Metacognitive effects of attitudinal (in)congruence on social media: relating processing fluency, subjective knowledge, and political participation.

Introduction: Encountering political disagreements in our daily lives can discourage us from participating in democratic processes. To date, research has mainly focused on social motives or attitudinal mechanisms to explain this phenomenon. In the present study, we adopt a different approach and highlight metacognitive effects of attitudinal (in)congruence on processing fluency (i.e., perceived ease of processing) and subjective knowledge as well as their relationship with behavioral outcomes such as the intention to politically participate. Methods: In a pre-registered online experiment (N = 1,258), participants saw a political social media post with six opinionated user-generated comments. These comments either all matched (congruent condition) or contradicted (incongruent condition) participants' personal opinions. Processing fluency, issue specific subjective knowledge, and intention to politically participate were then measured using established self-report scales. Results: In line with our hypotheses, the congruent stimuli evoked a higher feeling of processing fluency than the incongruent ones (d = 0.21). Furthermore, participants in the congruent condition indicated a higher intention to politically participate (d = 0.23) and rated their own knowledge on the topic as higher (d = 0.22) than participants in the incongruent condition-even though the factual knowledge gain should be equal in both conditions. Finally, we observed positive relationships between processing fluency and subjective issue knowledge (ß = 0.11) as well as between subjective issue knowledge and issue-specific political participation (ß = 0.43). Discussion: Our findings highlight the importance of considering metacognitive constructs such as subjective knowledge to explain political behaviors and suggest that attitudinal congruence influences the way we perceive our own knowledge and information processing.

How incidental and intentional news exposure in social media relate to political knowledge and voting intentions.

Background: Citizens are expected to make informed voting decisions. Theoretical approaches suggest that people are most likely to acquire their political knowledge through media. As more people turn to social media as a source of news, the political knowledge gains from using these technologies are called into question. Previous research has shown that rather than increasing objective political knowledge, the use of social media for news only increases people's metacognitive sense of being knowledgeable (subjective knowledge), which in turn increases their political participation. However, it remains to be understood which particular forms of social media use, e.g., incidental or intentional news exposure, are related to which dimension of political knowledge. The present work examines (a) the extent to which different motivational forms of social media news consumption foster subjective knowledge, and (b) whether this metacognition is related not only to political participation as a broad concept, but also to specific democratic outcomes such as voting intentions. Methods and results: Results from a pre-registered, pre-election survey (N = 1,223) of social media users show that intentional news seeking, but not incidental news exposure on social media, is directly related to increased subjective knowledge. Subjective knowledge appears to explain the relationship between social media news use and voting. Discussion: By showing that incidental and intentional social media news use affect subjective knowledge differently, this study provides preliminary and nuanced insights into the ultimate role that social media technologies can play in democratic processes.

Two sides of the same leader: an agent-based model to analyze the effect of ambivalent opinion leaders in social networks.

Opinion leaders (OLs) are becoming increasingly relevant on social networking sites as their visibility can help to shape their followers' attitudes toward a variety of issues. While earlier research provided initial evidence on the effect of OLs using agent-based modeling, it remains unclear how OLs affect their network environment and, therefore, the opinion climate when: (a) they publicly hold ambivalent attitudes, and (b) they not only express support for their own stance but also discredit or 'debunk' the opposing side. This paper presents an agent-based model that determines the influence of OLs in social networks in relation to ambivalence and discreditation. The model draws on theoretical foundations of OLs as well as attitudinal ambivalence and was implemented using two network topologies. Results indicate that OLs have significant influence on the opinion climate and that an unequal number of OLs of different opinion camps lead to an imbalance in the opinion climate only in certain situations. Furthermore, OLs can dominate the opinion climate and turn their stance into a majority opinion more effectively when discrediting the opposing side. Ambivalent OLs, on the other hand, can contribute to greater balance in the opinion climate. These findings provide a more nuanced analysis of OLs in social networks by pointing to potential amplifications as well as boundaries of their influence. Implications are discussed with a focus on human and artificial key actors in online networks and their efficacy therein. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42001-022-00161-z.

The Networked Context of COVID-19 Misinformation: Informational Homogeneity on YouTube at the Beginning of the Pandemic.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the video-sharing platform YouTube has been serving as an essential instrument to widely distribute news related to the global public health crisis and to allow users to discuss the news with each other in the comment sections. Along with these enhanced opportunities of technology-based communication, there is an overabundance of information and, in many cases, misinformation about current events. In times of a pandemic, the spread of misinformation can have direct detrimental effects, potentially influencing citizens' behavioral decisions (e.g., to not socially distance) and putting collective health at risk. Misinformation could be especially harmful if it is distributed in isolated news cocoons that homogeneously provide misinformation in the absence of corrections or mere accurate information. The present study analyzes data gathered at the beginning of the pandemic (January-March 2020) and focuses on the network structure of YouTube videos and their comments to understand the level of informational homogeneity associated with misinformation on COVID-19 and its evolution over time. This study combined machine learning and network analytic approaches. Results indicate that nodes (either individual users or channels) that spread misinformation were usually integrated in heterogeneous discussion networks, predominantly involving content other than misinformation. This pattern remained stable over time. Findings are discussed in light of the COVID-19 "infodemic" and the fragmentation of information networks.

"You're still worth it": The moral and relational context of politically motivated unfriending decisions in online networks.

Political disagreements in social media can result in removing (i.e., "unfriending") a person from one's online network. Given that such actions could lead to the (ideological) homogenization of networks, it is pivotal to understand the psychological processes intertwined in unfriending decisions. This requires not only addressing different types of disagreements but also analyzing them in the relational context they occur. This article proposes that political disagreements leading to drastic measures such as unfriending are attributable to more deeply rooted moral dissents. Based on moral foundations theory and relationship regulation research, this work presents empirical evidence from two experiments. In both studies, subjects rated political statements (that violated different moral foundations) with regard to perceived reprehensibility and the likelihood of unfriending the source. Study 1 (N = 721) revealed that moral judgments of a political statement are moderately related to the unfriending decision. Study 2 (N = 822) replicated this finding but indicated that unfriending is less likely when the source of the morally reprehensible statement is relationally close to the unfriender and provides emotional support. This research extends unfriending literature by pointing to morality as a new dimension of analysis and offers initial evidence uncovering the psychological trade-off behind the decision of terminating digital ties. Drawing on this, our findings inform research on the homogenization of online networks by indicating that selective avoidance (in the form of politically motivated unfriending) is conditional upon the relational context and the interpersonal benefits individuals receive therein.

My Friends Right Next to Me: A Laboratory Investigation on Predictors and Consequences of Experiencing Social Closeness on Social Networking Sites.

In the last decade, research has provided a series of insights into how and why the use of social networking sites (SNSs) can be socially and psychologically beneficial for individuals. The present research extends this evidence by focusing on the concept of social closeness as a feeling experienced when using SNSs. In a laboratory setting, participants (N=60) spent 10 minutes on Facebook, and then reported their experiences during this session. Analyses of participants' usage behavior and their experiences revealed that the more time users spent interacting with other users (e.g., commenting on updates), the closer they felt to other people. Interacting with others also predicted users' positive emotional states after Facebook use; this effect may be explained by the perception of social closeness. This study is one of the first to employ momentary measures, offering a further theoretical link between active SNS use and well-being.

Let's Blog About Health! Exploring the Persuasiveness of a Personal HIV Blog Compared to an Institutional HIV Website.

On HIV blogs, people living with HIV share their intimate thoughts and experiences with the world in the form of personal online diaries. While previous research investigated the reasons why patients engage in blogging activities, the effects of such diaries on nondiseased recipients are largely unexplored. Following an experimental design, this study (n = 261) tested whether a one-time exposure to a personal HIV blog has greater persuasive effects on its readers than an institutional HIV website providing the same content. Results showed that although source credibility was perceived as higher when reading the HIV website from an official institution, blog readers had more positive attitudes and a higher self-efficacy toward condom use than website readers. Implications for health message design are discussed.