nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

9. An Exploratory Mixed-Method Analysis of Interpersonal Arguments on Twitter

verfasst von : Amy Janan Johnson, Ioana A. Cionea

Erschienen in: Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter reflects on a particular kind of social interactivity on Twitter that is directly linked to the public sphere: rational argumentation. Using a mixed methods design, this study analyzed the nature of people’s online disagreements, examining users’ motivations, the degree to which users’ tendency to argue is informed by personality traits, and the stress experienced after such exchanges. Results show that personality traits predict argument goals as well as post-argument experience of stress. Argumentative exchanges on Twitter tend to be brief and remain underdeveloped, mainly because of users’ tendency to withdraw from most online conversations. This ‘switching off’ equally hinders any attempts at persuasion by the other party, while the use of verbal aggressiveness detracts attention from the topic at hand.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Patterns of Emotional Tweets: The Case of Brexit After the Referendum Results

Nächstes Kapitel Bros Before Donald Trump: Resisting and Replicating Hegemonic Ideologies in the #BROTUS Memes After the 2016 Election

All path coefficients reported are standardized.

For all equations, the percentage of explained variance reported is the adjusted R²value.

Ahlgren, M. (2019a). Two 40+ Twitter statistics and facts for 2019. Retrieved from www.websitehostingrating.com/twitter-statistics

Ahlgren, M. (2019b). Twitter by the numbers: Stats, demographics and fun facts. Retrieved from www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics

Barbera, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26, 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620.CrossRef

Bouvier, G. (2015). What is a discourse approach to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media: Connecting with other academic fields? Journal of Multicultural Discourse, 10, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2015.1042381.CrossRef

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083.6101.2007.00393.x.CrossRef

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRef

Brockriede, W. (1974). Where is argument? In R. A. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 4–8). New York, NY: International Debate Education Association.

Chen, G. M. (2012). The impact of new media on intercultural communication in global context. China Media Research, 8, 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.chinamediaresearch.net/index.php/submission/10-china-media-research/backissues/54-vol-8-no-2

Cionea, I. A., Hoelscher, C. S., & Ileş, I. A. (2017). Arguing goals: An initial assessment of a new measurement instrument. Communication Reports, 30, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2016.1184695.CrossRef

Cionea, I. A., Hopârtean, A.-M., Hoelscher, C. S., Ileş, I. A., & Straub, S. K. (2015). A content analysis of arguing behaviors: A case study of Romania as compared to the United States. Argumentation and Advocacy, 51, 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2015.11821853.CrossRef

Cionea, I. A., Piercy, C. W., & Carpenter, C. J. (2017). A profile of arguing behaviors on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.009.CrossRef

Cionea, I. A., Richards, A. S., & Straub, S. K. (2017). Factors predicting the intent to engage in arguments in close relationships: A revised model. Argumentation, 31, 121–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9400-z.CrossRef

Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis. In J. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 222–248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Marmelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404.CrossRef

Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011, July). Political polarization on Twitter. In Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (pp. 89–96). Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2847/3275

Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (1995). Personalizing and managing conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 6, 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022766.CrossRef

Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dean, J. (2010). Blog theory: Feedback and capture in the circuits of drive. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Garimella, K., Morales, G. D., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018). Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In WWW 2018: The 2018web conference, April 23–27, 2018, Lyon France. New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186139.

Habermas, J. (1962). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Halpern, D., Velenzuela, S., & Katz, J. (2017). We face, I tweet: How different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12198.CrossRef

Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hample, D., & Cionea, I. A. (2010). Taking conflict personally and its connections to aggressiveness. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 372–387). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hample, D., Dai, Y., & Zhan, M. (2016). Argument stakes: Preliminary conceptualizations and empirical descriptions. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821870.CrossRef

Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1995). A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict personally: Revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument. Communication Quarterly, 43, 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379509369978.

Honan, M. (2011). Twitter doesn’t give a damn who you are. Retrieved from https://gizmodo.com/twitter-doesnt-give-a-damn-who-you-are-5838414

Hutchens, M. J., Cicchirillo, V. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2015). How could you think that?!?!: Understanding intentions to engage in political flaming. New Media and Society, 17, 1201–1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522947

Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390257.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13.CrossRef

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19, 320–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1996.11678934.CrossRef

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376126.CrossRef

Jennings, F., Pierola Suzuki, V., & Hubbard, A. (2020). Social media and democracy: Fostering political deliberation and participation. Western Journal of Communication. (Advanced online publication). https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2020.1728369

Johnson, A. J., Averbeck, J. M., Kelley, K. M., & Liu, S. (2011). When serial arguments predict harm: Examining the influences of argument function, perceived resolvability, and argumentativeness. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 214–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2011.11821748.CrossRef

Johnson, A. J., Kelley, K., Liu, S., Averbeck, J., King, S., & Bostwick, E. (2014). Family serial arguments: Beliefs about the argument and perceived stress from the argument. Communication Reports, 27, 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2014.927517.CrossRef

Liu, Y., Rui, J. R., & Cui, X. (2017). Are people willing to share their political opinions on Facebook? Exploring roles of self-presentational concern in spiral of silence. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.029.CrossRef

Lo, J. (2019). Exploring the buffer effect of receiving social support on lonely and emotionally unstable social networking users. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.052.CrossRef

O’Keefe, D. J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13(3), 121–128.

Ott, B. L. (2017). The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686.CrossRef

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London, UK: Penguin.

Roloff, M. E., & Reznik, R. M. (2008). Communication during serial arguments: Connections with individuals’ mental and physical well-being. In M. T. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 97–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roper, R., Johnson, A. J., & Bostwick, E. N. (2017). A target’s perspective: Verbal aggressiveness, coping strategies, and relational harm. Communication Research Reports, 34, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2016.1230544.CrossRef

Segrin, C., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1992). Depression and verbal aggressiveness in different marital couple types. Communication Studies, 43, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979209368362.CrossRef

Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90, 28–41.

Sikandar, M. (2018). 100+ social media statistics that you must know [2018] + infographic. Retrieved from https://blog.statusbrew.com/social-media-statistics-2018-for-business/

Steffeinsmeier, T., & Shench-Hamlin, W. (2009). Argument quality in public deliberations. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45, 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2008.11821693.CrossRef

Tsovaltzi, D., Greenhow, C., & Asterhan, C. (2015). When friends argue: Learning from and through social network site discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 567–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.021.CrossRef

Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0226.CrossRef

Žižek, S. (1997). The plague of fantasies. London, UK: Verso Press.

Titel: An Exploratory Mixed-Method Analysis of Interpersonal Arguments on Twitter
verfasst von: Amy Janan Johnson
Ioana A. Cionea
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41420-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-41421-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41421-4_9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"