SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Erciyes İletişim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1

Critical Social Media Literacy and News Avoidance Among University Students: From Passive Disengagement to Selective Engagement

Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Eleştirel Sosyal Medya Okuryazarlığı ve Haberden Kaçınma Davranışı: Pasif İlgisizlikten Seçici Katılıma

Özge Ercebe(TRAKYA UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9036-9404
Erdem Öngün(TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1279-113X
Pages
313–334
Publication Date
2026-01-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on a survey of 313 students, the findings indicate that the overall CSML level of participants is above average, with female students demonstrating higher competency than males.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates university students’ levels of critical social media literacy (CSML), the ways in which these levels differ across demographic and educational variables, and their multidimensional associations with news avoidance behavior.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on a survey of 313 students, the findings indicate that the overall CSML level of participants is above average, with female students demonstrating higher competency than males.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This suggests that critical literacy does not lead to passive disinterest but rather to a “skeptical curatorship” that combines emotional self-preservation with selective engagement.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sosyal Medya Okuryazarlığı · Haberden Kaçınma · Dijital Yeterlilik

Abstract

This study investigates university students’ levels of critical social media literacy (CSML), the ways in which these levels differ across demographic and educational variables, and their multidimensional associations with news avoidance behavior. Based on a survey of 313 students, the findings indicate that the overall CSML level of participants is above average, with female students demonstrating higher competency than males. Consistent with the “second-level digital divide” theory, the results show that students in social sciences have significantly higher CSML levels compared to those in applied sciences. The study's most critical finding is the complex effect of CSML on news avoidance: high literacy increases the avoidance of emotionally taxing news, while it decreases the tendency to completely abandon news or turn to dubious alternative sources. This suggests that critical literacy does not lead to passive disinterest but rather to a “skeptical curatorship” that combines emotional self-preservation with selective engagement.

Özet

Çalışma, üniversite öğrencilerinin eleştirel sosyal medya okuryazarlığı (ESMO) düzeylerini, söz konusu düzeylerin demografik ve eğitsel değişkenler doğrultusunda nasıl farklılaştığını ve haberden kaçınma davranışlarıyla olan çok boyutlu ilişkisini incelemektedir. 313 öğrenciyle yapılan anket çalışması sonucunda, katılımcıların genel ESMO düzeylerinin ortalamanın üzerinde olduğu ve kadın öğrencilerin erkek öğrencilere kıyasla daha yüksek yeterliğe sahip olduğu saptanmıştır. Bulgular, “ikinci düzey dijital bölünme” teorisiyle uyumlu olarak, sosyal bilimler eğitimi alan öğrencilerin ESMO düzeylerinin uygulamalı bilimlerdekine göre anlamlı derecede daha yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir. Araştırmanın en kritik bulgusu, ESMO’nun haberden kaçınma üzerindeki karmaşık etkisidir: Yüksek okuryazarlık, duygusal olarak yorucu haberlerden kaçınmayı artırırken, haber takibini tamamen bırakma ve şüpheli alternatif kaynaklara yönelme eğilimini ise azaltmaktadır. Araştırmanın bulguları, eleştirel okuryazarlığın pasif bir ilgisizliğe değil, aksine duygusal öz koruma ile seçici katılımı birleştiren bir “şüpheci küratörlük” davranışına yol açtığını ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ercebe, Ö., Öngün, E. (2026). Critical Social Media Literacy and News Avoidance Among University Students: From Passive Disengagement to Selective Engagement. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 313–334. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.1756262

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Aharoni, T. vd. (2024). Re-assessing the dynamics of news use and trust: A multi-outlet perspective. Communication Research, 00936502241273263.
  2. Andersen, K., & Edgerly, S. (2025). News Avoidance. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Political Communication. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  3. Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of information science, 35(2), 180-191.
  4. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of communication, 58(4), 707-731.
  5. Betakova, D. vd. (2025). I do not (want to) know! The relationship between intentional news avoidance and low news consumption. Mass Communication and Society, 28(3), 413-440.
  6. Cho, H. vd. (2024). Social media literacy: A conceptual framework. New media & society, 26(2), 941-960.
  7. Costera Meijer, I., & Groot Kormelink, T. (2015). Checking, sharing, clicking and linking: Changing patterns of news use between 2004 and 2014. Digital Journalism, 3(5), 664-679.
  8. Ecker, P. A. (2025). Algorithms, Polarization, and the Digital Age: A Literature Review. The Digital Reinforcement of Bias and Belief: Understanding the Cognitive and Social Impact of Web-Based Information Processing, 21-43.
  9. Edgerly, S. (2017). Seeking out and avoiding the news media: Young adults’ proposed strategies for obtaining current events information. Mass Communication and Society, 20(3), 358-377.
  10. Edgerly, S. (2024). Avoiding news is hard work, or is it? A closer look at the work of news avoidance among frequent and infrequent consumers of news. Journalism Studies, 25(12), 1385-1403.
  11. Edgerly, S., & Vraga, E. K. (2021). That’s not news: Audience perceptions of “news-ness” and why it matters. In What IS News? (pp. 128-152). Routledge.
  12. Freire, P. (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In Toward a sociology of education (pp. 374-386). Routledge.
  13. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society, 167(2014), 167.
  14. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
  15. Karasar, N. (2007). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Nobel yayın dağıtım.
  16. Katz, E. vd. (1973). Uses and gratifications research.The public opinion quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.
  17. Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical Media Literacy. Media Literacy: A Reader, 1.
  18. Lewison, M. vd. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers and novices. Language arts, 79(5), 382-392.
  19. Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The communication review, 7(1), 3-14.
  20. Livingstone, S. (2014). Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky opportunities on social network sites. Communications, 39(3), 283-303.
  21. Mihailidis, P., & Viotty, S. (2017). Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: Civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in “post-fact” society. American behavioral scientist, 61(4), 441-454.
  22. Newman, N. vd. (2022). Reuters institute digital news report 2022. Reuters Institute. In: Oxford University.
  23. Newman, N. vd. (2022). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020. Report. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, London.
  24. Noble, S. U. (2018). Critical surveillance literacy in social media: Interrogating black death and dying online. Black Camera, 9(2), 147-160.
  25. Onursoy, S. vd. (2020). Yalan habere karşı tutum ve davranışlar: Üç üniversite örneğinde durum araştırması. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 34(3), 485-508.
  26. Pala, S., & Bilen, M. K. (2024). Dijital Çağda Habere Karşı Aktif Bir Direniş: Haber Yorgunluğu ve Haberden Kaçınma. İletişim Bilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 180-193.
  27. Palmer, R. vd. (2023). Examining assumptions around how news avoidance gets defined: The importance of overall news consumption, intention, and structural inequalities. Journalism Studies, 24(6), 697-714.
  28. Pangrazio, L., & Sefton-Green, J. (2021). Digital rights, digital citizenship and digital literacy: What’s the difference? Journal of new approaches in educational research, 10(1), 15-27.
  29. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. penguin UK.
  30. Peters, C. vd. (2022). News as they know it: Young adults’ information repertoires in the digital media landscape. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 62-86.
  31. Potter, W. J. (2018). Media literacy. Sage publications.
  32. Schwaiger, L. vd. (2022). Change in news access, change in expectations? How young social media users in Switzerland evaluate the functions and quality of news. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3), 609-628.
  33. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political behavior, 30(3), 341-366.
  34. Swart, J. (2021). Experiencing algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Social media+ society, 7(2), 20563051211008828.
  35. Tandoc Jr, E. C. vd. (2018). Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New media & society, 20(8), 2745-2763.
  36. Toff, B., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). “I just google it”: Folk theories of distributed discovery. Journal of communication, 68(3), 636-657.
  37. Tully, M. vd. (2020). News media literacy, perceptions of bias, and interpretation of news. Journalism, 21(2), 209-226.
  38. Valle, N. vd. (2024). Towards a critical framework of social media literacy: A systematic literature review. Review of Educational Research, 00346543241247224.
  39. Van Deursen, A. J. vd. (2021). Digital inequalities in the Internet of Things: differences in attitudes, material access, skills, and usage. Information, Communication & Society, 24(2), 258-276.
  40. Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New media & society, 21(2), 354-375.
  41. Yıldızgörür, M. R. (2023). ‘Ne Önemi Var?’Okuyucuların Haberden Kaçınma Davranışları Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma. Etkileşim(11), 266-290.
  42. Zuboff, S. (2019). Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. New labor forum