation Scale | Interpersonal Influence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Self Evaluation scale | 3.18 | 0.50 |
| |
| Interpersonal Influence | 3.80 | 1.23 | −0.17 *** |
|
Note: *** p < 0.001.; N = 1004; the square roots of AVE for discriminant validity are italicized.
Standardized indirect effect of the model.
| Effects of the Model | Bootstrapping | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentile Bootstrapping 95% | ||||
| Point | Standard | Lower | Upper | |
| Total effect | ||||
| Self-evaluation→Belief in fake news | −0.13 | 0.03 | −0.19 | −0.06 |
| Indirect effect | ||||
| Self-evaluation→interpersonal influence→Belief in fake news | −0.04 | 0.01 | −0.06 | −0.02 |
| Direct effect | ||||
| Self-evaluation→Belief in fake news | −0.09 | 0.03 | −0.16 | −0.03 |
Note: Mediator: interpersonal influence; estimation of 5000 bootstrap sample.
The results of measurement invariance test.
| MODEL | X2 | df | ∆χ2(∆df) | ∆ | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | ΔCFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group “in change” (N = 646) | 13.909 | 12 | - | - | 0.999 | 0.998 | 0.016 | - |
| Group “not in change” (N = 358) | 28.075 | 12 | - | - | 0.987 | 0.977 | 0.061 | - |
| Configural model | 41.984 | 24 | - | - | 0.995 | 0.990 | 0.039 | - |
| Metric model | 47.275 | 29 | 5.291 ns | 5 | 0.994 | 0.992 | 0.035 | 0.001 |
Note: ns = not significant; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Confirmatory Fit Index; TLI=Tucker-Lewis Index; df = degree of freedom.
Invariance test of the two-group structural model.
| MODEL | X2 | df | ∆χ2(∆df) | ∆ | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | ΔCFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unconstrained model | 77.172 | 34 | - | - | 0.987 | 0.979 | 0.050 | - |
| Constrained model | 86.763 | 35 | 9.591 ** | 1 | 0.985 | 0.976 | 0.054 | −0.002 |
Note: ** p < 0.01; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Confirmatory Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; df = degree of freedom.
Differences in the interest in making lifestyle healthier for age groups.
| Variables | Cell | Age Group | Row Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18–39 | 40–55 | ≥56 | ||||
| Interest in making lifestyle healthier | Yes | Observed | 243 | 238 | 169 | 650 |
| Expected | 218 | 224.4 | 207.6 | |||
| Std res. | 1.7 | 0.9 |
| |||
| No | Observed | 94 | 109 | 152 | 355 | |
| Expected | 119 | 122.6 | 113.4 | |||
| Std res. |
| −1.2 |
| |||
| CT | 337 | 347 | 321 | |||
Note: CT = column total; Std res = standard residues. Cells with an absolute value of std. res >±2 are marked in bold.