为什么游击队员会感到被憎恨?敌意元感知的静态和动态关系截然不同。

IF 2.2 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PNAS nexus Pub Date : 2024-10-15 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae324
Jeffrey Lees, Mina Cikara, James N Druckman
{"title":"为什么游击队员会感到被憎恨?敌意元感知的静态和动态关系截然不同。","authors":"Jeffrey Lees, Mina Cikara, James N Druckman","doi":"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Partisans hold inaccurate perceptions of the other side. What drives these inaccuracies? We address this question with a focus on partisan animosity meta-perceptions (i.e. how much a partisan believes opposing partisans hate them). We argue that predictors can relate to meta-perceptions statically (e.g. at a specific point in time, do partisans who post more about politics on social media differ in their meta-perceptions relative to partisans who post less?) or dynamically (e.g. does a partisan who increases their social media political posting between two defined time points change their meta-perceptions accordingly?). Using panel data from the 2020 US presidential election, we find variables display distinct static and dynamic relationships with meta-perceptions. Notably, between individuals, posting online exhibits no (static) relationship with meta-perceptions, while within individuals, those who increased their postings over time (dynamically) became more accurate. The results make clear that overly general statements about meta-perceptions and their predictors, including social media activity, are bound to be wrong. How meta-perceptions relate to other factors often depends on contextual circumstances at a given time.</p>","PeriodicalId":74468,"journal":{"name":"PNAS nexus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11475464/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why partisans feel hated: Distinct static and dynamic relationships with animosity meta-perceptions.\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey Lees, Mina Cikara, James N Druckman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae324\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Partisans hold inaccurate perceptions of the other side. What drives these inaccuracies? We address this question with a focus on partisan animosity meta-perceptions (i.e. how much a partisan believes opposing partisans hate them). We argue that predictors can relate to meta-perceptions statically (e.g. at a specific point in time, do partisans who post more about politics on social media differ in their meta-perceptions relative to partisans who post less?) or dynamically (e.g. does a partisan who increases their social media political posting between two defined time points change their meta-perceptions accordingly?). Using panel data from the 2020 US presidential election, we find variables display distinct static and dynamic relationships with meta-perceptions. Notably, between individuals, posting online exhibits no (static) relationship with meta-perceptions, while within individuals, those who increased their postings over time (dynamically) became more accurate. The results make clear that overly general statements about meta-perceptions and their predictors, including social media activity, are bound to be wrong. How meta-perceptions relate to other factors often depends on contextual circumstances at a given time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PNAS nexus\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11475464/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PNAS nexus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae324\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PNAS nexus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae324","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

党派成员对另一方持有不准确的看法。是什么导致了这些不准确的看法?我们将重点放在党派敌意元感知(即党派认为对立党派有多讨厌他们)上来解决这个问题。我们认为,预测因素可以静态地与元感知相关(例如,在某个特定时间点,在社交媒体上发布更多政治信息的党派人士与发布较少信息的党派人士相比,他们的元感知是否存在差异?利用 2020 年美国总统大选的面板数据,我们发现变量与元感知之间存在明显的静态和动态关系。值得注意的是,在个体之间,在线发帖与元认知没有(静态)关系,而在个体内部,那些随着时间推移(动态)增加发帖量的人变得更加准确。这些结果清楚地表明,关于元感知及其预测因素(包括社交媒体活动)的过于笼统的说法必然是错误的。元感知与其他因素的关系往往取决于特定时间的具体情况。
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
Why partisans feel hated: Distinct static and dynamic relationships with animosity meta-perceptions.

Partisans hold inaccurate perceptions of the other side. What drives these inaccuracies? We address this question with a focus on partisan animosity meta-perceptions (i.e. how much a partisan believes opposing partisans hate them). We argue that predictors can relate to meta-perceptions statically (e.g. at a specific point in time, do partisans who post more about politics on social media differ in their meta-perceptions relative to partisans who post less?) or dynamically (e.g. does a partisan who increases their social media political posting between two defined time points change their meta-perceptions accordingly?). Using panel data from the 2020 US presidential election, we find variables display distinct static and dynamic relationships with meta-perceptions. Notably, between individuals, posting online exhibits no (static) relationship with meta-perceptions, while within individuals, those who increased their postings over time (dynamically) became more accurate. The results make clear that overly general statements about meta-perceptions and their predictors, including social media activity, are bound to be wrong. How meta-perceptions relate to other factors often depends on contextual circumstances at a given time.

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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pollen foraging mediates exposure to dichotomous stressor syndromes in honey bees. Affective polarization is uniformly distributed across American States. Attraction to politically extreme users on social media. Critical thinking and misinformation vulnerability: experimental evidence from Colombia. Descriptive norms can "backfire" in hyper-polarized contexts.
×
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