Suchergebnisse

Messages that are designed to match a recipient's personality, as enabled by microtargeting, have been found to influence political reasoning and even voting intentions. We extended these findings by adding prior attitudes to a microtargeting setting. Specifically, we examined what role different microtargeting approaches play in political reasoning by conducting an online experiment with a 2 (extraverted vs. introverted communication) × 2 (attitude-congruent vs. attitude-incongruent statement) between-subject design (N = 368). In line with the assumptions of the theory of motivated reasoning, attitude position matching emerged as an effective microtargeting strategy, and attitude strength moderated the effect of attitude congruency on recipients' evaluations of political ads. While extraverted messages had no direct effect, that was unrelated to attitude congruency, recipients' level of extraversion moderated the effect of extraverted communication on their evaluation of an ad. Interestingly, the intention to vote was significantly higher when an attitude-incongruent statement was phrased in an introverted rather than an extraverted manner, suggesting that information that challenges prior attitudes might be more persuasive when it is delivered in a more temperate way. In sum, the study indicates that matching message with personality alone might not be the most effective microtargeting approach within democratic societies.

"Social platforms such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter have rekindled the initial excitement of cyberspace. Text based computer-mediated communication has been enriched with face-to-face communication such as Skype, as users move from desk tops to laptops with integrated cameras and related hardware. Age, gender and culture barriers seem to have crumbled and disappeared as the user base widens dramatically. Other than simple statistics relating to e-mail usage, chatrooms and blog subscriptions, we know surprisingly little about the rapid changes taking place. This book assembles leading researchers on non-verbal communication, emotion, cognition and computer science to summarize what we know about the processes relevant to face-to-face communication as it pertains to telecommunication, including video-conferencing. The authors take stock of what has been learned regarding how people communicate, in person or over distance, and set the foundations for solid research helping to understand the issues, implications and possibilities that lie ahead"--

People's perception of privacy can primarily be directed to themselves or to the value of privacy for society. Likewise, privacy protection can repel both individual and collective privacy threats. Focusing on this distinction, the present article examines Internet users' privacy protection behaviors in relation to individual privacy concerns and their perceived collective value of privacy over time. We conducted a longitudinal panel study with three measurement points ( N = 1790) to investigate relations between and within persons. The results of a random-intercept cross-lagged panel model revealed positive relations between the perceived value of privacy, privacy concerns, and privacy protection between persons. At the within-person level, only a temporal increase in the perceived value of privacy was related to increased protection behaviors. This suggests that individual privacy concerns are not as important for temporal protection as assumed, but that a recognition of collective privacy may temporarily change people's privacy behavior.

The privacy calculus assumes that people weigh perceived privacy risks and benefits before disclosing personal information. So far, empirical studies investigated the privacy calculus on a between-person level and, therefore, were not able to make statements about the intrapersonal psychological processes. In the present preregistered online within-person experiment, participants ( N = 485) were asked to imagine three different disclosure situations in which privacy risks were indicated by a privacy score. As personality variables, rational and intuitive privacy decision-making styles and privacy resignation were assessed. Results of a within-between random effects model showed that benefit perceptions were positively associated with self-disclosure intentions on between- and within-person levels. The privacy score was found to be effective in supporting users to make more privacy aware choices (within-person level). Finally, the rational decision-making style was positively related to privacy risk perception, while especially intuitive decision-makers can benefit from decision-making aids like the privacy score.

This work proposes the expectation of sanctions as a promising construct to advance spiral of silence research in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. We argue that situational factors influence people's expectations about how their social environment would punish them should they express their viewpoint in a hostile opinion climate. These expected sanctions are suggested to explain the variance in people's willingness to express a minority opinion across different social situations. An experiment showed that the expectation of being personally attacked can explain why people are more willing to voice a deviant opinion in offline rather than online environments. Findings also revealed that in contemporary social networking websites, wherein users commonly face a personally relevant audience, people are prone to hold back their opinion as they expect losing control over the reactions of their audience. This research extends previous knowledge by presenting a more differentiated theoretical view of the fear of isolation and specifying its role in different situations of public deliberation.

AbstractWhen laypersons are interested in science-related questions, they frequently visit participatory websites such as science blogs. Typically, articles on these sites are accompanied by user comments or ratings. The present research investigated the effects of different forms of user feedback on readers' interpretation of science topics. In two experiments (

AbstractInternet users have access to a multitude of science-related information – on journalistic news sites but also on blogs with user-generated content. In this context, we investigated in two studies the factors which influence laypersons' selective exposure (

Although the appraisal of online incivility highly depends on the social context in which it occurs, little research has focused on this aspect. Drawing on the general aggression model, we assumed that the appraisal of and the reaction to an uncivil discussion comment is affected by the represented stance and the appearance of accompanying comments. To examine these assumptions, we conducted an online experiment ( N = 611) with a three ( uncivil vs. civil vs. no preceding comments as a control) × two ( opposing vs. conforming recipient's views) between-subjects design. Data revealed that the influence of preceding comments is limited. However, people were more likely to attribute aggressive motives to senders of incivility when they opposed their opinion. In turn, these attributions increased individuals' anger, anxiety, hostile cognitions, but also enthusiasm. Furthermore, aggressive motive attributions, participants' emotions, and hostile cognitions guided participants' intentions to answer in a discussion-centered and/or aggressive way.

Despite incivility in online discussions being linked to various negative effects, less is known about the mechanisms of how incivility works. So far, explanations by social perception have been neglected. Therefore, drawing on the multiple inference model, this study employs an attribution theoretical approach to examine whether the motives and traits that people attribute to senders of uncivil or opposing comments affect their intentions to join a discussion. Employing a 2 (incivility vs. no incivility) × 2 (like-minded vs. opposing stance) between-subjects design, data from an online experiment ( N = 452) were analyzed applying a path model (SPSS AMOS). Results revealed that participants attributed more aggressive and less nonaggressive motives to senders of uncivil messages. The attribution of aggressive motives consequently increased hostile inferences about the target. A similar pattern occurred when individuals were exposed to an opposing stance. In result, hostile inferences about the sender's traits decreased participants' willingness to discuss.