東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Warped Words How Online Speech Misre...

Schulz, William Small.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion./
作者:	Schulz, William Small.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2024,
面頁冊數:	220 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-08, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-08A.
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30817833
ISBN:	9798381684711

Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion.
Schulz, William Small.

Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2024 - 220 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-08, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Princeton University, 2024.

.

I seek to resolve two seemingly contradictory facts of American politics: (1) most people hold moderate or mixed political views, and yet (2) online political discourse is (apparently) polarized. I investigate a theory that social media users falsify extreme views and/or self-censor moderate views, leading to a polarizing misrepresentation of opinion in online speech.The Introduction explores my motivating puzzle - the combination of attitudinal moderation and (perceived) online polarization - and connects it to relevant social science literatures.Chapter 1 observationally compares Twitter users' survey-reported political attitudes to their publicly-posted tweets, and the tweets of the people they followed (scaled using a text classifier I developed), finding evidence of preference falsification (though not necessarily in a polarizing direction), and of polarizing self-censorship by moderate users.Chapter 2 introduces a method - the "What Would You Say?" question and the Word-sticks model - to address limitations of the Chapter 1 analysis. This method combines conventional document scaling methods with survey-experimental causal inference. I validate and demonstrate the measure, and find evidence that preference falsification in offline conversations with extreme ideologues favors moderation, rather than polarization.Chapter 3 applies this method to estimate social media platforms' effects on users' speech, in a pre-registered experiment with a representative sample of Facebook and Twitter users. I find that most users self-censor political language online, and I find strong evidence that online discourse is polarized by moderates' self-censorship (in the form of complete self-selection out of online political discourse). Planned analyses indicated no polarizing preference falsification, but exploratory analyses suggest Facebook and Twitter may differ in this regard.Chapter 4 introduces a research framework that can help identify how different platforms give rise to different kinds of discourse, using the open-source Mastodon software. I conduct a demonstration study, in which I successfully induce a microcosm of online political discourse using financial incentives. I outline a post-PhD research agenda using this framework.The Conclusion discusses the implications of my research. Self-censorship may dominate preference falsification because it requires less effort. Observers of social media should remember that posts do not accurately represent opinion.

ISBN: 9798381684711Subjects--Topical Terms:

528916
Political science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

American politics

Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion.
LDR:03645nmm a2200397 4500 001 2403431
005 20241118085734.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2024 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798381684711
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30817833
035 $a AAI30817833
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Schulz, William Small. $3 3773704
245 1 0 $a Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 220 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-08, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Guess, Andrew Markus.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Princeton University, 2024.
506 $a .
520 $a I seek to resolve two seemingly contradictory facts of American politics: (1) most people hold moderate or mixed political views, and yet (2) online political discourse is (apparently) polarized. I investigate a theory that social media users falsify extreme views and/or self-censor moderate views, leading to a polarizing misrepresentation of opinion in online speech.The Introduction explores my motivating puzzle - the combination of attitudinal moderation and (perceived) online polarization - and connects it to relevant social science literatures.Chapter 1 observationally compares Twitter users' survey-reported political attitudes to their publicly-posted tweets, and the tweets of the people they followed (scaled using a text classifier I developed), finding evidence of preference falsification (though not necessarily in a polarizing direction), and of polarizing self-censorship by moderate users.Chapter 2 introduces a method - the "What Would You Say?" question and the Word-sticks model - to address limitations of the Chapter 1 analysis. This method combines conventional document scaling methods with survey-experimental causal inference. I validate and demonstrate the measure, and find evidence that preference falsification in offline conversations with extreme ideologues favors moderation, rather than polarization.Chapter 3 applies this method to estimate social media platforms' effects on users' speech, in a pre-registered experiment with a representative sample of Facebook and Twitter users. I find that most users self-censor political language online, and I find strong evidence that online discourse is polarized by moderates' self-censorship (in the form of complete self-selection out of online political discourse). Planned analyses indicated no polarizing preference falsification, but exploratory analyses suggest Facebook and Twitter may differ in this regard.Chapter 4 introduces a research framework that can help identify how different platforms give rise to different kinds of discourse, using the open-source Mastodon software. I conduct a demonstration study, in which I successfully induce a microcosm of online political discourse using financial incentives. I outline a post-PhD research agenda using this framework.The Conclusion discusses the implications of my research. Self-censorship may dominate preference falsification because it requires less effort. Observers of social media should remember that posts do not accurately represent opinion.
590 $a School code: 0181.
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a Web studies. $3 2122754
650 4 $a Social studies education. $3 3422293
653 $a American politics
653 $a Polarization
653 $a Political speech
653 $a Social media
653 $a Offline conversations
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0646
690 $a 0534
710 2 $a Princeton University. $b Politics. $3 2096076
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-08A.
790 $a 0181
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30817833