Suchergebnisse

This study attempts to explicate the concept of cross-cutting exposure in the current media environment and to clarify its effects on political participation. Employing a two-wave survey of data collected during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, the study empirically revealed that cross-cutting exposure in the social media environment comprises three subdimensions: cross-cutting scanning, cross-cutting integrating, and cross-cutting interacting. These three different experiences yield a distinctive influence on the level of political participation. Cross-cutting interacting is the only positive predictor of political participation, whereas cross-cutting scanning and integrating are not significantly associated with political participation. Implications of these results for deliberative democracy and participatory democracy are discussed.

Scholars have advanced many theoretical explanations for expecting a negative or positive relationship between individuals' cross-cutting exposure—either through interpersonal or mediated forms of communication—and their political participation. However, whether cross-cutting exposure is a positive or negative predictor of participation is still an unsettled question. To help fill this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis of 48 empirical studies comprising more than 70,000 participants examining the association between cross-cutting exposure and political participation. The meta-analysis produced two main findings. First, it shows that, over all studies, there is no significant relationship, r =.002, Zr =.002 (95% CI = −.04 to.05). Second, the null relationship cannot be explained by variations in the characteristics of cross-cutting environments (e.g., topic, place, or source of exposure), participation outcomes (e.g., online vs. offline activities), or methods employed (e.g., experiment vs. survey). Taken together, these results should alleviate concerns about negative effects of cross-cutting exposure on political engagement. Implications for future research are discussed.

This study explores how social network sites (SNSs) expose users to cross-cutting views. Relying on cross-national data collected among French and Japanese users of Facebook and Twitter, the design of this study allows assessment of the extent to which active and passive social media use fosters cross-cutting exposure in different national contexts. The results show that SNS use is differently related to cross-cutting exposures depending on forms of usage: while active SNS use is associated with a decrease in cross-cutting exposures, passive use leads to more exposure to dissonant views. This study also acknowledges significant variations across national subsamples, questioning the generalizability of results obtained from single case studies.

AbstractCross-cutting exposure (i.e., the exposure to dissonant views) is a central component of political discussion among citizens. Although political discussion is a crucial form of political engagement and a well-known source of dissonance, little is known about the impact of cross-cuttingness (vs. like-mindedness; CCLM) elicited by media news on political discussion. In the present pre-registered online experiment (N = 725), news stories were manipulated to induce CCLM and investigate its positive effect on political discussion via a specific path: deliberative thinking and the repertoire of arguments. Although no total effect of CCLM on participating in a political discussion (operationalized as discussion intent) was found, a structural equation model showed specific indirect positive effects via our hypothesized paths. Our study therefore lends support to the positive democratic implication of cross-cutting exposure. Data and material are publicly available via https://osf.io/cpnzy/.

In this study, we investigate dysfunctional information sharing on WhatsApp and Facebook, focusing on two explanatory variables--frequency of political talk and cross-cutting exposure--and potential remedies, such as witnessing, experiencing, and performing social corrections. Results suggest that dysfunctional sharing is pervasive, with nearly a quarter reporting sharing misinformation on Facebook and WhatsApp, but social corrections also occur relatively frequently. Platform matters, with corrections being more likely to be experienced or expressed on WhatsApp than Facebook. Taken together, our results suggest that the intimate nature of WhatsApp communication has important consequences for the dynamics of misinformation sharing, particularly with regard to facilitating social corrections.

In this study, we investigate dysfunctional information sharing on WhatsApp and Facebook, focusing on two explanatory variables—frequency of political talk and cross-cutting exposure—and potential remedies, such as witnessing, experiencing, and performing social corrections. Results suggest that dysfunctional sharing is pervasive, with nearly a quarter reporting sharing misinformation on Facebook and WhatsApp, but social corrections also occur relatively frequently. Platform matters, with corrections being more likely to be experienced or expressed on WhatsApp than Facebook. Taken together, our results suggest that the intimate nature of WhatsApp communication has important consequences for the dynamics of misinformation sharing, particularly with regard to facilitating social corrections.

While the idea of the filter bubble, in which people are sheltered from challenging and disagreeable news, is a valid concern for democracy, it requires much theoretical sophistication and empirical support. This paper explores the extent and scope of filter bubble effects, employing the concept of "cross-cutting exposure," or exposure to disagreeable viewpoints, on social media. Survey analysis of 271 Facebook users suggests they do get exposed to cross-cutting information frequently, and that cross-cutting information was more likely to come from weak ties, or acquaintances and strangers in their network, as opposed to strong ties of friends and families. Furthermore, those who have ethnically and religiously more diverse networks were more likely to be exposed to cross-cutting information. Taken together, it is argued that the current concern for the filter bubble is rather exaggerated and that one's network characteristics, such as network compositions and cultural diversity, can influence the degree of the filter bubble.

Contrary to the normative emphasis on the rule of equality in the deliberation literature, little has been known about empirical consequences of the rule of equality, especially when applied in online discussions where political disagreement is prevalent. Given that hostile gender-related discussions have been noticeably increasing in South Korea, we investigated whether applying deliberative rules, especially cross-cutting exposure and equality, can improve gender-issue discussion quality and foster mutual understanding and healthy political engagement. For this purpose, we designed an online experiment involving moderated deliberations on the abolition of the national abortion ban via KakaoTalk, the most popular messenger platform in South Korea. The deliberative qualities of online discussions in terms of rationality and civility were assessed in a more objective and unobtrusive way: a content analysis of actual conversation transcripts. Participatory intention for gender issue-related activities and civic attitudes were also measured. Results indicate the equality rule can help to promote normatively desirable outcomes in discussions with disagreeing others while the positive effects of cross-cutting exposure were found limited. When combined with the rule of equality, hearing the other side meaningfully enhanced the deliberative qualities and participatory intentions of discussants.