Suchergebnisse

Social networking sites (SNSs) seem to have become a political filtering machine that allows users to classify their online friends based on their political ideologies. Hiding and unfriending on social media has turned into being a political gesture, discriminating individuals with opposite political views on SNSs. Unfriending activities during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and during the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement are two notable examples. Individuals have the tendency to consume politically congenial information and be surrounded by people who share the same views. The formation of echo chambers and the reason for relationship dissolution on SNSs can be explained by Social Identity Theory.Through an online panel survey of 386 SNS users, this study examined how factors of political ideologies, social media and offline political participation and likeminded exposure on SNSs can predict hiding and unfriending/unfollowing on Twitter and Facebook. Results from ordinary least square (OLS) regression analysis revealed that if individuals had been in a politically homogeneous SNS environment, they were more likely to unfriend, suggesting the reinforcement of echo chambers in SNSs. Both social media and offline political participations predicted the dissociative, indicating that unfriending and hiding could be regarded as a new form of online political participation to engage in political affairs.

While many Americans support the right to protest, increased animus has recently been directed at protesters themselves, often along partisan ideological lines and in partisan media content. However, there is a lack of research on attitudes toward treatment of protesters in the context of political violence and selective exposure to likeminded partisan sources of information. This study finds that a significant, positive relationship exists between self-identified Republicans and thinking that disruptive protesters deserve to be "roughed up," while identifying as a Democrat produced a negative relationship in the same circumstance. Likewise, consumption of conservative partisan media was found to have a positive relationship with the idea of "roughing up" disruptive protesters, while liberal partisan media was found to have a negative relationship. However, selective exposure to attitude-affirming media only had a significant impact among self-identified Democrats, in the sense that Democrats' selective exposure to left-leaning media was associated with less support for "roughing up" disruptive protesters.

This study examines how selective exposure and interpersonal political disagreement influence political polarization. Using data sets from two countries, the United States and South Korea, this study investigates the association between individuals' selective exposure and attitude polarization and proposes that disagreement in political discussion networks can be a potential moderating variable attenuating the association between selective exposure and polarization. Results across the two nations confirm that individuals' selective likeminded media use is associated with greater polarized attitudes. Findings further show that encountering dissimilar opinions through interpersonal discussion networks generally weakens the association between selective exposure and political polarization, despite some evidence indicating that disagreement leads to more polarized attitudes rather than attenuating polarization. The implications of the findings are discussed.

Today, people have ample opportunity to engage in selective exposure, the selection of information matching their beliefs. Whether this is occurring, however, is a matter of debate. While some worry that people increasingly are seeking out likeminded views, others propose that newer media provide an increased opportunity for exposure to diverse views. In returning to the concept of selective exposure, this article argues that certain topics, such as politics, are more likely to inspire selective exposure and that research should investigate habitual media exposure patterns, as opposed to single exposure decisions. This study investigates whether different media types (newspapers, political talk radio, cable news, and Internet) are more likely to inspire selective exposure. Using data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, evidence supports the idea that people's political beliefs are related to their media exposure-a pattern that persists across media types. Over-time analyses suggest that people's political beliefs motivate their media use patterns and that cable news audiences became increasingly politically divided over the course of the 2004 election. Adapted from the source document.

The study suggests that media consumers favor certain websites not only due to their content but also due to their audience. A new concept is introduced: "audience homophily," which describes one's preference for partisan media websites catering to a homogeneous, likeminded consumership. This attraction is explained in terms of the need for self-consistency, and I suggest that over time such behavior will polarize political identity through a spiral of reinforcement. Based on both a survey-experiment ( N = 300) and a panel study combined with web-tracking technology that recorded online-exposure behavior ( N = 397), it was found that individuals with more extreme ideology present higher levels of audience homophily and that, longitudinally, audience homophily is somewhat associated with ideological polarization, intolerance, and accessibility of political self-definition.