美国人误解了政治辩论的频率和形式
Erica R Bailey1, Michael W White2, Sheena S Iyengar2
1UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business, Berkeley, USA. ericabailey@haas.berkeley.edu.
Scientific reports
|March 6, 2024
概括
美国人经常讨论密切联系,而不是陌生人,之后感觉很积极. 然而,他们高估了其他人的辩论频率,特别是在网上,导致对美国未来的绝望.
科学领域:
- 社会心理学 社会心理学
- 沟通研究 沟通研究
- 美国政治 美国政治
背景情况:
- 美国社会中人际辩论的普遍性和性质通常通过高调,负面的在线互动的镜头来看待.
- 社交媒体可能会扭曲公众对辩论现实景观的看法,强调与陌生人发生冲突,而不是与知名个人进行更常见的讨论.
研究的目的:
- 调查美国人之间辩论的实际频率和背景.
- 检查个人对辩论普遍性的看法是否与现实一致.
- 探索关于辩论的误解的心理后果.
主要方法:
- 在线和实验室环境中对2985名参与者进行了三项研究.
- 利用调查和直接测量来评估辩论频率,合作伙伴和情感结果.
- 分析了来自1991年美国人代表样本的数据,以衡量误解及其与绝望的相关性.
主要成果:
- 与普遍认为的相反,美国人最常与家人和朋友等亲密联系人进行辩论,经常在辩论后报告积极的感受.
- 参与者系统地高估了所有合作伙伴类型和背景 (面对面和在线) 的辩论频率.
- 在与陌生人进行的在线辩论中,高估值最为明显,这种错误预测与对美国未来的绝望感增加有显著的相关性.
结论:
- 这项研究表明,美国辩论的感知和实际格局之间存在显著的脱节,这可能是由社交媒体对负面,高调冲突的关注所推动的.
- 关于辩论的共同性和性质的误解,特别是在线辩论,可能会导致心理痛苦和对国家未来的希望感减弱.
- 了解这些误解对于培养对社会话语和集体进步更准确,更乐观的看法至关重要.
更多相关视频
09:09Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody
Published on: September 27, 2024
447
05:22Dissociation of the Confounding Influences of Expectancy and Integrative Difficulty Residing in Anomalous Sentences in Event-related Potential Studies
Published on: May 9, 2019
5.4K
相关概念视频
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination
90.2K
Humans are very diverse and although we share many similarities, we also have many differences. The social groups we belong to help form our identities (Tajfel, 1974). These differences may be difficult for some people to reconcile, which may lead to prejudice toward people who are different. Prejudice is a negative attitude and feeling toward an individual based solely on one’s membership in a particular social group (Allport, 1954; Brown, 2010). Prejudice is common against people who...
90.2K
Group Polarization
34.3K
Group polarization is the strengthening of an original group attitude following the discussion of views within a group (Teger & Pruitt, 1967). That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition.
34.3K
Framing Effects
7.4K
Information is everywhere and its presentation—such as how and when items are presented—can impact our perceptions and decisions surrounding the info. This broad concept umbrellas framing effects—influences that occur due to the way information is framed in its appearance, whether it’s purely the order or the specific wording of a message. Let’s take a look at numerous ways in which two versions of something can objectively say the same thing, yet we respond in...
7.4K
Groupthink
44.3K
When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Groupthink is another phenomenon of conformity where modification of the opinions of members in a group aligns with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In such situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of...
44.3K
The Representativeness Heuristic
15.8K
The representative heuristic describes a biased way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something. For example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.
15.8K
Confirmation Biases
5.5K
The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Have you ever fallen prey to the confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias?
5.5K
