Reconceptualizing Cross-Cutting Political Expression on Social Media: A Case Study of Facebook Comments During the 2016 Brexit Referendum

IF 4.6 1区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Political Communication Pub Date : 2023-06-22 DOI:10.1080/10584609.2023.2222370
Michael Bossetta, Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, Duje Bonacci
{"title":"Reconceptualizing Cross-Cutting Political Expression on Social Media: A Case Study of Facebook Comments During the 2016 Brexit Referendum","authors":"Michael Bossetta, Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, Duje Bonacci","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2222370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Political communication research has long sought to understand the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Here, we argue for a paradigm shift that acknowledges the agency of citizens as producers of cross-cutting expression on social media. We define cross-cutting expression as political communication through speech or behavior within a counter-attitudinal space. After explicating our conceptualization of cross-cutting expression, we empirically explore: its extent, its relationship to political arguments, and its implications for digital campaigning during the 2016 Brexit Referendum. Our dataset, comprising 2,198,741 comments from 344,884 users, is built from Facebook comments to three public campaign pages active during the Brexit referendum: StrongerIn, VoteLeave, and LeaveEU. We utilize reactions data to sort partisans into “Remain” and “Brexit” camps and, thereafter, chart users’ commenting flows across the three pages. We estimate 29% of comments to be cross-cutting, and we find strong correlations between cross-cutting expression and reasoned political arguments. Then, to better understand how cross-cutting expression may influence political participation on social media, we topic model the dataset to identify the political themes discussed during the Brexit debate on Facebook. Our findings suggest that political Facebook pages are not echo chambers, that cross-cutting expression correlates with reasoned political arguments, and that cross-cutting expression may influence the online voter mobilization potential of political Facebook pages.","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"40 1","pages":"719 - 741"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Communication","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2222370","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Political communication research has long sought to understand the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Here, we argue for a paradigm shift that acknowledges the agency of citizens as producers of cross-cutting expression on social media. We define cross-cutting expression as political communication through speech or behavior within a counter-attitudinal space. After explicating our conceptualization of cross-cutting expression, we empirically explore: its extent, its relationship to political arguments, and its implications for digital campaigning during the 2016 Brexit Referendum. Our dataset, comprising 2,198,741 comments from 344,884 users, is built from Facebook comments to three public campaign pages active during the Brexit referendum: StrongerIn, VoteLeave, and LeaveEU. We utilize reactions data to sort partisans into “Remain” and “Brexit” camps and, thereafter, chart users’ commenting flows across the three pages. We estimate 29% of comments to be cross-cutting, and we find strong correlations between cross-cutting expression and reasoned political arguments. Then, to better understand how cross-cutting expression may influence political participation on social media, we topic model the dataset to identify the political themes discussed during the Brexit debate on Facebook. Our findings suggest that political Facebook pages are not echo chambers, that cross-cutting expression correlates with reasoned political arguments, and that cross-cutting expression may influence the online voter mobilization potential of political Facebook pages.
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
重新定义社交媒体上的跨领域政治表达:2016年英国脱欧公投期间脸书评论的案例研究
长期以来,政治传播研究一直试图了解跨领域接触对政治参与的影响。在这里,我们主张一种范式转变,承认公民作为社交媒体上跨领域表达的生产者的代理。我们将交叉表达定义为在反态度空间内通过言语或行为进行的政治交流。在阐述了我们对横切表达的概念之后,我们实证地探讨了:它的范围,它与政治争论的关系,以及它对2016年英国脱欧公投期间的数字竞选活动的影响。我们的数据集包括来自344,884名用户的2,198,741条评论,是根据Facebook对英国脱欧公投期间活跃的三个公共竞选页面的评论构建的:StrongerIn, VoteLeave和LeaveEU。我们利用反应数据将党派划分为“留欧”和“脱欧”阵营,然后绘制用户在三个页面上的评论流图表。我们估计29%的评论是跨领域的,我们发现跨领域的表达与理性的政治论点之间存在很强的相关性。然后,为了更好地理解跨领域表达如何影响社交媒体上的政治参与,我们对数据集进行主题建模,以确定Facebook上英国退欧辩论期间讨论的政治主题。我们的研究结果表明,政治Facebook页面不是回音室,交叉表达与合理的政治论点相关,并且交叉表达可能影响政治Facebook页面的在线选民动员潜力。
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
CiteScore
13.90
自引率
2.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Communication is a quarterly international journal showcasing state-of-the-art, theory-driven empirical research at the nexus of politics and communication. Its broad scope addresses swiftly evolving dynamics and urgent policy considerations globally. The journal embraces diverse research methodologies and analytical perspectives aimed at advancing comprehension of political communication practices, processes, content, effects, and policy implications. Regular symposium issues delve deeply into key thematic areas.
期刊最新文献
A Querpolitics Approach to the Far Right? Notes from Germany and India What’s on and who’s Watching? Combining People-Meter Data and Subtitle Data to Explore Television Exposure to Political News The Contemporary Far Right from Contra to Control Prevalence, Presentation, and Popularity of Political Topics in Social Media Influencers’ Content Across Two Countries Political Communication in Challenging Times
×
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