Online Interaction Turns the Congeniality Bias Into an Uncongeniality Bias.

IF 4.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Science Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-18 DOI:10.1177/09567976231194590
Jürgen Buder, Anja Zimmermann, Brett Buttliere, Lisa Rabl, Moritz Vogel, Markus Huff
{"title":"Online Interaction Turns the Congeniality Bias Into an Uncongeniality Bias.","authors":"Jürgen Buder,&nbsp;Anja Zimmermann,&nbsp;Brett Buttliere,&nbsp;Lisa Rabl,&nbsp;Moritz Vogel,&nbsp;Markus Huff","doi":"10.1177/09567976231194590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Online phenomena like echo chambers and polarization are believed to be driven by humans' penchant to selectively expose themselves to attitudinally congenial content. However, if like-minded content were the only predictor of online behavior, heated debate and flaming on the Internet would hardly occur. Research has overlooked how online behavior changes when people are given an opportunity to reply to dissenters. Three experiments (total <i>N</i> = 320; convenience student samples from Germany) and an internal meta-analysis show that in a discussion-forum setting where participants can reply to earlier comments larger cognitive conflict between participant attitude and comment attitude predicts higher likelihood to respond (<i>uncongeniality bias</i>). When the discussion climate was friendly (vs. oppositional) to the views of participants, the uncongeniality bias was more pronounced and was also associated with attitude polarization. These results suggest that belief polarization on social media may not only be driven by congeniality but also by conflict.</p>","PeriodicalId":20745,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"1055-1068"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231194590","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Online phenomena like echo chambers and polarization are believed to be driven by humans' penchant to selectively expose themselves to attitudinally congenial content. However, if like-minded content were the only predictor of online behavior, heated debate and flaming on the Internet would hardly occur. Research has overlooked how online behavior changes when people are given an opportunity to reply to dissenters. Three experiments (total N = 320; convenience student samples from Germany) and an internal meta-analysis show that in a discussion-forum setting where participants can reply to earlier comments larger cognitive conflict between participant attitude and comment attitude predicts higher likelihood to respond (uncongeniality bias). When the discussion climate was friendly (vs. oppositional) to the views of participants, the uncongeniality bias was more pronounced and was also associated with attitude polarization. These results suggest that belief polarization on social media may not only be driven by congeniality but also by conflict.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
网络互动将亲和偏见转化为不亲和偏见。
回声室和极化等网络现象被认为是由人类选择性地将自己暴露在态度上一致的内容中的倾向所驱动的。然而,如果志同道合的内容是网络行为的唯一预测因素,那么互联网上的激烈辩论和燃烧就很难发生。研究忽略了当人们有机会回复持不同意见者时,网络行为是如何变化的。三个实验(总共N=320;来自德国的便利学生样本)和一项内部荟萃分析表明,在参与者可以回复早期评论的讨论论坛环境中,参与者态度和评论态度之间的认知冲突越大,则回答的可能性越高(不友善偏见)。当讨论气氛对参与者的观点是友好的(相对于反对的)时,不友善的偏见更为明显,也与态度两极分化有关。这些结果表明,社交媒体上的信仰两极分化不仅可能是由志趣驱动的,也可能是由冲突驱动的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Science
Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Psychological Science, the flagship journal of The Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society), is a leading publication in the field with a citation ranking/impact factor among the top ten worldwide. It publishes authoritative articles covering various domains of psychological science, including brain and behavior, clinical science, cognition, learning and memory, social psychology, and developmental psychology. In addition to full-length articles, the journal features summaries of new research developments and discussions on psychological issues in government and public affairs. "Psychological Science" is published twelve times annually.
期刊最新文献
People Place Larger Bets When Risky Choices Provide a Postbet Option to Cash Out. On the Unequal Burden of Obesity: Obesity's Adverse Consequences Are Contingent on Regional Obesity Prevalence. Corrigendum to "A Practical Significance Bias in Laypeople's Evaluation of Scientific Findings". Racial Minorities Face Discrimination From Across the Political Spectrum When Seeking to Form Ties on Social Media: Evidence From a Field Experiment. Gender Differences in Climbing up the Ladder: Why Experience Closes the Ambition Gender Gap.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1