DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jiip.v11i1.30708

Terpapar Namun Tidak Percaya: Kesadaran dan Penerimaan Isu dalam Rilis Survei Nasional

*Zakky Zidan  -  UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia
Idris Hemay orcid  -  UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright 2026 JIIP: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pemerintahan under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

INTISARI

Kontroversi politik dapat dikenal luas tetapi tidak selalu diikuti penerimaan, sehingga muncul pola exposure without belief. Artikel ini menanyakan apakah tingginya awareness isu dalam rilis survei berbanding lurus dengan acceptance publik, serta pada isu dan segmen mana divergensi keduanya paling besar. Secara teoritis, studi ini bertumpu pada pembedaan paparan dan penerimaan dalam pembentukan opini publik, dengan penekanan pada peran kredibilitas, kepercayaan, dan evaluasi yang konsisten dengan identitas. Metode yang digunakan adalah analisis deskriptif atas tabulasi agregat survei telepon nasional (n=1.286; 17–20 Mei 2025) dengan menghitung awareness–acceptance gap dan membandingkannya lintas dukungan politik, demografi, wilayah, dan akses media. Hasil menunjukkan awareness dan acceptance tidak bergerak searah: satu tuduhan faktual awareness sangat tinggi tetapi belief rendah sehingga menghasilkan gap positif terbesar, sementara sejumlah item kebijakan dan evaluasi kinerja justru memperlihatkan acceptance melebihi awareness. Temuan juga memperlihatkan belief terkonsentrasi pada konstituensi politik dan lingkungan informasi tertentu meski awareness relatif tinggi. Studi menyimpulkan bahwa visibilitas isu merupakan proksi yang lemah bagi persuasi dan menawarkan pemetaan gap yang replikabel untuk membaca rilis survei ketika mikrodata tidak tersedia.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: Awareness isu; Penerimaan publik; Awareness–acceptance gap; Misinformasi politik; Akses media

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : ID
  1. Adams, Z., Osman, M., Bechlivanidis, C., & Meder, B. (2023). (Why) Is Misinformation a Problem? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(6), 1436 –1463. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221141344
  2. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
  3. Allen, J., Howland, B., Mobius, M., Rothschild, D., & Watts, D. J. (2020). Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Science Advances, 6(14). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3539
  4. Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., & Linden, S. van der. (2020). Good News about Bad News: Gamified Inoculation Boosts Confidence and Cognitive Immunity Against Fake News. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.91
  5. Bavel, J. J. Van, & Pereira, A. (2018). The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
  6. Bethlehem, J. (2020). Working with Response Probabilities. Journal of Official Statistics, 36(3), 647–674. https://doi.org/10.2478/JOS-2020-033
  7. Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2017). See Something, Say Something: Correction of Global Health Misinformation on Social Media. Health Communication, 33(9), 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312
  8. Brashier, N. M., Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Timing matters when correcting fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(5). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020043118
  9. Chan, M. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H., & Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531 –1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714579
  10. Dahlke, R., Kumar, D., Durumeric, Z., & Hancock, J. T. (2023). PIE Metrics: Quantifying the Systematic Bias in the Ephemerality and Inaccessibility of Web Scraping Content from URL-Logged Web-Browsing Digital Trace Data. Social Science Computer Review, 43(5). https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bkpqt
  11. Diatta, I. D., & Berchtold, A. (2022). Impact of missing information on day-to-day research based on secondary data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 26(6), 759–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2103983
  12. Gnaldi, M., Tomaselli, V., & Forcina, A. (2018). Ecological Fallacy and Covariates: New Insights based on Multilevel Modelling of Individual Data. International Statistical Review, 86(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12244
  13. Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science, 363(6425), 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706
  14. Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., M.Montgomery, J., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sircar, N. (2020). A Digital Media Literacy Intervention Increases Discernment Between Mainstream And False News In The United States And India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(27). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920498117
  15. Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 U.S. election. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0833-x
  16. Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586
  17. Humprecht, E., Esser, F., & Aelst, P. Van. (2020). Resilience To Online Disinformation: A Framework For Cross-National Comparative Research. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(3), 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219900126
  18. Indikator Politik Indonesia. (2025). Tingkat Kepercayaan Publik atas Kinerja Lembaga Lembaga Negara dan Pemberantasan Korupsi: Temuan Survei Telepon Nasional 17–20 Mei 2025. https://indikator.co.id
  19. Kunda, Z. (1990). The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
  20. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news Addressing fake news requires a multidisciplinary effort. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
  21. Lim, M. (2017). Freedom to hate: social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 49(3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2017.1341188
  22. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge University Press
  23. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
  24. Mari, S., Zúñiga, H. G. de, Suerdem, A., Hanke, K., Brown, G., Vilar, R., Boer, D., & Bilewicz, M. (2022). Conspiracy Theories and Institutional Trust: Examining the Role of Uncertainty Avoidance and Active Social Media Use. Political Psychology, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12754
  25. Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Collins, E. T., & Rand, D. G. (2020). The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Headlines Increases Perceived Accuracy of Headlines Without Warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944–4957. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478
  26. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
  27. Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592(7855), 590–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2
  28. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
  29. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The Psychology of Fake News. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
  30. Roozenbeek, J., & Linden, S. van der. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 5(65). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9
  31. Struminskaya, B., & Gummer, T. (2022). Risk of Nonresponse Bias and the Length of the Field Period in a Mixed-Mode General Population Panel. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 10(1), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smab011
  32. Sturgis, P., & Luff, R. (2021). The demise of the survey? A research note on trends in the use of survey data in the social sciences, 1939 to 2015. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 691–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1844896
  33. Sutton, R. M., & Douglas, K. M. (2020). Conspiracy Theories and the Conspiracy Mindset: Implications for Political Ideology. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.02.015
  34. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
  35. Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and Disinformation: Exploring the Impact of Synthetic Political Video on Deception, Uncertainty, and Trust in News. Social Media + Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120903408
  36. Vinck, P., Pham, P. N., Bindu, K. K., Bedford, J., & Nilles, E. J. (2019). Institutional trust and misinformation in the response to the 2018–19 Ebola outbreak in North Kivu, DR Congo: a population-based survey. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 19, 529–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30063-5
  37. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap955
  38. Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L., & Morag, Y. (2019). Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894
  39. Walter, N., & Tukachinsky, R. (2019). A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Continued Influence of Misinformation in the Face of Correction: How Powerful Is It, Why Does It Happen, and How to Stop It? Communication Research, 47(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219854600
  40. Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence. Political Behavior, 41, 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y
  41. Zoonen, W. van, Luoma-aho, V., & Lievonen, M. (2024). Trust but verify? Examining the role of trust in institutions in the spread of unverified information on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 150(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107992

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.