國立虎尾科技大學 |

Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion./
作者:	Schulz, William Small.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (220 pages)
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:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798381684711

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

Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion. - 1 online resource (220 pages)

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

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

Includes bibliographical references

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.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798381684711Subjects--Topical Terms:

558774
Political science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

American politicsIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion.
LDR:03851ntm a22003977 4500 001 1151685
005 20241118085734.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2024 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798381684711
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30817833
035 $a AAI30817833
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Schulz, William Small. $3 1478498
245 1 0 $a Warped Words How Online Speech Misrepresents Opinion.
264 0 $c 2024
300 $a 1 online resource (220 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
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.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
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.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Political science. $3 558774
650 4 $a Web studies. $3 1148502
650 4 $a Social studies education. $3 1372768
653 $a American politics
653 $a Polarization
653 $a Political speech
653 $a Social media
653 $a Offline conversations
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0646
690 $a 0534
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a Princeton University. $b Politics. $3 1189013
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-08A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30817833 $z click for full text (PQDT)