政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/134125

政大典藏 > College of Communication > International Master`s Program in International Communication Studies > Theses > Item 140.119/134125

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/134125

Title:	異質性資訊、討論和態度明確性：選擇性迴避的調節效果 Heterogeneous Information Exposure, Discussion and Attitude Certainty: The Moderating Role of Selective Avoidance
Authors:	易淳敏 Yi, Chun-Min
Contributors:	施琮仁 Shih, Tsung-Jen 易淳敏 Yi, Chun-Min
Keywords:	社群網絡社群媒體異質性資訊曝露異質性討論態度明確性爭議性社會議題選擇性迴避 Social networking sites Social media Heterogeneous discussion Information exposure Controversial social issues Attitude certainty Selective avoidance
Date:	2021
Issue Date:	2021-03-02 14:41:59 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	社群媒體的普及改變了人們汲取資訊、溝通公共事務或討論社會議題的方式。近年，民眾對於爭議性社會議題各持己見，在社群網站上意見分歧導致「回音室」（echo chamber）與網路同溫層的形成，從而導向極端態度。針對社群媒體上的異質性資訊曝露之於態度明確性扮演的角色，過去研究亦有不同論點。有研究認為異質性資訊能夠提高民眾對於不同態度的理解，進而調節民眾對於議題的態度明確性。然而，有研究則指出，根據認知失諧理論（Cognitive dissonance theory），人們傾向接納態度一致的資訊已取得認知平衡。因此，暴露在異質性資訊中，反而會使人們更加確信自身對於議題的態度。本研究旨在探討異質性資訊曝露與態度明確性的關聯性。異質性討論的中介效果及選擇性迴避的調節作用也是本研究探究之重點。本研究採用台灣政經傳播研究中心2018年調查資料，結果顯示社群網路異質性資訊曝露和爭議社會議題態度明確性為正相關，而選擇性迴避在此過程中具有調解作用。然而，異質性討論對於異質資訊暴露與態度明確性的中介效果不顯著，選擇性迴避對於中介效果也無調節作用。本研究啟發了在社群媒體環境下如何理解認知失諧理論，針對未來溝通爭議性社會議題的說服訊息設計，提供一些實際建議。 The prevalence of social media has transformed the way people gather information and hold interactive debates on public affairs. Since public opinion on several social issues is quite divided in Taiwan in recent years, social networking sites (SNS) might form an echo chamber for users, resulting in the extremity of attitude. Recent studies have different discussions on how heterogeneous information exposure plays a role in individuals’ attitude certainty, which is crucial to make SNS a more tolerant field of deliberation. Thus, this study aims at investigating the association between heterogeneous information exposure and attitude certainty. Besides, scholars highlighted the indirect effect of heterogeneous discussion on affecting attitude certainty. By adopting the cognitive dissonance theory, previous research pointed out the potential effects of selective avoidance. Employing the dataset of the Taiwan Institute for Governance and Communication Research (TIGCR) in 2018, the result demonstrates a positive relationship between heterogeneous information exposure and attitude certainty on controversial social issues. Apart from the main effect, the interaction effect of selective avoidance is also identified. When individuals’ selective avoidance on SNS is low, the effect of heterogeneous information exposure on attitude certainty is stronger when it is of high-level selective avoidance. The findings contribute to the understanding of cognitive dissonance theory in the context of SNS and provide future practical suggestions for designing persuasion messages in communicating controversial social issues.
Reference:	Addawood, A., & Bashir, M. (2016). “What Is Your Evidence?” A Study of Controversial Topics on Social Media. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining2016). Amelkin, V., Bogdanov, P., & Singh, A. K. (2017). A Distance Measure for the Analysis of Polar Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks. 2017 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) Barnidge, M. (2015). The role of news in promoting political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 211–218. Barnidge, M. (2017). Exposure to political disagreement in social media versus face-to-face and anonymous online settings. Political Communication 34(2), 302–321. Bimber, B. (2004). The internet and political fragmentation. The Democracy in the 21st Century Conference, Urbana-Champagne, IL. Bimber, B. (2008) The Internet and political fragmentation. In: Nardulli P (ed.) Domestic Perspectives on Contemporary Democracy. Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 155–170. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. Brannon, L. A., Tagler, M. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2007). The moderating role of attitude strength in selective exposure to information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 611-617. Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680-700. Bureau of Energy. (2019). Energy statistics query. Ministry of Economic Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.moeaboe.gov.tw/ Central Election Commission. (2018). National Referendum Bulletins from Case 7 to Case 16. Central Election Commission. Retrieved from https://web.cec.gov.tw/ Chen, H., Ping, S., & Chen, G. (2015). Far from reach but near at hand: The role of social media for cross-national mobilization. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 443-451. Chen, H. (2019). Analysis of the same-sex marriage issue in Taiwan: Changes in public opinion and influential factors. Master Dissertation. Chung, P. (2018). The influence of cognitive dissonance on Facebook’s echo chamber- A case study of equal rights in marriage. Master dissertation. CNA English News. (2018, May 09). Proposed military pension reform to take effect as scheduled: premier. Focus Taiwan. Retrieved from https://focustaiwan.tw/ Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2008). A new look at the consequences of attitude certainty: The amplification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 810-825. Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2011). Cognitive and affective matching effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1415-1427. Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M. R., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM, 133(26), 89-96. Dandekar, P., Goel, A., & Lee, D. T. (2013). Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5791-5796. Dewey, J. (1954). The public and its problems. Oxford, OH: Ohio University Press. Earl, J. & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the Internet age. Cambridge: MIT Press. Eveland Jr, W. P. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28(5), 571-601. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude– behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398–408. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 41-80. Garimella, K., Morales, G. D. F., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018). Quantifying controversy on social media. ACM Transactions on Social Computing, 1(1), 1-27. Garrett, R. K. (2006, June). Seeking similarity, not avoiding difference: Reframing the selective exposure debate. In the International Communication Association Conference, Dresden, Germany. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265-285. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2010). Ideological Segregation Online and Offline. Gibson, R. (2018). Same-Sex Marriage and Social Media How Online Networks Accelerated the Marriage Equality Movement. Milton: Taylor and Francis. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Guerra, P. H. C., Meira Jr, W., Cardie, C., & Kleinberg, R. (2013, July). A measure of polarization on social media networks based on community boundaries. In ICWSM. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, H., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and our lives: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Hampton, K. N., Lee, C. J., & Her, E. J. (2011). How new media affords network diversity. New Media & Society, 13(7), 1031–1049. Ho, S. S., & Mcleod, D. M. (2008). Social-Psychological Influences on Opinion Expression in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research, 35(2), 190-207. Hong, S., & Kim, S. H. (2016). Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 777-782. Hsieh C., Matt Y. &Ko L. (2018, June 30). New pension systems come into force Sunday. Taiwan News. Retrieved from https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/ Hu, Y. H. & Yueh, H. P. (2019). Food Safety Risk Communication Behavior on Social Media: The Case of Sina Weibo. Journal of Library & Information Studies, 17(1), 151-183. Isabella S. (2018, November 22). How Taiwan battled fake anti-LGBT news before its vote on same-sex marriage. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/ Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. NewYork: Oxford University Press. Jang, S. M. (2014). Challenges to Selective Exposure: Selective Seeking and Avoidance in a Multitasking Media Environment. Mass Communication and Society, 17(5), 665-688. John, N. A., & Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2015). “I Don`t Like You Any More”: Facebook Unfriending by Israelis During the Israel-Gaza Conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 953-974. Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 557–571. Jung, N., Kim, Y., & Zúñiga, H. G. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 407–430. Kim, M. (2014). Partisans and Controversial News Online: Comparing Perceptions of Bias and Credibility in News Content from Blogs and Mainstream Media. Mass Communication and Society, 18(1), 17-36. Kim, Y., & Chen, H. T. (2015). Discussion network heterogeneity matters: Examining a moderated mediation model of social media use and civic engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2607-2614. Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 971-977. Kim, Y., Hsu, S., & Zúñiga, H. G. (2013). Influence of Social Media Use on Discussion Network Heterogeneity and Civic Engagement: The Moderating Role of Personality Traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498-516. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426-448. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2011). Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 349–368. Kushin, M., & Kitchener, K. (2009). Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday, 14(11). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ Lazarsfeld, P. F., Bernard B., & Hazel G. (1944) The People`s Choice. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce. Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social Media, Network Heterogeneity, and Opinion Polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702-722. Lee, J., & Choi, Y. (2019). Effects of network heterogeneity on social media on opinion polarization among South Koreans: Focusing on fear and political orientation. International Communication Gazette, 82(2), 119-139. Lee, J. & Myers, T. A. (2020) Can Social Media Change Your Mind? SNS use, cross-cutting exposure and discussion, and political view change. Article. Retrieved from https://www.macroworldpub.com/indir.php?dosya=92d6d5290713399a8fb0af1686c4cae0.pdf Light, B. (2014). Disconnecting with Social Networking Sites. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Light, B., & Cassidy, E. (2014). Strategies for the suspension and prevention of connection: Rendering disconnection as socioeconomic lubricant with Facebook. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1169–1184. Liu, S. C & Su, Herng. (2017). Mediating the Sunflower Movement: Hybrid Media Networks in a Digital Age. Information Society Research, 33, 147-188. Lowell, A. L. (1913). Public Opinion and Popular Government. New York: Longmans, Green & Co. Madden, M. & Smith, A. (2012). Privacy management on social media sites. Technical report, Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project. Marozzo, F., & Bessi, A. (2017). Analyzing polarization of social media users and news sites during political campaigns. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 8(1). McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P., Horowitz, E. M., Holbert, R. L., Zhang, W., …& Zubric, J. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion network on participation in a public forum. Communication research, 26(6), 743-774. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27:415–444. Mcquail, D. (1983). Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage Publications. Micó, J. L. & Casero-Ripollés, A. (2014). Political activism online: organization and media relations in the case of 15M in Spain. Information, Communication & Society, 17(7), 858-871. Monica A. & Jang J. J. (2018). Teen’s Social Media Habits and Experiences. Pew Research Center’s Internet and Technology. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/28/teens-and-their-experiences-on-social-media/ Munro, G. D., & Ditto, P. H. (1997). Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(6), 636–653. Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838. Mutz, D. C. (2006). How the mass media divide us. In P. S. Nivola & D.W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics, 1, 223–263.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155. Mutz, D. C. (2011). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Neo, R. L. (2015). Favoritism or animosity? Examining how SNS network homogeneity influences vote choice via affective mechanisms. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 28(4): 461–483. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK. Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 729–733. Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 729–733. Parsons, B. (2010). Social networks and the affective impact of political disagreement. Political Behavior, 32(2), 181–204. Parmelee, J. H., & Roman, N. (2020). Insta-echoes: Selective exposure and selective avoidance on Instagram. Telematics and Informatics, 52, 101-432. Petrocelli, J. V., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2007). Unpacking attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(1), 30. Pew Research. (2012). Social media and voting. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/06/social-media-and-voting/ Pew Research. (2014). State of the news media: Overview. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/files/2014/03/Overview.pdf Rainie, L., & Smith, A. (2012). Social networking sites and politics. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13-36. Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2004). When resistance is futile: Consequences of failed counterarguing for attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 219-235. Ryffel, F. A., Wirz, D. S., Kühne, R., & Wirth, W. (2014). How Emotional Media Reports Influence Attitude Formation and Change: The Interplay of Attitude Base, Attitude Certainty, and Persuasion. Media Psychology, 17(4), 397-419. Sánchez-Villar, J. M. (2019). The use of blogs as social media tools of political communication: citizen journalism and public opinion 2.0. Communication & Society, 32(1). Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31, 194-213. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland Jr, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005) Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication research, 32(5), 531-565. Shi, Y. (2015). Cross-cutting Messages and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Same-Sex Marriage Amendment. Political Communication, 33(3), 433-459. Shih, T., Scheufele, D. A., & Brossard, D. (2012). Disagreement and Value Predispositions: Understanding Public Opinion About Stem Cell Research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 357-367. Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign affairs, 28-41. Sibona, C. (2014). Unfriending on Facebook: Context collapse and unfriending behaviors. IEEE, 1676–1685. Skoric, M., Zhu, Q., Goh, D., & Pang, N. (2016). Social media and citizen engagement: A meta-analytic review. New Media & Society, 18, 1817–1839. Skoric, M. M., Zhu, Q., & Lin, J. T. (2018). What predicts selective avoidance on social media? A study of political unfriending in Hong Kong and Taiwan. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(8), 1097-1115. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366. Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic. com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. Takikawa, H., & Nagayoshi, K. (2017, December). Political polarization in social media: Analysis of the “Twitter political field” in Japan. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 3143-3150). IEEE. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298–1313. Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520-535. The Guardian. (2018, November 22). Sex, lies and heated debate: Taiwan prepares to vote in gay marriage referendum. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/ Valenzuela, S., Arriagada, A., & Scherman, A. (2012). The Social Media Basis of Youth Protest Behavior: The Case of Chile. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 299-314. Veenstra, A. S., Hossain, M. D., & Lyons, B. A. (2014). Partisan Media and Discussion as Enhancers of the Belief Gap. Mass Communication and Society, 17(6), 874-897. Wang, J. (2016). The reformation of energy policy under the COP21 and global energy trends. Economics Outlook, 163, 69-78. Wang, W. (2018). The influence of informational SNS use on political participation among Taiwanese voters: The role of cross-cutting discussion and opinion leadership. Master dissertation. Wang M. (2012, November 28). The fourth nuclear power plant which has not been understood by the successive presidents. Global Views Monthly. Retrieved from https://www.gvm.com.tw/ We Are Social. (2019) Global Digital Report 2019. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/global-digital-report-2019 We Are Social. (2020) Global Digital Report 2020. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/global-digital-report-2020 Wen, N., & Wei, R. (2018). Examining effects of informational use of social media platforms and social capital on civic engagement regarding genetically modified foods in China. International Journal of Communication, 12, 3729–3750. Wojcieszak, M., & Price, V. (2010). Bridging the divide or intensifying the conflict? How disagreement affects strong predilections about sexual minorities. Political Psychology, 31(3), 315–339. Wu, C., & Shaffer, D. R. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 677-688. Yoo, J., Ng, Y. M. M., & Johnson T. (2018). Social Networking Site as a Political Filtering Platform: Predicting the Act of Political Unfriending and Hiding. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 7(2), 92-119. Zhang, A. X., & Counts, S. (2015). Modeling Ideology and Predicting Policy Change with Social Media. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI `15. Zhu, Q., Skoric, M., & Shen, F. (2016). I Shield Myself from Thee: Selective Avoidance on Social Media During Political Protests. Political Communication, 34(1), 112-131. Zúñiga, H. G., Molyneux, L., & Zheng, P. (2014). Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 612-634.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學國際傳播英語碩士學位學程(IMICS) 105461009
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105461009
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU202100303
Appears in Collections:	[International Master`s Program in International Communication Studies] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
100901.pdf		1713Kb	Adobe PDF2	137	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...