Combating Hateful Attitudes and Online Browsing Behavior: The Case of Antisemitism

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1017/xps.2023.32

C. Bailard, Matthew H. Graham, Kimberly Gross, Ethan Porter, Rebekah Tromble

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study adds to the analogic perspective-taking literature by examining whether an online perspective-taking intervention affects both antisemitic attitudes and behaviors – in particular, engagement with antisemitic websites. Subjects who were randomly assigned to the treatment viewed a 90-s video of a college student describing an experience with antisemitism and reflected on its similarity to their own experiences. In a survey, treated subjects reported greater feelings of sympathy (+29 p.p.), more positive feelings toward Jews, a greater sense that Jews are discriminated against, and more support for policy solutions (+2–4 p.p.). However, these effects did not persist after 14 days. Examining our subjects’ web browsing data, we find a 5% reduction in time spent viewing antisemitic content during the posttreatment period and some limited, suggestive evidence of effects on the number of site visits. These findings provide the first evidence that perspective-taking interventions may affect online browsing behavior.

查看原文本刊更多论文

打击仇视态度和网上浏览行为：反犹太主义案例

本研究通过考察在线换位干预是否会影响反犹太主义的态度和行为，特别是对反犹太主义网站的参与，为类似的换位干预文献提供了补充。被随机分配到治疗组的受试者观看了一段90年代的视频，视频中一名大学生描述了一段反犹太主义的经历，并反思其与自己经历的相似之处。在一项调查中，接受治疗的受试者报告了更大的同情心(+29个百分点)，对犹太人的感觉更积极，对犹太人受到歧视的感觉更强烈，对政策解决方案的支持度更高(+ 2-4个百分点)。然而，这些效果在14天后没有持续。通过检查研究对象的网页浏览数据，我们发现在治疗后的时间里，观看反犹内容的时间减少了5%，并且有一些有限的、暗示性的证据表明，访问网站的次数有所减少。这些发现为换位思考干预可能影响在线浏览行为提供了第一个证据。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.