Facebook vs Twitter: the differential relationship with mass attitudes about democracy in Latin Americas

IF 6.8 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Internet Research Pub Date : 2024-12-24 DOI:10.1108/intr-09-2023-0850
Richard Kornrumpf, Jason Gainous, Kevin M. Wagner, Tricia J. Gray
{"title":"Facebook vs Twitter: the differential relationship with mass attitudes about democracy in Latin Americas","authors":"Richard Kornrumpf, Jason Gainous, Kevin M. Wagner, Tricia J. Gray","doi":"10.1108/intr-09-2023-0850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>We argue that the information flow on Twitter is largely driven by elite communication with a top-down flow, while Facebook’s bottom-up flow is driven by mass public communication. Both are crucial news sources for democratic processes in Latin America. We explore how exposure to these flows affects opinions on democracy across 18 countries with varying democratic conditions.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Using mixed-effects models, our analysis draws on survey data from the 2018 Latinobarómetro paired with democracy measures from the 2018 Varieties of Democracy.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The results indicate that Facebook’s bottom-up communication correlates with negative perceptions of democracy, whereas Twitter’s top-down model correlates with more favorable views, especially among mass consumers. However, these differences are inconsistent across demographic factors.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>Cross-sectional survey data limits causal claims. Longitudinal data could provide stronger insights into the mechanisms underlying the observed relationships.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>Understanding how different platforms influence democratic attitudes can inform strategies for political communication and digital governance in Latin America. Policymakers should consider platform-specific interventions to promote democratic engagement.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study adds to the limited research on platform differences in political public opinion, particularly in Latin America, and highlights the need to explore mechanisms of change across various social media platforms.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":54925,"journal":{"name":"Internet Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-09-2023-0850","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

We argue that the information flow on Twitter is largely driven by elite communication with a top-down flow, while Facebook’s bottom-up flow is driven by mass public communication. Both are crucial news sources for democratic processes in Latin America. We explore how exposure to these flows affects opinions on democracy across 18 countries with varying democratic conditions.

Design/methodology/approach

Using mixed-effects models, our analysis draws on survey data from the 2018 Latinobarómetro paired with democracy measures from the 2018 Varieties of Democracy.

Findings

The results indicate that Facebook’s bottom-up communication correlates with negative perceptions of democracy, whereas Twitter’s top-down model correlates with more favorable views, especially among mass consumers. However, these differences are inconsistent across demographic factors.

Research limitations/implications

Cross-sectional survey data limits causal claims. Longitudinal data could provide stronger insights into the mechanisms underlying the observed relationships.

Practical implications

Understanding how different platforms influence democratic attitudes can inform strategies for political communication and digital governance in Latin America. Policymakers should consider platform-specific interventions to promote democratic engagement.

Originality/value

This study adds to the limited research on platform differences in political public opinion, particularly in Latin America, and highlights the need to explore mechanisms of change across various social media platforms.

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
Facebook vs Twitter:拉丁美洲民众对民主态度的差异关系
我们认为Twitter上的信息流在很大程度上是由自上而下的精英交流驱动的,而Facebook上的信息流是由大众传播驱动的。两者都是拉丁美洲民主进程的重要新闻来源。我们探讨了在18个民主条件各异的国家中,这些流动如何影响人们对民主的看法。使用混合效应模型,我们的分析借鉴了2018年Latinobarómetro的调查数据,并结合了2018年民主品种的民主措施。研究结果表明,Facebook自下而上的沟通方式与对民主的负面看法相关,而Twitter自上而下的模式与更有利的观点相关,尤其是在大众消费者中。然而,这些差异在人口因素中是不一致的。研究局限性/启示横断面调查数据限制了因果关系的主张。纵向数据可以为观察到的关系背后的机制提供更有力的见解。实际意义了解不同平台如何影响民主态度可以为拉丁美洲的政治沟通和数字治理策略提供信息。政策制定者应考虑针对特定平台的干预措施,以促进民主参与。原创性/价值本研究补充了关于政治民意平台差异的有限研究,特别是在拉丁美洲,并强调了探索各种社交媒体平台变化机制的必要性。
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
Internet Research
Internet Research 工程技术-电信学
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
10.20%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This wide-ranging interdisciplinary journal looks at the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the internet. Recent issues have focused on online and mobile gaming, the sharing economy, and the dark side of social media.
期刊最新文献
Is being human-like beneficial? The effect of anthropomorphism on chatbot persuasion in e-commerce Effect of in-game situations and advertisement animation in eSports on visual attention, memory, brand attitude and behavioral intentions Biases in online reviews: the default positive review rule and the conditional rebate strategy Unpacking the influence of perceived credibility of guaranteed data destruction service on digital device recycling platform use: the perspective of privacy calculus Visiting and exploring digital transformation management: a bibliometric analysis and review study
×
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:604180095
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