Informational ecosystems partially explain differences in socioenvironmental conceptual associations between U.S. American racial groups.

Roberto Vargas, Timothy Verstynen
{"title":"Informational ecosystems partially explain differences in socioenvironmental conceptual associations between U.S. American racial groups.","authors":"Roberto Vargas, Timothy Verstynen","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00186-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social groups represent a collective identity defined by a distinct consensus of concepts (e.g., ideas, values, and goals) whose structural relationship varies between groups. Here we set out to measure how a set of inter-concept semantic associations, comprising what we refer to as a concept graph, covaries between established social groups, based on racial identity, and how this effect is mediated by information ecosystems, contextualized as news sources. Group differences among racial identity (278 Black and 294 white Americans) and informational ecosystems (Left- and Right- leaning news sources) are present in subjective judgments of how the meaning of concepts such as healthcare, police, and voting relate to each other. These racial group differences in concept graphs were partially mediated by the bias of news sources that individuals get their information from. This supports the idea of groups being defined by common conceptual semantic relationships that partially arise from shared information ecosystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11747393/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communications Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00186-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social groups represent a collective identity defined by a distinct consensus of concepts (e.g., ideas, values, and goals) whose structural relationship varies between groups. Here we set out to measure how a set of inter-concept semantic associations, comprising what we refer to as a concept graph, covaries between established social groups, based on racial identity, and how this effect is mediated by information ecosystems, contextualized as news sources. Group differences among racial identity (278 Black and 294 white Americans) and informational ecosystems (Left- and Right- leaning news sources) are present in subjective judgments of how the meaning of concepts such as healthcare, police, and voting relate to each other. These racial group differences in concept graphs were partially mediated by the bias of news sources that individuals get their information from. This supports the idea of groups being defined by common conceptual semantic relationships that partially arise from shared information ecosystems.

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
信息生态系统部分解释了美国种族群体之间社会环境概念关联的差异。
社会群体代表了一种集体身份,这种身份是由不同群体之间的结构关系不同的概念(如思想、价值观和目标)的独特共识所定义的。在这里,我们着手测量一组概念间语义关联,包括我们所说的概念图,如何在基于种族身份的既定社会群体之间协变,以及这种效应如何被信息生态系统调解,作为新闻来源。种族认同(278名黑人和294名白人美国人)和信息生态系统(左倾和右倾新闻来源)之间的群体差异存在于对医疗保健、警察和投票等概念的含义如何相互关联的主观判断中。这些概念图中的种族群体差异部分是由个人获取信息的新闻来源的偏见所介导的。这支持由公共概念语义关系定义组的想法,这些关系部分来自共享的信息生态系统。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Participatory approaches should be used to address the ethics of social media experiments. Higher income is associated with greater life satisfaction, and more stress. The individual determinants of morning dream recall. Neural codes track prior events in a narrative and predict subsequent memory for details. Understanding learning through uncertainty and bias.
×
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