Sharing political news: the balancing act of intimacy and socialization in selective exposure

One might think that, compared to traditional media, social media sites allow people to choose more freely what to read and what to share, especially for politically oriented news. However, reading and sharing habits originate from deeply ingrained behaviors that might be hard to change. To test the extent to which this is true, we propose a Political News Sharing (PoNS) model that holistically captures four key aspects of social psychology: gratification, selective exposure, socialization, and trust & intimacy. Using real instances of political news sharing in Twitter, we study the predictive power of these features. As one might expect, news sharing heavily depends on what one likes and agrees with (selective exposure). Interestingly, it also depends on the credibility of a news source, i.e., whether the source is a social media friend or a news outlet (trust & intimacy) as well as on the informativeness or the enjoyment of the news article (gratification). Finally, a Twitter user tends to share articles matching his own political leaning but, at times, the user also shares politically opposing articles, if those match the leaning of his followers (socialization). Based on our PoNS model, we build a prototype of a news sharing application that promotes serendipitous political readings along our four dimensions.

[1]  J. Freedman,et al.  SELECTIVE EXPOSURE TO INFORMATION: A CRITICAL REVIEW , 1967 .

[2]  Frank Schweitzer,et al.  Emotional Divergence Influences Information Spreading in Twitter , 2012, ICWSM.

[3]  B. Latané The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[4]  John D. Rogers,et al.  Dissent and the search for information. , 1996 .

[5]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities , 2007, WebKDD/SNA-KDD '07.

[6]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The Party Is Over Here: Structure and Content in the 2010 Election , 2011, ICWSM.

[7]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment , 2010, ICWSM.

[8]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Good Friends, Bad News - Affect and Virality in Twitter , 2011, ArXiv.

[9]  Bruce Garrison,et al.  Online news and the public , 2004 .

[10]  Piet Schenelaars Public opinion , 1994, Bio/Technology.

[11]  D. Boyd,et al.  Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter , 2010 .

[12]  Stefano DellaVigna,et al.  The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting , 2006 .

[13]  Daniele Quercia,et al.  TweetLDA: supervised topic classification and link prediction in Twitter , 2012, WebSci '12.

[14]  D. Rucinski The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .

[15]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog , 2005, LinkKDD '05.

[16]  Jon Kleinberg,et al.  Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on twitter , 2011, WWW.

[17]  R. LaRose,et al.  Getting Hooked on News: Uses and Gratifications and the Formation of News Habits Among College Students in an Internet Environment , 2006 .

[18]  Carolyn A. Lin,et al.  Uses and Gratifications of Online and Offline News: New Wine in an Old Bottle? , 2004 .

[19]  D. Boyd,et al.  The Arab Spring| The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions , 2011 .

[20]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[21]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  Political persuasion and attitude change , 1996 .

[22]  C. Sunstein On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done , 2009 .

[23]  Nan Lin,et al.  SOCIAL NETWORKS AND STATUS ATTAINMENT , 1999 .

[24]  B. Latané,et al.  Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Political Polarization on Twitter , 2011, ICWSM.

[26]  Eli Pariser FILTER BUBBLE: Wie wir im Internet entmündigt werden , 2012 .

[27]  David Lazer,et al.  #Bigbirds Never Die: Understanding Social Dynamics of Emergent Hashtags , 2013, ICWSM.

[28]  Miles Efron The liberal media and right-wing conspiracies: using cocitation information to estimate political orientation in web documents , 2004, CIKM.

[29]  Jesse M. Shapiro,et al.  Ideological Segregation Online and Offline , 2010 .

[30]  Yi Pan,et al.  Future Information Technology , 2011 .

[31]  Rizal Setya Perdana What is Twitter , 2013 .

[32]  Werner J. Severin,et al.  Communication Theories: Origins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media , 1991 .

[33]  L. Ross,et al.  Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  Scott P. Robertson,et al.  Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1991 .

[35]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Sentiment in Twitter events , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[36]  Ga Miller,et al.  Note on the bias of information estimates , 1955 .

[37]  B. Nyhan,et al.  When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions , 2010 .

[38]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Towards quality discourse in online news comments , 2011, CSCW.

[39]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Dust & Magnet: Multivariate Information Visualization Using a Magnet Metaphor , 2005, Inf. Vis..

[40]  Hosung Park,et al.  What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? , 2010, WWW '10.

[41]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Media Landscape in Twitter: A World of New Conventions and Political Diversity , 2011, ICWSM.

[42]  Felix Naumann,et al.  Analyzing and predicting viral tweets , 2013, WWW.

[43]  Bibb Latané,et al.  Diffusion of Responsibility and Restaurant Tipping: Cheaper by the Bunch , 1975 .

[44]  Joseph Hilbe,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2009 .

[45]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[46]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Tweeting from the Town Square: Measuring Geographic Local Networks , 2010, ICWSM.

[47]  C. Sunstein Republic.com , 2001 .

[48]  I. N. A. C. I. J. H. Fowler Book Review: Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. , 2009 .

[49]  Eric T. G. Wang,et al.  Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories , 2006, Decis. Support Syst..

[50]  Ricardo Llano-González Fowler, J. & Christakis, N. (2009). Connected: the surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little, Brown and Company. , 2012 .

[51]  Tim Groseclose,et al.  A Measure of Media Bias , 2005 .

[52]  Derek L. Hansen,et al.  Computing political preference among twitter followers , 2011, CHI.

[53]  H. Quastler Information theory in psychology : problems and methods , 1955 .

[54]  J. Rowley,et al.  Young people's use of online social networking sites – a uses and gratifications perspective , 2010 .

[55]  Bill Bishop,et al.  The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart , 2008 .

[56]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  Presenting diverse political opinions: how and how much , 2010, CHI.

[57]  Eric Sun,et al.  Gesundheit! Modeling Contagion through Facebook News Feed , 2009, ICWSM.

[58]  Susan K. Walker Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives , 2011 .

[59]  Sriram Subramanian,et al.  Talking about tactile experiences , 2013, CHI.

[60]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think , 2012 .