社交媒体与感知的政治极化:所认为的平台承受能力、参与不文明政治讨论和所认为的他人参与的作用

IF 5.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Social Media + Society Pub Date : 2024-02-07 DOI:10.1177/20563051241228595
Macau K. F. Mak, Mengyu Li, Hernando Rojas
{"title":"社交媒体与感知的政治极化:所认为的平台承受能力、参与不文明政治讨论和所认为的他人参与的作用","authors":"Macau K. F. Mak, Mengyu Li, Hernando Rojas","doi":"10.1177/20563051241228595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research applies a perceived affordance approach to examine the distinctive role of social media technologies in shaping (mis)perceptions of political polarization. We argue that users’ perceptions of platform affordances influence both (a) their self-participation in uncivil political discussion on social media and (b) perceptions of others’ engagement, which eventually shape their perceptions of polarization. Our analysis of US survey data found that perceptions of lower privacy and stronger network association on Facebook are related to perceptions of a higher level of uncivil discussion by other users, which in turn predicts greater perceived polarization. Perceptions of higher anonymity relate to higher self-participation in uncivil discussion, which is surprisingly associated with perceptions of reduced polarization. Our follow-up experimental study illustrated that participants with more frequent engagement in uncivil discussion, irrespective of interacting with civil or uncivil comments, showed consistently higher levels of intrapersonal reflection, which reduces perceived polarization.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Media and Perceived Political Polarization: Role of Perceived Platform Affordances, Participation in Uncivil Political Discussion, and Perceived Others’ Engagement\",\"authors\":\"Macau K. F. Mak, Mengyu Li, Hernando Rojas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20563051241228595\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This research applies a perceived affordance approach to examine the distinctive role of social media technologies in shaping (mis)perceptions of political polarization. We argue that users’ perceptions of platform affordances influence both (a) their self-participation in uncivil political discussion on social media and (b) perceptions of others’ engagement, which eventually shape their perceptions of polarization. Our analysis of US survey data found that perceptions of lower privacy and stronger network association on Facebook are related to perceptions of a higher level of uncivil discussion by other users, which in turn predicts greater perceived polarization. Perceptions of higher anonymity relate to higher self-participation in uncivil discussion, which is surprisingly associated with perceptions of reduced polarization. Our follow-up experimental study illustrated that participants with more frequent engagement in uncivil discussion, irrespective of interacting with civil or uncivil comments, showed consistently higher levels of intrapersonal reflection, which reduces perceived polarization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Media + Society\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Media + Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241228595\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Media + Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241228595","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究采用一种感知承受能力方法来考察社交媒体技术在形成(错误)政治极化观念方面的独特作用。我们认为,用户对平台承受能力的感知会影响(a)他们在社交媒体上对不文明政治讨论的自我参与和(b)对他人参与的感知,最终形成他们对两极分化的感知。我们对美国调查数据的分析发现,Facebook 上较低的隐私感和较强的网络关联性与其他用户较高程度的不文明讨论感相关,而这反过来又预测了较高的两极分化感知。对匿名性较高的看法与自我参与不文明讨论的程度较高有关,而这与对两极分化程度降低的看法竟然是相关的。我们的后续实验研究表明,参与不文明讨论次数越多的参与者,无论与文明评论还是不文明评论互动,都会表现出更高的个人内省水平,从而降低所感知的两极分化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Social Media and Perceived Political Polarization: Role of Perceived Platform Affordances, Participation in Uncivil Political Discussion, and Perceived Others’ Engagement
This research applies a perceived affordance approach to examine the distinctive role of social media technologies in shaping (mis)perceptions of political polarization. We argue that users’ perceptions of platform affordances influence both (a) their self-participation in uncivil political discussion on social media and (b) perceptions of others’ engagement, which eventually shape their perceptions of polarization. Our analysis of US survey data found that perceptions of lower privacy and stronger network association on Facebook are related to perceptions of a higher level of uncivil discussion by other users, which in turn predicts greater perceived polarization. Perceptions of higher anonymity relate to higher self-participation in uncivil discussion, which is surprisingly associated with perceptions of reduced polarization. Our follow-up experimental study illustrated that participants with more frequent engagement in uncivil discussion, irrespective of interacting with civil or uncivil comments, showed consistently higher levels of intrapersonal reflection, which reduces perceived polarization.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Media + Society
Social Media + Society COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Media + Society is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that focuses on the socio-cultural, political, psychological, historical, economic, legal and policy dimensions of social media in societies past, contemporary and future. We publish interdisciplinary work that draws from the social sciences, humanities and computational social sciences, reaches out to the arts and natural sciences, and we endorse mixed methods and methodologies. The journal is open to a diversity of theoretic paradigms and methodologies. The editorial vision of Social Media + Society draws inspiration from research on social media to outline a field of study poised to reflexively grow as social technologies evolve. We foster the open access of sharing of research on the social properties of media, as they manifest themselves through the uses people make of networked platforms past and present, digital and non. The journal presents a collaborative, open, and shared space, dedicated exclusively to the study of social media and their implications for societies. It facilitates state-of-the-art research on cutting-edge trends and allows scholars to focus and track trends specific to this field of study.
期刊最新文献
Can Social Media Engagement Predict Election Results? Bandwagon Effects of Tweets About US Senate Candidates Politicians Under Fire: Citizens’ Incivility Against Political Leaders on Social Media Telehealth “Verzuz” Radical Telehealing: Reimagining Social Media as Virtual Healing Spaces for Black Communities Queerness and Mental Health in India: An Intersectional Approach to Sensitive Social Media Disclosures Understanding the Motivations of Young Adults to Engage in Privacy Protection Behavior While Setting Up Smartphone Apps: A Cross-Country Comparison Between Romania and Germany
×
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