Perceiving Affective Polarization in the United States: How Social Media Shape Meta-Perceptions and Affective Polarization

IF 5.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Christian Staal Bruun Overgaard
{"title":"Perceiving Affective Polarization in the United States: How Social Media Shape Meta-Perceptions and Affective Polarization","authors":"Christian Staal Bruun Overgaard","doi":"10.1177/20563051241232662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Affective polarization is on the rise, not least in the United States. Recent scholarship has identified meta-perceptions, concerning how much opposing partisans think they dislike each other, as a potential driver of actual interparty animosity. I theorize that social media content shapes people’s political meta-perceptions, which in turn influence affective polarization. I integrate prior work on meta-perceptions with research on intergroup conflict and social norms to distinguish perceptions about people’s ingroup from perceptions about their outgroup. A probability sample ( n = 825) shows outgroup meta-perceptions (i.e., perceptions about the outparty’s feelings toward the inparty) are linked to actual affective polarization. Ingroup meta-perceptions do not predict affective polarization above and beyond outgroup meta-perceptions. An original experiment ( n = 541) then examines the proposed causal pathway by exposing subjects to politically unifying, divisive, or neutral media content. In line with the proposed model, unifying content reduces affective polarization, and this effect is mediated by political meta-perceptions. Surprisingly, divisive content has no effects on meta-perceptions or affective polarization. These findings have theoretical implications for research on social media, perceptions, and intergroup relations. These, as well as practical implications, are discussed in light of mounting concerns about increasing affective polarization and the role social media may play in exacerbating it.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","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/10.1177/20563051241232662","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

Abstract

Affective polarization is on the rise, not least in the United States. Recent scholarship has identified meta-perceptions, concerning how much opposing partisans think they dislike each other, as a potential driver of actual interparty animosity. I theorize that social media content shapes people’s political meta-perceptions, which in turn influence affective polarization. I integrate prior work on meta-perceptions with research on intergroup conflict and social norms to distinguish perceptions about people’s ingroup from perceptions about their outgroup. A probability sample ( n = 825) shows outgroup meta-perceptions (i.e., perceptions about the outparty’s feelings toward the inparty) are linked to actual affective polarization. Ingroup meta-perceptions do not predict affective polarization above and beyond outgroup meta-perceptions. An original experiment ( n = 541) then examines the proposed causal pathway by exposing subjects to politically unifying, divisive, or neutral media content. In line with the proposed model, unifying content reduces affective polarization, and this effect is mediated by political meta-perceptions. Surprisingly, divisive content has no effects on meta-perceptions or affective polarization. These findings have theoretical implications for research on social media, perceptions, and intergroup relations. These, as well as practical implications, are discussed in light of mounting concerns about increasing affective polarization and the role social media may play in exacerbating it.
感知美国的情感极化:社交媒体如何塑造元感知和情感极化
情感极化正在加剧,尤其是在美国。最近的学术研究发现,元认知(meta-perceptions)是党派对立者认为自己不喜欢对方的程度,是实际党派间敌意的潜在驱动因素。我的理论是,社交媒体内容会影响人们的政治元认知,进而影响情感极化。我将先前关于元认知的研究与关于群体间冲突和社会规范的研究相结合,以区分人们对内群体的认知和对外群体的认知。概率样本(n = 825)显示,外群体元知觉(即关于外群体对内群体感受的知觉)与实际的情感极化有关。在群体外元知觉之外,群体内元知觉并不能预测情感极化。随后,一项原创实验(n = 541)通过让受试者接触政治上统一、分裂或中立的媒体内容,对所提出的因果途径进行了检验。与所提出的模型一致,团结的内容会减少情感极化,而这种效果是由政治元认知中介的。令人惊讶的是,分裂性内容对元感知或情感极化没有影响。这些发现对社交媒体、认知和群体间关系的研究具有理论意义。鉴于人们对情感两极分化日益加剧以及社交媒体在加剧情感两极分化方面可能扮演的角色的日益关注,我们将对这些影响以及实际意义进行讨论。
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
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信