skip to main content
10.1145/2998181.2998340acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Social Watching a Civic Broadcast: Understanding the Effects of Positive Feedback and Other Users' Opinions

Published:25 February 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

People increasingly turn to social media to augment their broadcast viewing experience with a parallel stream of information and opinion. Known as "social watching," the practice of integrating broadcast media and social media has become routine for many citizens tracking live events and breaking news. In a controlled laboratory study, we examined how interactivity and exposure to social media opinions influence a sense of community, attitudes and discussion elaboration. The results suggest that receiving positive feedback to social media posts instills a psychological sense of community in the poster, and this feeling of connectedness is related to greater elaboration of the civic social media discussion. Secondly, the study found support for conformity effects. The third contribution of this work is a better understanding of how the valence of others' social media posts and the user's posting activity influences cognitive elaboration of social media discussions during social watching in civic contexts.

References

  1. Robert P. Abelson. 1995. Attitude Extremity. In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick (eds.). New York, NY, 25--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedict Anderson. 1983. Imagined Communities. Verso, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Phil Brooker, John Vines, Selina Sutton, Julie Barnett, Tom Feltwell, and Shaun W. Lawson. 2015. Debating poverty porn on Twitter: Social media as a place for everyday socio-political talk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), 3177--3186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jaclyn Cameron and Nick Geidner. 201 Something old, something new, something borrowed from something blue: Experiments on dual viewing TV and Twitter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58, 3: 400--419.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gina Masullo Chen. 2011. Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 2: 755--762. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Zi Chu, Steven Gianvecchio, Haining Wang, and Sushil Jajodia. 2012. Detecting automation of Twitter accounts: Are you a human, bot, or cyborg? IEEE Trans. Dependable Sec. Comput. 9, 6: 811--824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Robert B. Cialdini, Stephanie L. Brown, Brian P. Lewis, Carol Luce, and Steven L. Neuberg. 199 Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 3: 481--494.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Morton Deutsch and Harold B. Gerard. 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51, 3: 629--636.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Nicholas Diakopoulos and David A. Shamma. 2010. Characterizing debate performance via aggregated twitter sentiment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10), 1195--1198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Sara Douglas, Roxanne B. Raine, Misa Maruyama, Bryan Semaan, and Scott P. Robertson. 2015. Community matters: How young adults use Facebook to evaluate political candidates. Information Polity 20, 2,3: 135--150. http://doi.org/3233/IP-150362Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. William P. Eveland. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. William P. Eveland. 2004. The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication 21, 2: 177--193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. William P. Eveland and Tiffany Thomson. 2006. Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication 56, 3: 523--542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Leon Festinger, Albert Pepitone, and Theodore M. Newcomb. 1952. Some Consequences of De-individuation in a Group. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. B.J. Fogg and Clifford Nass. 1997. Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46, 5: 551--561. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Deen Freelon and David Karpf. 2014. Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 Presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society 18, 4: 390--406.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Homero Gil de Zúñiga, Victor Garcia-Perdomo, and Shannon C. McGregor. 2015. What is second screening? Exploring motivations of second screen use and its effect on online political participation. Journal of Communication 65, 5: 793--815.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Robert E. Goodin and Simon J. Niemeyer. 2003. When does deliberation begin? Internal reflection versus public discussion in deliberative democracy. Political Studies 51, 4: 627--649.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Nir Grinberg, P. Alex Dow, Lada A. Adamic, and Mor Naaman. 2016. Changes in engagement before and after posting to Facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Anatoliy Gruzd, Barry Wellman, and Yuri Takhteyev. 2011. Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist 55, 10: 1294--1318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Curtis D. Hardin and E. Tory Higgins. 1996. Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Richard M. Sorrentino and E. Tory Higgins (eds.). Guilford Press, New York, NY, 28--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Brian Houston, Joshua Hawthorne, and Matthew L. Spialek. 2013. Tweeting during presidential debates: Effect on candidate evaluations and debate attitudes. Argumentation and Advocacy 49 (Spring 2013): 301--311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Brian Houston, Mitchell S. McKinney, Joshua Hawthorne, and Matthew L. Spialek. 2013. Frequency of tweeting during presidential debates: Effect on debate attitudes and knowledge. Communication Studies 64, 5: 548--560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Y. Linlin Huang, Kate Starbird, Mania Orand, Stephanie A. Stanek, and Heather T. Pedersen. 2015. Connected through crisis: Emotional proximity and the spread of misinformation online. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15), 969--980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jin Yea Jang, Kyungsik Han, Patrick C. Shih, and Dongwon Lee. 2015. Generation Like: Comparative characteristics in Instagram. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), 4039--4042. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Se Hoon Jeong and Yoori Hwang. 2012. Does multitasking increase or decrease persuasion? Effects of multitasking on comprehension and counterarguing. Journal of Communication 62, 4: 571--587.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith. 2014. Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in University Teaching 25, 4: 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Philip R. Johnson and Sung-Un Yang. 2009. Uses and gratifications of Twitter: An examination of user motives and satisfaction of Twitter use. In Communication Technology Division of the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Henry F Kaiser. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39, 1: 31--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Elihu Katz. 1957. The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. The Public Opinion Quarterly 21, 1, Anniversary Issue Devoted to Twenty Years of Public Opinion Research: 61.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Jae Won Kim, Dongwoo Kim, Brian Keegan, Joon Hee Kim, Suin Kim, and Alice H. Oh. 2015. Social media dynamics of global co-presence during the 2014 FIFA World Cup. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), 2623--2632. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Marina Kogan, Leysia Palen, and Kenneth M. Anderson. 2015. Think local, retweet global: Retweeting by the geographically-vulnerable during Hurricane Sandy. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15), 981--993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Gerald M. Kosicki and Jack M. McLeod. 1990. Learning from political news: Effects of media images and information-processing strategies. Mass Communication and Political Information Processing: 69--83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Jon A. Krosnick, David S. Boninger, Yao C. Chuang, Matthew K. Berent, and Catherine G. Carnot. 1993. Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 6: 1132--1151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Yu-Ru Lin, Brian Keegan, Drew Margolin, and David Lazer. 2014. Rising tides or rising stars?: Dynamics of shared attention on Twitter during media events. PLOS ONE 9, 5: e94093.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Misa Maruyama, Scott P. Robertson, Sara K. Douglas, Bryan Semaan, and Heather A. Faucett. 2014. Hybrid media consumption: How tweeting during a televised political debate influences the vote decision. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '14), 1422--1432. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Mitchell S. McKinney, J. Brian Houston, and Joshua Hawthorne. 2014. Social watching a 2012 Republican presidential primary debate. American Behavioral Scientist 58, 4: 556--573.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. David W. McMillan and David M. Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14, 1: 6--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Sally J. McMillan. 2006. Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents and systems. In Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Social Consequences of ICTs, Updated Student Edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, UK, 205--229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Mor Naaman, Jeffrey Boase, and Chih-Hui Lai. 2010. Is it really about me?: Message content in social awareness streams. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. John F. Nestojko, Dung C. Bui, Nate Kornell, and Elizabeth Ligon Bjork. 2014. Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & Cognition 42, 7: 1038--1048.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Jeffrey Nichols, Jalal Mahmud, and Clemens Drews. 2012. Summarizing sporting events using Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI '12), 189--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Nielsen. 2015. Live TV + social media = engaged viewers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Blair Nonnecke, Jennifer Preece, and Dorine Andrews. 2004. What lurkers and posters think of each other. In the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch and S. Shyam Sundar. 2015. Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 44: 240--249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Elizabeth M. Perse. 1990. Involvement with local television news cognitive and emotional dimensions. Human Communication Research 16, 4: 556--581.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. N. Andrew Peterson, Paul W. Speer, and David W. McMillan. 2008. Validation of a brief sense of community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology 36, 1: 61--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Springer, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Richard E. Petty, John T. Cacioppo, and Jeff A. Kasmer. 2015. The role of affect in the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In Communication, Social Cognition and Affect, Lewis Donohew, Howard Sypher and Tory Higgins (eds.), 117--146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Tom Postmes, Russell Spears, and Martin Lea. 1998. Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 25, 6: 689--715.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Jenny Preece. 2001. Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success. Behaviour & IT 20, 5: 347--356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Daniel Ramage, Susan T. Dumais, and Daniel J Liebling. 2010. Characterizing microblogs with topic models. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on the Web and Social Media (ICWSM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Alan J. Resnik and Robert B. Cialdini. 1986. Influence: science & practice. Journal of Marketing Research 23, 3: 305.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Donald B. Rubin. 2005. Causal inference using potential outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association 100, 469: 322--331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Klaus Schoenbach and Holli A. Semetko. 1992. Agenda-setting, agenda-reinforcing or agenda-deflating? A study of the 1990 German national election. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 69, 4: 837--846.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Bryan Semaan, Heather Faucett, Scott P. Robertson, Misa Maruyama, and Sara Douglas. 2015. Navigating imagined audiences: Motivations for participating in the online public sphere. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15), 1158--1169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Tamir Sheafer. 2007. How to evaluate it: The role of story-evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming. Journal of Communication 57, 1: 21--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Robert E. Slavin. 1996. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, 1: 43--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Jerzy Surma. 2016. Social exchange in online social networks. The reciprocity phenomenon on Facebook. Computer Communications 73: 342--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Barbara G. Tabachnick and Linda S. Fidell. 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson Education, Inc., Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Jonathon Tudge and Barbara Rogoff. 1999. Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In Lev Vygotsky Critical Assessments, P Lloyd and C Fernyhough (eds.). Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments, New York, NY, 32--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Cristian Vaccari, Andrew Chadwick, and Ben O'Loughlin. 2015. Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication 65, 6: 1041--1061.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Floris M. van Blankenstein, Diana H.J.M. Dolmans, Cees P.M. van der Vleuten, and Henk G. Schmidt. 2011. Which cognitive processes support learning during small-group discussion? The role of providing explanations and listening to others. Instructional Science 39, 2: 189--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Anna Van Cauwenberge, Gabi Schaap, and Rob van Roy. 2014. "TV no longer commands our full attention": Effects of second-screen viewing and task relevance on cognitive load and learning from news. Computers in Human Behavior 38: 100--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Magdalena Wojcieszak. 2011. Deliberation and attitude polarization. Journal of Communication 61, 4: 596--617.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Wu, N. (2007, August 3). Kakaako rich with Hawaiian history. Honolulu Star Bulletin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Michele Zappavigna. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. Continuum International Publishing Group, London, United Kingdom. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Lixuan Zhang and Iryna Pentina. 2012. Motivations and usage patterns of Weibo. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15, 6: 312--317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Social Watching a Civic Broadcast: Understanding the Effects of Positive Feedback and Other Users' Opinions

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
      February 2017
      2556 pages
      ISBN:9781450343350
      DOI:10.1145/2998181

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 February 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CSCW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate183of530submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader