Social watching the 2020 presidential and vice-presidential debates: the effect of ideological homogeneity and partisan identity strength

IF 0.5 Q4 COMMUNICATION Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/10511431.2021.1955446
Go-eun Kim, Benjamin R. Warner, Cassandra C. Kearney, Jihye Park, M. Kearney
{"title":"Social watching the 2020 presidential and vice-presidential debates: the effect of ideological homogeneity and partisan identity strength","authors":"Go-eun Kim, Benjamin R. Warner, Cassandra C. Kearney, Jihye Park, M. Kearney","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1955446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study presents a novel test of the effects of social watching a live campaign debate. We recruited just over 500 participants to view one of the two 2020 presidential campaign debates or the vice-presidential debate in real time via Zoom watch rooms. We experimentally manipulated the social dynamics of these Zoom watches to include either ideologically homogenous real-time chat, heterogenous chat, or no chat. We found asymmetry in the extent to which these chat manipulations exacerbated biased information processing. Participants in the homogenous chat Zoom sessions were more likely to provide negative debate performance evaluations of the out-group candidate but were no more likely to provide positive evaluations of the in-group candidate. Stronger partisans exhibited more bias in performance evaluation regardless of chat condition but, contrary to our expectations, did not engage in more chat compared to weak partisans.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation and Advocacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1955446","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This study presents a novel test of the effects of social watching a live campaign debate. We recruited just over 500 participants to view one of the two 2020 presidential campaign debates or the vice-presidential debate in real time via Zoom watch rooms. We experimentally manipulated the social dynamics of these Zoom watches to include either ideologically homogenous real-time chat, heterogenous chat, or no chat. We found asymmetry in the extent to which these chat manipulations exacerbated biased information processing. Participants in the homogenous chat Zoom sessions were more likely to provide negative debate performance evaluations of the out-group candidate but were no more likely to provide positive evaluations of the in-group candidate. Stronger partisans exhibited more bias in performance evaluation regardless of chat condition but, contrary to our expectations, did not engage in more chat compared to weak partisans.
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
社会观察2020年总统和副总统辩论:意识形态同质性和党派认同强度的影响
摘要:本研究提出了一个新的测试,社会观看直播竞选辩论的影响。我们招募了500多名参与者,通过Zoom观察室实时观看2020年总统竞选辩论或副总统辩论中的一场。我们通过实验操纵这些Zoom手表的社交动态,包括意识形态同质的实时聊天、异质聊天或不聊天。我们发现不对称的程度,这些聊天操作加剧了有偏见的信息处理。同质聊天Zoom会话的参与者更有可能对外组候选人提供负面的辩论表现评价,但不太可能对内组候选人提供积极的评价。无论聊天条件如何,较强的游击队员在绩效评估中表现出更多的偏见,但与我们的预期相反,与较弱的游击队员相比,他们没有参与更多的聊天。
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
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Cicero’s maledicta : the darker side of Cicero’s arguments The impact of normative argument quality variations on claim acceptance: empirical evidence from the US and the UK Can high school competitive debating facilitate political participation? The role of political knowledge and identification with a politically active group Nonverbal communication as argumentation: the case of political television debates The unnerved and unhoused: a rhetorical analysis of save Austin now’s campaign to disband unhoused individuals from Austin, Texas
×
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