Skip to Content
0 Votes

Changes for page Studies: Media

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/22 20:17
From version 7.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/21 06:59
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 8.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/21 07:26
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,206 +1,7 @@
1 1  = Media =
2 2  
3 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
4 -**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
5 -**Date of Publication:** *2021*
6 -**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
7 -**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
8 -**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
9 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies*
10 10  
11 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
12 -1. **General Observations:**
13 - - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
14 - - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
15 15  
16 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
17 - - **Anonymity and reduced social cues** in CMC increased hostility.
18 - - **Echo chambers formed more frequently in algorithm-driven environments**.
19 -
20 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
21 - - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
22 - - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
23 -{{/expandable}}
24 -
25 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
26 -1. **Primary Observations:**
27 - - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
28 - - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
29 -
30 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
31 - - Participants with **strong pre-existing biases became more polarized** after exposure to conflicting views.
32 - - **Moderate users were more likely to disengage** from conflict-heavy discussions.
33 -
34 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
35 - - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
36 - - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
37 -{{/expandable}}
38 -
39 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
40 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
41 - - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
42 - - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
43 -
44 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
45 - - Lacks **qualitative analysis of user motivations**.
46 - - Focuses on **Western social media platforms**, missing global perspectives.
47 -
48 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
49 - - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
50 - - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
51 -{{/expandable}}
52 -
53 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
54 -- Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
55 -- Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
56 -- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.
57 -{{/expandable}}
58 -
59 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
60 -1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
61 -2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
62 -3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
63 -{{/expandable}}
64 -
65 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
66 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
67 -{{/expandable}}
68 -{{/expandable}}
69 -
70 -{{expandable summary="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
71 -**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
72 -**Date of Publication:** *2007*
73 -**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
74 -**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
75 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
76 -**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence*
77 -
78 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
79 -1. **General Observations:**
80 - - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
81 - - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
82 -
83 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
84 - - **Equality-based framing decreases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
85 - - **Morality-based framing increases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
86 -
87 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
88 - - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
89 - - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
90 -{{/expandable}}
91 -
92 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
93 -1. **Primary Observations:**
94 - - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
95 - - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
96 -
97 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
98 - - **Religious and conservative audiences** respond more to morality-based framing.
99 - - **Younger and progressive audiences** respond more to equality-based framing.
100 -
101 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
102 - - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
103 - - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
104 -{{/expandable}}
105 -
106 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
107 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
108 - - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
109 - - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
110 -
111 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
112 - - Focuses **only on U.S. media coverage**, limiting global applicability.
113 - - Does not account for **social media's growing influence** on public opinion.
114 -
115 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
116 - - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
117 - - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
118 -{{/expandable}}
119 -
120 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
121 -- Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
122 -- Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
123 -- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.
124 -{{/expandable}}
125 -
126 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
127 -1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
128 -2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
129 -3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
130 -{{/expandable}}
131 -
132 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
133 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]
134 -{{/expandable}}
135 -{{/expandable}}
136 -
137 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
138 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
139 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
140 -**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
141 -**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
142 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
143 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion*
144 -
145 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
146 -1. **General Observations:**
147 - - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
148 - - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
149 -
150 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
151 - - **Video-based content was 2x more persuasive** than text-based content.
152 - - Participants **under age 35 were more susceptible to political messaging shifts**.
153 -
154 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
155 - - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
156 - - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
157 -{{/expandable}}
158 -
159 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
160 -1. **Primary Observations:**
161 - - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
162 - - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
163 -
164 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
165 - - **Social media platforms had stronger persuasive effects** than news websites.
166 - - Participants who engaged in **online discussions retained more political knowledge**.
167 -
168 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
169 - - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
170 - - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
171 -{{/expandable}}
172 -
173 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
174 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
175 - - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
176 - - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
177 -
178 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
179 - - Limited to **short-term persuasion effects**, without long-term follow-up.
180 - - Does not explore **the role of misinformation in political persuasion**.
181 -
182 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
183 - - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
184 - - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
185 -{{/expandable}}
186 -
187 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
188 -- Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
189 -- Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
190 -- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.
191 -{{/expandable}}
192 -
193 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
194 -1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
195 -2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
196 -3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
197 -{{/expandable}}
198 -
199 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
200 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
201 -{{/expandable}}
202 -{{/expandable}}
203 -
204 204  {{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
205 205  Source: Journal of Advertising Research
206 206  Date of Publication: 2022