模糊的权威:接触相互矛盾的说法如何提高民主党人对党派阴谋论的开放度

IF 2 2区 社会学 0 LITERATURE Poetics Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.poetic.2024.101899
Marcus Mann
{"title":"模糊的权威:接触相互矛盾的说法如何提高民主党人对党派阴谋论的开放度","authors":"Marcus Mann","doi":"10.1016/j.poetic.2024.101899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Existing research has demonstrated that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to engage with online political disinformation that traffics in partisan conspiracies. However, little is known about why this asymmetry exists. This study proposes that exposure to conflicting accounts from conflicting authorities in a given knowledge domain is an under-appreciated mechanism that increases susceptibility to partisan conspiracies and helps drive such asymmetries. To examine this question, I test two pre-registered hypotheses using two survey experiments on Amazon Cloud Research. In experiment 1, Republicans were more open to conspiracies at baseline but exposure to conflicting accounts made strong Democrats more open, eliminating this gap. In experiment 2, the effect of exposure to conflicting accounts is weaker but still contributed to closing the partisan gap, while Democrats’(but not Republicans’) self-reported media consumption heavily moderated the effect of exposure to conflicting accounts on belief. Implications of these findings are discussed for research on political polarization and disinformation as well as non-political knowledge domains.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47900,"journal":{"name":"Poetics","volume":"104 ","pages":"Article 101899"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blurred Authorities: How Exposure to Conflicting Accounts Increases Strong Democrats’ Openness to Partisan Conspiracy Narratives\",\"authors\":\"Marcus Mann\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.poetic.2024.101899\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Existing research has demonstrated that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to engage with online political disinformation that traffics in partisan conspiracies. However, little is known about why this asymmetry exists. This study proposes that exposure to conflicting accounts from conflicting authorities in a given knowledge domain is an under-appreciated mechanism that increases susceptibility to partisan conspiracies and helps drive such asymmetries. To examine this question, I test two pre-registered hypotheses using two survey experiments on Amazon Cloud Research. In experiment 1, Republicans were more open to conspiracies at baseline but exposure to conflicting accounts made strong Democrats more open, eliminating this gap. In experiment 2, the effect of exposure to conflicting accounts is weaker but still contributed to closing the partisan gap, while Democrats’(but not Republicans’) self-reported media consumption heavily moderated the effect of exposure to conflicting accounts on belief. Implications of these findings are discussed for research on political polarization and disinformation as well as non-political knowledge domains.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47900,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Poetics\",\"volume\":\"104 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101899\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Poetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304422X2400038X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Poetics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304422X2400038X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现有的研究表明,共和党人比民主党人更有可能接触到贩卖党派阴谋的网络政治虚假信息。然而,人们对这种不对称现象存在的原因知之甚少。本研究提出,在特定的知识领域中,接触来自相互冲突的权威机构的相互矛盾的说法是一种未被充分重视的机制,它增加了对党派阴谋的易感性,并有助于推动这种不对称性。为了研究这个问题,我在亚马逊云研究平台上进行了两次调查实验,检验了两个预先注册的假设。在实验 1 中,共和党人在基线上对阴谋论持更开放的态度,但接触到相互矛盾的说法后,强势的民主党人对阴谋论持更开放的态度,从而消除了这一差距。在实验 2 中,接触矛盾说法的影响较弱,但仍有助于缩小党派差距,而民主党人(而非共和党人)自我报告的媒体消费在很大程度上调节了接触矛盾说法对信念的影响。本文讨论了这些发现对政治极化和虚假信息以及非政治知识领域研究的影响。
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
Blurred Authorities: How Exposure to Conflicting Accounts Increases Strong Democrats’ Openness to Partisan Conspiracy Narratives

Existing research has demonstrated that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to engage with online political disinformation that traffics in partisan conspiracies. However, little is known about why this asymmetry exists. This study proposes that exposure to conflicting accounts from conflicting authorities in a given knowledge domain is an under-appreciated mechanism that increases susceptibility to partisan conspiracies and helps drive such asymmetries. To examine this question, I test two pre-registered hypotheses using two survey experiments on Amazon Cloud Research. In experiment 1, Republicans were more open to conspiracies at baseline but exposure to conflicting accounts made strong Democrats more open, eliminating this gap. In experiment 2, the effect of exposure to conflicting accounts is weaker but still contributed to closing the partisan gap, while Democrats’(but not Republicans’) self-reported media consumption heavily moderated the effect of exposure to conflicting accounts on belief. Implications of these findings are discussed for research on political polarization and disinformation as well as non-political knowledge domains.

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
Poetics
Poetics Multiple-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
16.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Poetics is an interdisciplinary journal of theoretical and empirical research on culture, the media and the arts. Particularly welcome are papers that make an original contribution to the major disciplines - sociology, psychology, media and communication studies, and economics - within which promising lines of research on culture, media and the arts have been developed.
期刊最新文献
Reconfiguring “Heritage hip-hop” From the scenes: Rightful youth rebellion and localised authenticity in the Huxiang Flow The role of hope and fear in the impact of climate fiction on climate action intentions: Evidence from India and USA Divergences and convergences across European musical preferences: How taste varies within and between countries Designed for success or failure: Differences in funding and rejection in the space of applications to the Danish Art Foundation among craftsmen and designers Mapping knowledge: Topic analysis of science locates researchers in disciplinary landscape
×
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