社交媒体上对种族不公正的关注浪潮:美国警察法外杀人事件是焦点事件

IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Annie Waldherr, Nicola Righetti, Ryan J. Gallagher, Kira Klinger, Daniela Stoltenberg, Sagar Kumar, Dominic Ridley, Brooke Foucault Welles
{"title":"社交媒体上对种族不公正的关注浪潮:美国警察法外杀人事件是焦点事件","authors":"Annie Waldherr, Nicola Righetti, Ryan J. Gallagher, Kira Klinger, Daniela Stoltenberg, Sagar Kumar, Dominic Ridley, Brooke Foucault Welles","doi":"10.1177/08944393251364290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The deaths of Black victims of police brutality, such as George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Sandra Bland, and Philando Castile, have become focusing events and symbols for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, catalyzing wide-spread public attention to racial injustice. While prior studies on hashtag activism predominantly focus on single and widely known cases, less is understood about why some incidents draw massive public attention while others do not. Addressing this gap, our study investigates the factors influencing the likelihood and size of public attention on Twitter (now X) following extrajudicial police killings. We analyzed 1.5 million tweets in response to 795 police killings between January 1, 2015, and December 8, 2016, in the United States. By examining cases on all scales, from unnoticed to prominent, we provide large-scale empirical evidence on disparities in public attention to police killings and their victims. Results indicate two distinct processes in the emergence of focusing events: While victims’ attributes such as race, age, and gender increased likelihood of receiving any attention (thresholding), variables of context and social construction were related to overall wave size (focusing).","PeriodicalId":49509,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Computer Review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Waves of Attention to Racial Injustice on Social Media: Extrajudicial Police Killings in the United States as Focusing Events\",\"authors\":\"Annie Waldherr, Nicola Righetti, Ryan J. Gallagher, Kira Klinger, Daniela Stoltenberg, Sagar Kumar, Dominic Ridley, Brooke Foucault Welles\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08944393251364290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The deaths of Black victims of police brutality, such as George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Sandra Bland, and Philando Castile, have become focusing events and symbols for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, catalyzing wide-spread public attention to racial injustice. While prior studies on hashtag activism predominantly focus on single and widely known cases, less is understood about why some incidents draw massive public attention while others do not. Addressing this gap, our study investigates the factors influencing the likelihood and size of public attention on Twitter (now X) following extrajudicial police killings. We analyzed 1.5 million tweets in response to 795 police killings between January 1, 2015, and December 8, 2016, in the United States. By examining cases on all scales, from unnoticed to prominent, we provide large-scale empirical evidence on disparities in public attention to police killings and their victims. Results indicate two distinct processes in the emergence of focusing events: While victims’ attributes such as race, age, and gender increased likelihood of receiving any attention (thresholding), variables of context and social construction were related to overall wave size (focusing).\",\"PeriodicalId\":49509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science Computer Review\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science Computer Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393251364290\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Computer Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393251364290","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

乔治·弗洛伊德、布雷欧娜·泰勒、桑德拉·布兰德和菲兰多·卡斯蒂利亚等黑人警察暴力受害者的死亡,成为“黑人的命也是命”运动的焦点事件和象征,促使公众广泛关注种族不公正问题。虽然之前对标签行动主义的研究主要集中在单一和广为人知的案例上,但人们对为什么有些事件引起了公众的广泛关注,而另一些事件却没有引起公众的关注却知之甚少。为了解决这一差距,我们的研究调查了法外警察杀人后Twitter(现在是X)上公众关注的可能性和规模的影响因素。我们分析了2015年1月1日至2016年12月8日期间美国795起警察杀人事件的150万条推文。通过研究各种规模的案件,从不被注意到突出,我们提供了大规模的经验证据,证明公众对警察杀人及其受害者的关注存在差异。结果表明,聚焦事件的出现有两个不同的过程:虽然受害者的种族、年龄和性别等属性增加了受到任何关注的可能性(阈值),但背景和社会结构的变量与总体波大小(聚焦)有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Waves of Attention to Racial Injustice on Social Media: Extrajudicial Police Killings in the United States as Focusing Events
The deaths of Black victims of police brutality, such as George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Sandra Bland, and Philando Castile, have become focusing events and symbols for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, catalyzing wide-spread public attention to racial injustice. While prior studies on hashtag activism predominantly focus on single and widely known cases, less is understood about why some incidents draw massive public attention while others do not. Addressing this gap, our study investigates the factors influencing the likelihood and size of public attention on Twitter (now X) following extrajudicial police killings. We analyzed 1.5 million tweets in response to 795 police killings between January 1, 2015, and December 8, 2016, in the United States. By examining cases on all scales, from unnoticed to prominent, we provide large-scale empirical evidence on disparities in public attention to police killings and their victims. Results indicate two distinct processes in the emergence of focusing events: While victims’ attributes such as race, age, and gender increased likelihood of receiving any attention (thresholding), variables of context and social construction were related to overall wave size (focusing).
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 Science Computer Review
Social Science Computer Review 社会科学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
95
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Unique Scope Social Science Computer Review is an interdisciplinary journal covering social science instructional and research applications of computing, as well as societal impacts of informational technology. Topics included: artificial intelligence, business, computational social science theory, computer-assisted survey research, computer-based qualitative analysis, computer simulation, economic modeling, electronic modeling, electronic publishing, geographic information systems, instrumentation and research tools, public administration, social impacts of computing and telecommunications, software evaluation, world-wide web resources for social scientists. Interdisciplinary Nature Because the Uses and impacts of computing are interdisciplinary, so is Social Science Computer Review. The journal is of direct relevance to scholars and scientists in a wide variety of disciplines. In its pages you''ll find work in the following areas: sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, psychology, computer literacy, computer applications, and methodology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信