The Effect of Streaming Chat on Perceptions of Political Debates

被引:5
作者
Asbury-Kimmel, Victoria [1 ]
Chang, Keng-Chi [2 ]
McCabe, Katherine T. [3 ]
Munger, Kevin [4 ]
Ventura, Tiago [5 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Dept Sociol, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Polit Sci, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
[3] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Polit Sci, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA
[4] Penn State Univ, Dept Polit Sci & Social Data Analyt, State Coll, PA 19165 USA
[5] Univ Maryland, Dept Govt & Polit, College Pk, MD 20742 USA
关键词
Social Media; Second Screening; Experiment; Debates; Media Multitasking; Text Analysis; SOCIAL MEDIA; ONLINE; TWITTER; INCIVILITY; MULTITASKING; CANDIDATES; ATTENTION; KNOWLEDGE; ATTITUDES; COVERAGE;
D O I
10.1093/joc/jqab041
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
Broadcast media consumption is becoming more social. Many online video "livestreams" come with embedded livestreaming chatboxes, uniting the on-screen and social components. We investigate how streaming chat shapes perceptions of political events. We conducted a field experiment during the September 2019 Democratic Primary Debate where subjects were assigned to view the debate with or without streaming chat. We use text analyses to characterize the frequency, toxicity, and tone of comments in the chat. Our experimental findings indicate that Democratic subjects assigned to the Facebook (social) chat condition reported lower affect toward Democrats and a worse viewing experience, aligned with the toxic and overwhelming nature of the chat. The polarity of candidate-directed comments also influenced candidate evaluations and perceived performance in the polls. This suggests that consumers of mass media will be both more immediately affected by social feedback and likely to make inferences about the experiences of their fellow consumers.
引用
收藏
页码:947 / 975
页数:29
相关论文
共 66 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1987, NEWS MATTERS TELEVIS
[2]   What to Believe? Social Media Commentary and Belief in Misinformation [J].
Anspach, Nicolas M. ;
Carlson, Taylor N. .
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 2020, 42 (03) :697-718
[3]  
Arceneaux K., 2013, CHANGING MINDS CHANG, DOI [10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.001.00001, DOI 10.7208/CHICAGO/9780226047447.001.00001]
[4]  
Auxier B., 2021, Pew Research Center, V1, P1
[5]   Second Screening and Political Persuasion on Social Media [J].
Barnidge, Matthew ;
de Zuniga, Homero Gil ;
Diehl, Trevor .
JOURNAL OF BROADCASTING & ELECTRONIC MEDIA, 2017, 61 (02) :309-331
[6]  
Benoit W.L., 2002, The Primary Decision: A Functional Analysis of Debates in Presidential Primaries
[7]   A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing US presidential debates [J].
Benoit, WL ;
Hansen, GJ ;
Verser, RM .
COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, 2003, 70 (04) :335-350
[8]   Maximizing "minimal effects" - The impact of early primary season debates on voter preferences [J].
Best, SJ ;
Hubbard, C .
AMERICAN POLITICS QUARTERLY, 1999, 27 (04) :450-467
[9]  
Bramlett J.C., 2018, An unprecedented election: Media, communication, and the electorate in the 2016 presidential campaign, P169
[10]   Dual-Screening the Candidate Image during Presidential Debates: The Moderating Role of Twitter and Need to Evaluate for the Effects on Candidate Perceptions [J].
Camaj, Lindita ;
Northup, Temple .
JOURNAL OF BROADCASTING & ELECTRONIC MEDIA, 2019, 63 (01) :20-38