社交媒体上的指责策略:语言定格与转推性实验研究

IF 4.9 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Sten Hansson, Matteo Fuoli, Ruth Page
{"title":"社交媒体上的指责策略:语言定格与转推性实验研究","authors":"Sten Hansson, Matteo Fuoli, Ruth Page","doi":"10.1177/00936502231211363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article introduces an original theoretical model for understanding how the linguistic framing of political protest messages influences how blame spreads in social media. Our model of blame retweetability posits that the way in which the basis and focus of blame are linguistically construed affects people’s perception of the strength of criticism in the message and its likelihood to be reposted. Two online experiments provide empirical support for the model. We find that attacks on a person’s character are perceived as more critical than blaming focused on the negative outcomes of their actions, and that negative judgements of social sanction have a greater impact than those of social esteem. The study also uncovers a “retweetability paradox”—in contrast to earlier studies, we find that blame messages that are perceived as more critical are not more likely to be reposted.","PeriodicalId":48323,"journal":{"name":"Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategies of Blaming on Social Media: An Experimental Study of Linguistic Framing and Retweetability\",\"authors\":\"Sten Hansson, Matteo Fuoli, Ruth Page\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00936502231211363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article introduces an original theoretical model for understanding how the linguistic framing of political protest messages influences how blame spreads in social media. Our model of blame retweetability posits that the way in which the basis and focus of blame are linguistically construed affects people’s perception of the strength of criticism in the message and its likelihood to be reposted. Two online experiments provide empirical support for the model. We find that attacks on a person’s character are perceived as more critical than blaming focused on the negative outcomes of their actions, and that negative judgements of social sanction have a greater impact than those of social esteem. The study also uncovers a “retweetability paradox”—in contrast to earlier studies, we find that blame messages that are perceived as more critical are not more likely to be reposted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231211363\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231211363","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

摘要

本文介绍了一个原创理论模型,用于理解政治抗议信息的语言框架如何影响指责在社交媒体中的传播。我们的 "指责转发性 "模型假定,指责的基础和焦点在语言上的解释方式会影响人们对信息中批评力度的感知以及信息被转发的可能性。两个在线实验为该模型提供了实证支持。我们发现,对一个人性格的攻击比对其行为负面结果的指责更具有批判性,而且对社会制裁的负面评价比对社会尊重的负面评价影响更大。这项研究还发现了一个 "转发悖论"--与之前的研究不同,我们发现那些被认为更具批评性的指责信息并不更容易被转发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Strategies of Blaming on Social Media: An Experimental Study of Linguistic Framing and Retweetability
This article introduces an original theoretical model for understanding how the linguistic framing of political protest messages influences how blame spreads in social media. Our model of blame retweetability posits that the way in which the basis and focus of blame are linguistically construed affects people’s perception of the strength of criticism in the message and its likelihood to be reposted. Two online experiments provide empirical support for the model. We find that attacks on a person’s character are perceived as more critical than blaming focused on the negative outcomes of their actions, and that negative judgements of social sanction have a greater impact than those of social esteem. The study also uncovers a “retweetability paradox”—in contrast to earlier studies, we find that blame messages that are perceived as more critical are not more likely to be reposted.
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
Communication Research
Communication Research COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Empirical research in communication began in the 20th century, and there are more researchers pursuing answers to communication questions today than at any other time. The editorial goal of Communication Research is to offer a special opportunity for reflection and change in the new millennium. To qualify for publication, research should, first, be explicitly tied to some form of communication; second, be theoretically driven with results that inform theory; third, use the most rigorous empirical methods; and fourth, be directly linked to the most important problems and issues facing humankind. Critieria do not privilege any particular context; indeed, we believe that the key problems facing humankind occur in close relationships, groups, organiations, and cultures.
×
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