小团体的合规性和转化:线上与线下的两极分化效应

Clarissa Sabadini, Mariasole Rinaldi, A. Guazzini
{"title":"小团体的合规性和转化:线上与线下的两极分化效应","authors":"Clarissa Sabadini, Mariasole Rinaldi, A. Guazzini","doi":"10.1080/18335330.2021.1969030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n This study investigated the phenomena of group polarisation with particular attention to the differences between offline and online settings. Polarisation is a process that leads people to develop extreme ideologies. Three hundred and seven participants were recruited and randomly assigned to different experimental conditions, i.e. antisocial and prosocial polarisation, within groups of 6 people composed of four confederates, participating in discussions about a social dilemma under two different circumstances: face to face and online. The degree of polarisation was assessed considering the final decisions adopted by the participants, as well as the internal dynamics characterising their final attitudes, i.e. compliance versus conversion. Results showed that online groups appeared more susceptible to polarisation and their members reported a greater degree of conformism. In particular, within online environments, the risk of being polarised, both antisocially and prosocially, increased by around 12%. Furthermore, in an online setting, a greater degree of conversion emerged only when the members decided to adopt a pro-social behaviour, while a greater degree of compliance emerged whenever they decided to adopt antisocial behaviour.","PeriodicalId":37849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism","volume":"17 1","pages":"159 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Compliance and conversion in small groups: online vs. offline polarisation effects\",\"authors\":\"Clarissa Sabadini, Mariasole Rinaldi, A. Guazzini\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/18335330.2021.1969030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n This study investigated the phenomena of group polarisation with particular attention to the differences between offline and online settings. Polarisation is a process that leads people to develop extreme ideologies. Three hundred and seven participants were recruited and randomly assigned to different experimental conditions, i.e. antisocial and prosocial polarisation, within groups of 6 people composed of four confederates, participating in discussions about a social dilemma under two different circumstances: face to face and online. The degree of polarisation was assessed considering the final decisions adopted by the participants, as well as the internal dynamics characterising their final attitudes, i.e. compliance versus conversion. Results showed that online groups appeared more susceptible to polarisation and their members reported a greater degree of conformism. In particular, within online environments, the risk of being polarised, both antisocially and prosocially, increased by around 12%. Furthermore, in an online setting, a greater degree of conversion emerged only when the members decided to adopt a pro-social behaviour, while a greater degree of compliance emerged whenever they decided to adopt antisocial behaviour.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"159 - 179\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2021.1969030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2021.1969030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究调查了群体极化现象,特别关注离线和在线设置之间的差异。两极分化是导致人们形成极端意识形态的过程。研究人员招募了307名参与者,并将他们随机分配到不同的实验条件下,即反社会和亲社会两极分化,在由4名同党组成的6人小组中,他们在两种不同的情况下(面对面和在线)参与关于社会困境的讨论。考虑到参与者通过的最终决定,以及表征他们最终态度的内部动态,即顺从与转变,评估了两极分化的程度。结果显示,网络群体似乎更容易出现两极分化,其成员更容易墨守成规。特别是,在网络环境中,反社会和亲社会的两极分化风险增加了约12%。此外,在网络环境中,只有当成员决定采取亲社会行为时,才会出现更大程度的皈依,而每当他们决定采取反社会行为时,就会出现更大程度的顺从。
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
Compliance and conversion in small groups: online vs. offline polarisation effects
ABSTRACT This study investigated the phenomena of group polarisation with particular attention to the differences between offline and online settings. Polarisation is a process that leads people to develop extreme ideologies. Three hundred and seven participants were recruited and randomly assigned to different experimental conditions, i.e. antisocial and prosocial polarisation, within groups of 6 people composed of four confederates, participating in discussions about a social dilemma under two different circumstances: face to face and online. The degree of polarisation was assessed considering the final decisions adopted by the participants, as well as the internal dynamics characterising their final attitudes, i.e. compliance versus conversion. Results showed that online groups appeared more susceptible to polarisation and their members reported a greater degree of conformism. In particular, within online environments, the risk of being polarised, both antisocially and prosocially, increased by around 12%. Furthermore, in an online setting, a greater degree of conversion emerged only when the members decided to adopt a pro-social behaviour, while a greater degree of compliance emerged whenever they decided to adopt antisocial behaviour.
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
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism (JPICT) is an international peer reviewed scholarly journal that acts as a forum for those around the world undertaking high quality research and practice in the areas of: Policing studies, Intelligence studies, Terrorism and counter terrorism studies; Cyber-policing, intelligence and terrorism. The Journal offers national, regional and international perspectives on current areas of scholarly and applied debate within these fields, while addressing the practical and theoretical issues and considerations that surround them. It aims to balance the discussion of practical realities with debates and research on relevant and significant theoretical issues. The Journal has the following major aims: To publish cutting-edge and contemporary research articles, reports and reviews on relevant topics; To publish articles that explore the interface between the areas of policing, intelligence and terrorism studies; To act as an international forum for exchange and discussion; To illustrate the nexus between theory and its practical applications and vice versa.
期刊最新文献
Optimising intelligence operations for international law enforcement: harnessing THRIVE for national intelligence model advancement Deadly consequences: lessons from the evolution of terrorist attacks against United States diplomats Contemporary terrorism challenges and responses in the Indo-Pacific The false dawns over Marawi: examining the post-Marawi counterterrorism strategy in the Philippines An Indonesian way of P/CVE and interpreting the whole-of-society approach: lessons from civil society organisations
×
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