{"title":"社交媒体上党派偏见形成纽带的心理基础。","authors":"Mohsen Mosleh,Cameron Martel,David G Rand","doi":"10.1037/xge0001662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individuals preferentially reciprocate connections with copartisans versus counter-partisans online. However, the mechanisms underlying this partisan bias remain unclear. Do individuals simply prefer viewing politically congenial content, or do they additionally prefer socially connecting with copartisans? Is this driven by preference for in-party ties or distaste for out-party ties? In a Twitter (now called X) field experiment, we created bot accounts varying by partisanship and whether they identified as bots or humans. We randomly assigned Twitter users (N = 3,013) to be followed by one of these accounts. We found evidence for social motivation-users were much more likely to reciprocate links to copartisan relative to counter-partisan accounts when the accounts identified as humans versus bots. We also found evidence for both in-party preference and out-party dispreference-users were as likely to follow back copartisan accounts as they were unlikely to followback counter-partisan accounts, compared to politically neutral accounts. A follow-up survey experiment (N = 990) provides further evidence for distinct roles of issue polarization, out-party animosity, and in-party affinity in moderating follow-back decisions online. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological underpinnings of partisan bias in tie formation on social media.\",\"authors\":\"Mohsen Mosleh,Cameron Martel,David G Rand\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001662\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Individuals preferentially reciprocate connections with copartisans versus counter-partisans online. However, the mechanisms underlying this partisan bias remain unclear. Do individuals simply prefer viewing politically congenial content, or do they additionally prefer socially connecting with copartisans? Is this driven by preference for in-party ties or distaste for out-party ties? In a Twitter (now called X) field experiment, we created bot accounts varying by partisanship and whether they identified as bots or humans. We randomly assigned Twitter users (N = 3,013) to be followed by one of these accounts. We found evidence for social motivation-users were much more likely to reciprocate links to copartisan relative to counter-partisan accounts when the accounts identified as humans versus bots. We also found evidence for both in-party preference and out-party dispreference-users were as likely to follow back copartisan accounts as they were unlikely to followback counter-partisan accounts, compared to politically neutral accounts. A follow-up survey experiment (N = 990) provides further evidence for distinct roles of issue polarization, out-party animosity, and in-party affinity in moderating follow-back decisions online. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001662\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001662","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Psychological underpinnings of partisan bias in tie formation on social media.
Individuals preferentially reciprocate connections with copartisans versus counter-partisans online. However, the mechanisms underlying this partisan bias remain unclear. Do individuals simply prefer viewing politically congenial content, or do they additionally prefer socially connecting with copartisans? Is this driven by preference for in-party ties or distaste for out-party ties? In a Twitter (now called X) field experiment, we created bot accounts varying by partisanship and whether they identified as bots or humans. We randomly assigned Twitter users (N = 3,013) to be followed by one of these accounts. We found evidence for social motivation-users were much more likely to reciprocate links to copartisan relative to counter-partisan accounts when the accounts identified as humans versus bots. We also found evidence for both in-party preference and out-party dispreference-users were as likely to follow back copartisan accounts as they were unlikely to followback counter-partisan accounts, compared to politically neutral accounts. A follow-up survey experiment (N = 990) provides further evidence for distinct roles of issue polarization, out-party animosity, and in-party affinity in moderating follow-back decisions online. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.