People Think That Social Media Platforms Do (but Should Not) Amplify Divisive Content.

IF 10.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1177/17456916231190392
Steve Rathje, Claire Robertson, William J Brady, Jay J Van Bavel
{"title":"People Think That Social Media Platforms Do (but Should Not) Amplify Divisive Content.","authors":"Steve Rathje, Claire Robertson, William J Brady, Jay J Van Bavel","doi":"10.1177/17456916231190392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent studies have documented the type of content that is most likely to spread widely, or go \"viral,\" on social media, yet little is known about people's perceptions of what goes viral or what should go viral. This is critical to understand because there is widespread debate about how to improve or regulate social media algorithms. We recruited a sample of participants that is nationally representative of the U.S. population (according to age, gender, and race/ethnicity) and surveyed them about their perceptions of social media virality (<i>n</i> = 511). In line with prior research, people believe that divisive content, moral outrage, negative content, high-arousal content, and misinformation are all likely to go viral online. However, they reported that this type of content should not go viral on social media. Instead, people reported that many forms of positive content-such as accurate content, nuanced content, and educational content-are not likely to go viral even though they think this content should go viral. These perceptions were shared among most participants and were only weakly related to political orientation, social media usage, and demographic variables. In sum, there is broad consensus around the type of content people think social media platforms should and should not amplify, which can help inform solutions for improving social media.</p>","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231190392","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent studies have documented the type of content that is most likely to spread widely, or go "viral," on social media, yet little is known about people's perceptions of what goes viral or what should go viral. This is critical to understand because there is widespread debate about how to improve or regulate social media algorithms. We recruited a sample of participants that is nationally representative of the U.S. population (according to age, gender, and race/ethnicity) and surveyed them about their perceptions of social media virality (n = 511). In line with prior research, people believe that divisive content, moral outrage, negative content, high-arousal content, and misinformation are all likely to go viral online. However, they reported that this type of content should not go viral on social media. Instead, people reported that many forms of positive content-such as accurate content, nuanced content, and educational content-are not likely to go viral even though they think this content should go viral. These perceptions were shared among most participants and were only weakly related to political orientation, social media usage, and demographic variables. In sum, there is broad consensus around the type of content people think social media platforms should and should not amplify, which can help inform solutions for improving social media.

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
人们认为社交媒体平台确实(但不应该)放大了分裂性的内容。
最近的研究记录了最有可能在社交媒体上广泛传播或“病毒式”传播的内容类型,但人们对什么会病毒式传播或什么应该病毒式传播的看法知之甚少。理解这一点至关重要,因为关于如何改进或监管社交媒体算法,存在着广泛的争论。我们招募了一个具有全国代表性的参与者样本(根据年龄、性别和种族/民族),并调查了他们对社交媒体病毒性的看法(n=511)。与之前的研究一致,人们认为分裂性内容、道德愤怒、负面内容、高唤醒内容和错误信息都可能在网上疯传。然而,他们报告说,这类内容不应该在社交媒体上疯传。相反,人们报告说,许多形式的积极内容,如准确的内容、细致入微的内容和教育内容,不太可能在网上疯传,尽管他们认为这些内容应该在网上疯传播。这些看法在大多数参与者中都是一致的,与政治取向、社交媒体使用和人口变量的相关性很弱。总之,人们对社交媒体平台应该和不应该放大的内容类型达成了广泛共识,这有助于为改进社交媒体提供解决方案。
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
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Perspectives on Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Psychological Science is a journal that publishes a diverse range of articles and reports in the field of psychology. The journal includes broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, meta-analyses, theoretical statements, book reviews, and articles on various topics such as the philosophy of science and opinion pieces about major issues in the field. It also features autobiographical reflections of senior members of the field, occasional humorous essays and sketches, and even has a section for invited and submitted articles. The impact of the journal can be seen through the reverberation of a 2009 article on correlative analyses commonly used in neuroimaging studies, which still influences the field. Additionally, a recent special issue of Perspectives, featuring prominent researchers discussing the "Next Big Questions in Psychology," is shaping the future trajectory of the discipline. Perspectives on Psychological Science provides metrics that showcase the performance of the journal. However, the Association for Psychological Science, of which the journal is a signatory of DORA, recommends against using journal-based metrics for assessing individual scientist contributions, such as for hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. Therefore, the metrics provided by Perspectives on Psychological Science should only be used by those interested in evaluating the journal itself.
期刊最新文献
Shifting the Level of Selection in Science. How the Complexity of Psychological Processes Reframes the Issue of Reproducibility in Psychological Science. The Evolution of Developmental Theories Since Piaget: A Metaview. Talking About the Absent and the Abstract: Referential Communication in Language and Gesture. Incomparability and Incommensurability in Choice: No Common Currency of Value?
×
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