Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:20:43.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Posivotes, recommandations et autres «j'aime» : les heuristiques numériques d'acceptabilité sociale comme vecteur d'homogénéisation en contexte délibératif

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2020

Philippe A. Duguay
Philippe A. Duguay*
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal, 405 Rue Sainte-Catherine Est, Montréal, QCH2L 2C4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Résumé

Mobilisant un sondage avec un devis expérimental, cet article cherche à comprendre l'effet que peuvent avoir les heuristiques numériques d'acceptabilité sociale sur la capacité de convaincre. L'expérience expose les répondants à un article de nouvelle sur les réfugiés syriens et irakiens et, selon le traitement, à un fil de discussion comprenant différentes heuristiques numériques d'acceptabilité sociale. L’étude démontre que la présence d'un fil de discussion modifie l'effet à court terme que peut avoir l'article d'actualité initial et démontre également et surtout la façon dont les heuristiques numériques d'acceptabilité sociale ont un effet d'amplification sur la capacité de convaincre et les émotions évoquées par les commentaires. Chaque unité d'heuristique ou chaque recommandation n'augmente pas nécessairement d'autant le pouvoir de convaincre des commentaires associés et, pour les commentaires que les individus ne sont pas prédisposés à appuyer, servent plutôt à consolider les attitudes préexistantes et à polariser.

Abstract

Abstract

Using a survey experiment, this article investigates the effect of digital heuristics of social acceptability and their capacity to convince. The experiment presented respondents with a news article on Syrian and Iraqi refugees, as well as, depending on the treatment, a comment thread including various digital heuristics of social acceptability. Results found that comment threads on social media and traditional media platforms change the short-term effect that a news article has on attitudes. The article also illustrates that digital heuristics of social acceptability have an amplifying effect on the capacity of specific comments to convince or evoke emotions. Data showed that each unit of digital heuristics, or each recommendation, did not necessarily increase a given comment's capacity to convince, but instead increased the effect of comments that respondents were already predisposed to approve or disapprove of, contributing to the short-term consolidation of preexistent attitudes and polarization.

Keywords

Discussions en ligneheuristiques numériquespolarisationréfugiéstoléranceDigital heuristicsonline discussionpolarizationrefugeestolerance
Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 53 , Issue 2: Special Section: COVID-19 Short Research Papers , June 2020 , pp. 421 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bibliographie

Anspach, Nicolas M. 2017. « The new personal influence: How our Facebook friends influence the news we read » Political Communication 34 (4) : 590–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Yoram, Kosinski, Michal, Graepel, Thore, Kohli, Pushmeet et Stillwell, David. 2012. « Personality and patterns of Facebook usage » In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference : 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberá, Pablo, Jost, John T., Nagler, Jonathan, Tucker, Joshua A. et Bonneau, Richard. 2015. « Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? » Psychological science 26 (10) : 1531–1542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumler, Jay G. 1979. « The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies » Communication Research 6 (1) : 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumler, Jay G. et McQuail, Denis. 1969. Television in politics: Its uses and influence. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boulianne, Shelley. 2009. « Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research » Political Communication 26 (2) : 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulianne, Shelley. 2015. « Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research » Information Communication & Society 18 (5) : 524–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coe, Kevin, Kenski, Kate et Rains, Stephen A.. 2014. « Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments » Journal of Communication 64 (4) : 658–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Michael D, Ratkiewicz, Jacob, Francisco, Matthew, Gonçalves, Bruno, Menczer, Filippo, et Flammini, Alessandro. 2011. « Political polarization on twitter » ICWSM 133 : 89–96.Google Scholar
Coursaris, Constantinos K., van Osch, Wietske, et Balogh, Brigitte A.. 2016. « Do Facebook likes lead to shares or sales? exploring the empirical links between social media content, brand equity, purchase intention, and engagement » In System Sciences (HICSS), 49th Hawaii International Conference : 3546–3555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Richard. 2005. Politics online: Blogs, chatrooms, and discussion groups in American democracy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. et Nelson, Kjersten R.. 2003. « Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit elite influence » American Journal of Political Science 47 (4) : 729–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguay, Philippe. 2018. Étude expérimentale sur la tolérance à l’égard des réfugiées Syriens et Irakiens. [Base de données]. Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Ekström, Mats et Östman, Johan. 2015. « Information, interaction, and creative production: The effects of three forms of internet use on youth democratic engagement » Communication Research 42 (6) : 796–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentzkow, Matthew et Shapiro, Jesse M.. 2011. « Ideological segregation online and offline » The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (4) : 1799–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil de Zúñiga, Homero, Jung, Nakwon et Valenzuela, Sebastián. 2012. « Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation » Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17 (3) :319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenski, Maria, et Weninger, Tim. 2017. « Predicting user-interactions on Reddit » In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017 :609–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfried, Jeffrey et Shearer, Elisa. 2017. « News Use Across Social Medial Platforms 2017 » Pew Research Center. En ligne : http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/Google Scholar
Graf, Joseph, Erba, Joseph et Harn, Ren-Whei. 2017. « The role of civility and anonymity on perceptions of online comments » Mass Communication and Society 20 (4) : 526–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J. et Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. « Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments » Political Analysis 22 (1) : 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, Daniel et Gibbs, Jennifer. 2013. « Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression » Computers in Human Behavior 29 (3) : 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert. 2001. « The social communication of political expertise » American Journal of Political Science 45 (2) : 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert et Sprague, John. 1991. « Discussant effects on vote choice: Intimacy, structure, and interdependence » The Journal of Politics 53 (1) : 122–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Thomas J. et Kaye, Barbara K.. 2003. « A boost or a bust for democracy? How the Web influenced political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections » Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8 : 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Elihu, Blumler, Jay G. et Gurevitch, Michael. 1973. « Uses and gratifications research » The public opinion quarterly 37 (4): 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Elihu et Lazarsfeld, Paul F.. 1955. Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communication. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., Sokhey, Anand Edward et McClurg, Scott D.. 2013. « Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior » American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard et Gaudet, Hazel. 1948. The people's choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Kyunghee, Lee, Byungtae et Oh, Wonseok. 2015. « Thumbs up, sales up? The contingent effect of Facebook likes on sales performance in social commerce » Journal of Management Information Systems 32 (4) : 109–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lum, Zi-Ann. 2017. « Canada limits new private sponsorships of syrian refugees » Huffingtonpost.ca. En ligne : https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/01/12/canada-private-sponsorship-syrian-refugees_n_14136364.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur et Philpot, Tasha S.. 2005. « Views from inside the Net: How websites affect young adults’ political interest » The Journal of Politics 67 : 1122–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, Robert C., Sood, Gaurav, Fishkin, James S. et Hahn, Kyu. 2017. « Deliberative distortions: Homogenization, polarization, and domination in small group deliberations » Deliberative Polling. En ligne: https://cdd.stanford.edu/2017/deliberative-distortions/Google Scholar
Markovikj, Dejan, Gievska, Sonja, Kosinski, Michal et Stillwell, David J.. 2013. « Mining facebook data for predictive personality modeling » In Proceedings of the 7th international AAAI conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2013), Boston, MA, USA : 23–26.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Angie et Schulte, Stephanie R.. 2018. « Racial resentment attitudes among white millennial youth: The influence of parents and media. » Social Science Quarterly 99 (3) : 1183–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClurg, Scott D. 2003. « Social networks and political participation: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation » Political Research Quarterly 56 (4) : 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClurg, Scott D. 2006. « The Electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation » American Journal of Political Science 50 (3) : 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metaxas, Panagiotis, Mustafaraj, Eni, Wong, Kily, Zeng, Laura, O'Keefe, Megan et Finn, Samantha. 2015. « What do retweets indicate? results from user survey and meta-review of research » In ICWSM : 658–661.Google Scholar
Muhlberger, Peter. 2005. « Human Agency and the Revitalization of the Public Sphere. » Political Communication 22 (2) : 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 1998. Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2005. « News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout » American Journal of Political Science 49 (3) : 577–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, Dhavan V., Cho, Jaeho, Eveland, William P. Jr et Kwak, Nojin. 2005. « Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling internet effects on civic participation » Communication Research 32 (5) : 531–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Aaron et Anderson, Monica. 2018. « Social Media Use in 2018 » Pew Research Center. En ligne : http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/Google Scholar
Tsugawa, Sho et Kito, Kosuke. 2017. « Retweets as a predictor of relationships among users on social media » PloS one 12 (1) : e0170279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velasquez, Alcides. 2012. « Social media and online political discussion: The effect of cues and informational cascades on participation in online political communities » New Media & Society 14 (8) : 1286–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddell, T. Franklin. 2017. « What does the crowd think? How online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance » New Media & Society : 1461444817742905.Google Scholar
Walther, Joseph B., DeAndrea, David, Kim, Jinsuk et Anthony, James C.. 2010. « The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube » Human Communication Research 36 (4) : 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Felix Ming Fai, Tan, Chee Wei, Sen, Soumya et Chiang, Mung. 2013. « Quantifying political leaning from tweets and retweets » ICWSM 13 : 640–649.Google Scholar
Yang, JungAe. 2016. « Effects of popularity-based news recommendations (“most-viewed”) on users' exposure to online news » Media Psychology 19 (2) : 243–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youyou, Wu, Kosinski, Michal et Stillwell, David. 2015. « Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans » Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (4) : 1036–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zerback, Thomas, Koch, Thomas et Krämer, Benjamin. 2015. « Thinking of others: Effects of implicit and explicit media cues on climate of opinion perceptions » Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 92 (2) : 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar