事实还是感觉?在美国社交媒体上利用情感作为一种事实核查策略

IF 5.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Haoning Xue, Jingwen Zhang, Xinzhi Zhang
{"title":"事实还是感觉?在美国社交媒体上利用情感作为一种事实核查策略","authors":"Haoning Xue, Jingwen Zhang, Xinzhi Zhang","doi":"10.1177/20563051251318172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Emotionality is a well-established strategy for boosting audience engagement on social media. While fact-checking is positioned to provide objective information, fact-checking posts on social media often involve heightened emotionality. How much emotionality is present and how emotionality influences audience engagement and public sentiment toward fact-checked targets remain largely understudied. Informed by social psychological frameworks explicating message-level factors influencing public engagement and sentiment, the present study examines emotionality in 49,270 fact-checking posts created by 10 United States fact-checking organizations on Facebook from 2017 to 2022. Results showed that emotionality in fact-checking posts significantly increased by 13.5% over the years. Editorial fact-checkers (e.g., Washington Post) used higher levels of emotionality than independent fact-checkers (e.g., snopes.com). Emotionality positively indicated public engagement as predicted. However, in both fact-checked true and false information, emotionality was negatively associated with the public’s sentiment toward fact-checked targets, suggesting a potential spillover effect on stories verified to be true. This study reveals that emotionality in fact-checking posts boosts social media engagement yet with the potential of compromising fact-checking effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Facts or Feelings? Leveraging Emotionality as a Fact-Checking Strategy on Social Media in the United States\",\"authors\":\"Haoning Xue, Jingwen Zhang, Xinzhi Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20563051251318172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Emotionality is a well-established strategy for boosting audience engagement on social media. While fact-checking is positioned to provide objective information, fact-checking posts on social media often involve heightened emotionality. How much emotionality is present and how emotionality influences audience engagement and public sentiment toward fact-checked targets remain largely understudied. Informed by social psychological frameworks explicating message-level factors influencing public engagement and sentiment, the present study examines emotionality in 49,270 fact-checking posts created by 10 United States fact-checking organizations on Facebook from 2017 to 2022. Results showed that emotionality in fact-checking posts significantly increased by 13.5% over the years. Editorial fact-checkers (e.g., Washington Post) used higher levels of emotionality than independent fact-checkers (e.g., snopes.com). Emotionality positively indicated public engagement as predicted. However, in both fact-checked true and false information, emotionality was negatively associated with the public’s sentiment toward fact-checked targets, suggesting a potential spillover effect on stories verified to be true. This study reveals that emotionality in fact-checking posts boosts social media engagement yet with the potential of compromising fact-checking effectiveness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Media + Society\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-21\",\"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/10.1177/20563051251318172\",\"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":"Social Media + Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251318172","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

情感是一种行之有效的策略,可以提高用户在社交媒体上的参与度。虽然事实核查的定位是提供客观信息,但社交媒体上的事实核查帖子往往涉及高度情绪化。有多少情绪存在,以及情绪如何影响观众的参与和公众对事实核查目标的情绪,在很大程度上仍未得到充分研究。根据解释影响公众参与和情绪的信息层面因素的社会心理学框架,本研究调查了2017年至2022年美国10个事实核查组织在Facebook上发布的49270个事实核查帖子的情绪。结果显示,事实核查岗位的情绪在过去几年中显著增加了13.5%。编辑事实核查员(如《华盛顿邮报》)比独立事实核查员(如snopes.com)使用更高水平的情感。正如预测的那样,情绪积极地表明公众参与。然而,在经过事实验证的真实和虚假信息中,情绪与公众对经过事实验证的目标的情绪呈负相关,这表明对经过事实验证的故事存在潜在的溢出效应。这项研究表明,事实核查帖子中的情绪会提高社交媒体参与度,但也有可能损害事实核查的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Facts or Feelings? Leveraging Emotionality as a Fact-Checking Strategy on Social Media in the United States
Emotionality is a well-established strategy for boosting audience engagement on social media. While fact-checking is positioned to provide objective information, fact-checking posts on social media often involve heightened emotionality. How much emotionality is present and how emotionality influences audience engagement and public sentiment toward fact-checked targets remain largely understudied. Informed by social psychological frameworks explicating message-level factors influencing public engagement and sentiment, the present study examines emotionality in 49,270 fact-checking posts created by 10 United States fact-checking organizations on Facebook from 2017 to 2022. Results showed that emotionality in fact-checking posts significantly increased by 13.5% over the years. Editorial fact-checkers (e.g., Washington Post) used higher levels of emotionality than independent fact-checkers (e.g., snopes.com). Emotionality positively indicated public engagement as predicted. However, in both fact-checked true and false information, emotionality was negatively associated with the public’s sentiment toward fact-checked targets, suggesting a potential spillover effect on stories verified to be true. This study reveals that emotionality in fact-checking posts boosts social media engagement yet with the potential of compromising fact-checking effectiveness.
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
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