来自另一个政治派别的极端党派新闻暴露出可怕的回旋镖效应

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Political Behavior Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-03 DOI:10.1007/s11109-021-09769-9
Andreu Casas, Ericka Menchen-Trevino, Magdalena Wojcieszak
{"title":"来自另一个政治派别的极端党派新闻暴露出可怕的回旋镖效应","authors":"Andreu Casas,&nbsp;Ericka Menchen-Trevino,&nbsp;Magdalena Wojcieszak","doi":"10.1007/s11109-021-09769-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A narrow information diet may be partly to blame for the growing political divides in the United States, suggesting exposure to dissimilar views as a remedy. These efforts, however, could be counterproductive, exacerbating attitude and affective polarization. Yet findings on whether such boomerang effect exists are mixed and the consequences of dissimilar exposure on other important outcomes remain unexplored. To contribute to this debate, we rely on a preregistered longitudinal experimental design combining participants' survey self-reports and their behavioral browsing data, in which one should observe boomerang effects. We incentivized liberals to read political articles on extreme conservative outlets (Breitbart, The American Spectator, and The Blaze) and conservatives to read extreme left-leaning sites (Mother Jones, Democracy Now, and The Nation). We maximize ecological validity by embedding the treatment in a larger project that tracks over time changes in online exposure and attitudes. We explored the effects on attitude and affective polarization, as well as on perceptions of the political system, support for democratic principles, and personal well-being. Overall we find little evidence of boomerang effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":48166,"journal":{"name":"Political Behavior","volume":"1 1","pages":"1491-1530"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10618323/pdf/","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exposure to Extremely Partisan News from the Other Political Side Shows Scarce Boomerang Effects.\",\"authors\":\"Andreu Casas,&nbsp;Ericka Menchen-Trevino,&nbsp;Magdalena Wojcieszak\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11109-021-09769-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A narrow information diet may be partly to blame for the growing political divides in the United States, suggesting exposure to dissimilar views as a remedy. These efforts, however, could be counterproductive, exacerbating attitude and affective polarization. Yet findings on whether such boomerang effect exists are mixed and the consequences of dissimilar exposure on other important outcomes remain unexplored. To contribute to this debate, we rely on a preregistered longitudinal experimental design combining participants' survey self-reports and their behavioral browsing data, in which one should observe boomerang effects. We incentivized liberals to read political articles on extreme conservative outlets (Breitbart, The American Spectator, and The Blaze) and conservatives to read extreme left-leaning sites (Mother Jones, Democracy Now, and The Nation). We maximize ecological validity by embedding the treatment in a larger project that tracks over time changes in online exposure and attitudes. We explored the effects on attitude and affective polarization, as well as on perceptions of the political system, support for democratic principles, and personal well-being. Overall we find little evidence of boomerang effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Behavior\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1491-1530\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10618323/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09769-9\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/2/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09769-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

狭隘的信息饮食可能是美国政治分歧日益扩大的部分原因,这表明接触不同的观点是一种补救措施。然而,这些努力可能会适得其反,加剧态度和情感两极分化。然而,关于这种回旋镖效应是否存在的研究结果喜忧参半,不同暴露对其他重要结果的影响仍有待探索。为了促进这场辩论,我们依赖于一个预先注册的纵向实验设计,该设计结合了参与者的调查自我报告和他们的行为浏览数据,其中应该观察到回旋镖效应。我们鼓励自由派阅读极端保守派媒体上的政治文章(Breitbart、The American Spectator和The Blaze),鼓励保守派阅读极端左倾网站(Mother Jones、Democracy Now和The Nation)。我们通过将治疗方法嵌入一个更大的项目来最大限度地提高生态有效性,该项目跟踪在线曝光和态度随时间的变化。我们探讨了对态度和情感两极分化的影响,以及对政治制度、对民主原则的支持和个人幸福感的影响。总的来说,我们几乎没有发现回旋镖效应的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Exposure to Extremely Partisan News from the Other Political Side Shows Scarce Boomerang Effects.

Exposure to Extremely Partisan News from the Other Political Side Shows Scarce Boomerang Effects.

Exposure to Extremely Partisan News from the Other Political Side Shows Scarce Boomerang Effects.

Exposure to Extremely Partisan News from the Other Political Side Shows Scarce Boomerang Effects.

A narrow information diet may be partly to blame for the growing political divides in the United States, suggesting exposure to dissimilar views as a remedy. These efforts, however, could be counterproductive, exacerbating attitude and affective polarization. Yet findings on whether such boomerang effect exists are mixed and the consequences of dissimilar exposure on other important outcomes remain unexplored. To contribute to this debate, we rely on a preregistered longitudinal experimental design combining participants' survey self-reports and their behavioral browsing data, in which one should observe boomerang effects. We incentivized liberals to read political articles on extreme conservative outlets (Breitbart, The American Spectator, and The Blaze) and conservatives to read extreme left-leaning sites (Mother Jones, Democracy Now, and The Nation). We maximize ecological validity by embedding the treatment in a larger project that tracks over time changes in online exposure and attitudes. We explored the effects on attitude and affective polarization, as well as on perceptions of the political system, support for democratic principles, and personal well-being. Overall we find little evidence of boomerang effects.

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
Political Behavior
Political Behavior POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Political Behavior publishes original research in the general fields of political behavior, institutions, processes, and policies. Approaches include economic (preference structuring, bargaining), psychological (attitude formation and change, motivations, perceptions), sociological (roles, group, class), or political (decision making, coalitions, influence). Articles focus on the political behavior (conventional or unconventional) of the individual person or small group (microanalysis), or of large organizations that participate in the political process such as parties, interest groups, political action committees, governmental agencies, and mass media (macroanalysis). As an interdisciplinary journal, Political Behavior integrates various approaches across different levels of theoretical abstraction and empirical domain (contextual analysis). Officially cited as: Polit Behav
×
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