IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v7y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-0507-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring social response to different journalistic techniques on Facebook

Author

Listed:
  • Ana L. Schmidt

    (Ca’ Foscari University)

  • Antonio Peruzzi

    (Ca’ Foscari University)

  • Antonio Scala

    (ISC-CNR)

  • Matteo Cinelli

    (ISC-CNR)

  • Peter Pomerantsev

    (The London School of Economics)

  • Anne Applebaum

    (The London School of Economics)

  • Sophia Gaston

    (The London School of Economics)

  • Nicole Fusi

    (The London School of Economics)

  • Zachary Peterson

    (The London School of Economics)

  • Giuseppe Severgnini

    (Corriere della Sera)

  • Andrea F. Cesco

    (Corriere della Sera)

  • Davide Casati

    (Corriere della Sera)

  • Petra Kralj Novak

    (Jozef Stefan Institute)

  • H. Eugene Stanley

    (Boston University)

  • Fabiana Zollo

    (Ca’ Foscari University
    Center for the Humanities and Social Change)

  • Walter Quattrociocchi

    (Ca’ Foscari University)

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that online users tend to select information that adheres to their system of beliefs, ignore information that does not, and join groups that share a common narrative. This information environment can elicit tribalism instead of informed debate, especially when issues are controversial. Algorithmic solutions, fact-checking initiatives, and many other approaches have shown limitations in dealing with this phenomenon, and heated debate and polarization still play a pivotal role in online social dynamics (e.g. traditional vs. anti-establishment polarization). To understand the effect of different communication strategies able to smooth polarization, in this paper, together with Corriere della Sera, a major Italian news outlet, we measure the social response of users to different types of news framing. We analyse users’ reactions to 113 ad-hoc articles published on the newspaper’s Facebook page and the corresponding news articles on the topic of migration, published from March to December 2018. We examine different journalistic techniques and content types by analyzing their impact on user comments in terms of toxicity, criticism of the newspaper, and stance concerning migration. We find that visual pieces and factual news reports elicit the highest level of trust in the media source, while opinion pieces and editorials are more likely to be criticized. We also notice that data-driven pieces elicit an extremely low level of trust in the news source. Furthermore, coherently with the echo chambers behaviour, we find social conformity strongly affecting the commenting behaviour of users on Facebook.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana L. Schmidt & Antonio Peruzzi & Antonio Scala & Matteo Cinelli & Peter Pomerantsev & Anne Applebaum & Sophia Gaston & Nicole Fusi & Zachary Peterson & Giuseppe Severgnini & Andrea F. Cesco & Davide, 2020. "Measuring social response to different journalistic techniques on Facebook," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0507-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-0507-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-0507-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-0507-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Bessi & Mauro Coletto & George Alexandru Davidescu & Antonio Scala & Guido Caldarelli & Walter Quattrociocchi, 2015. "Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, February.
    2. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:9216-9221 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mingfeng Lin & Henry C. Lucas & Galit Shmueli, 2013. "Research Commentary ---Too Big to Fail: Large Samples and the p -Value Problem," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 906-917, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hsin-Han Chen & Hui-Ling Chen & Yi-Tien Lin & Chaou-Wen Lin & Chien-Chang Ho & Hsueh-Yi Lin & Po-Fu Lee, 2020. "The Associations between Functional Fitness Test Performance and Abdominal Obesity in Healthy Elderly People: Results from the National Physical Fitness Examination Survey in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Thomas Görzen, 2019. "Can Experience be Trusted? Investigating the Effect of Experience on Decision Biases in Crowdworking Platforms," Working Papers Dissertations 55, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    3. Casey A. Klofstad & Joseph E. Uscinski & Jennifer M. Connolly & Jonathan P. West, 2019. "What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Yi Yang & Kunpeng Zhang & Yangyang Fan, 2023. "sDTM: A Supervised Bayesian Deep Topic Model for Text Analytics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 137-156, March.
    5. Evangelista, Rui & Ramalho, Esmeralda A. & Andrade e Silva, João, 2020. "On the use of hedonic regression models to measure the effect of energy efficiency on residential property transaction prices: Evidence for Portugal and selected data issues," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    6. Yen-Chun Chou & Howard Hao-Chun Chuang, 2018. "A predictive investigation of first-time customer retention in online reservation services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 12(4), pages 685-699, December.
    7. Tang, Kayu & Parsons, David J. & Jude, Simon, 2019. "Comparison of automatic and guided learning for Bayesian networks to analyse pipe failures in the water distribution system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 24-36.
    8. Sujin Park & Ali Tafti & Galit Shmueli, 2024. "Transporting Causal Effects Across Populations Using Structural Causal Modeling: An Illustration to Work-from-Home Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 686-705, June.
    9. Carlos Carrasco-Farré, 2022. "The fingerprints of misinformation: how deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Claire Teunenbroek & René Bekkers & Bianca Beersma, 2021. "They ought to do it too: Understanding effects of social information on donation behavior and mood," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 229-253, June.
    11. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    12. Khalilzadeh, Jalayer & Tasci, Asli D.A., 2017. "Large sample size, significance level, and the effect size: Solutions to perils of using big data for academic research," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 89-96.
    13. Juan Manuel Pérez-Salamero González & Marta Regúlez-Castillo & Carlos Vidal-Meliá, 2017. "The continuous sample of working lives: improving its representativeness," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 43-95, March.
    14. Thomas Niemand & Sascha Kraus & Martin Angerer & Ferdinand Thies & Alicia Mas-Tur, 2019. "More is not always better—non-linear effects in crowdfunding," International Journal of Quality Innovation, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Pei-Yu Chen & Yili Hong & Ying Liu, 2018. "The Value of Multidimensional Rating Systems: Evidence from a Natural Experiment and Randomized Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4629-4647, October.
    16. Daniel Homocianu, 2020. "A Methodology of Discovering Comparable Models. The Case of Investing in Retirement Accounts when Considering Age, Main Residence and Education before 1989 vs. Globalization," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business (continues Analele Stiintifice), Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 67(4), pages 19-31, December.
    17. Kaizhi Yu & Yun Zhang & Hong Zou & Chenchen Wang, 2019. "Absolute Income, Income Inequality and the Subjective Well-Being of Migrant Workers in China: Toward an Understanding of the Relationship and Its Psychological Mechanisms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-27, July.
    18. Antonio Parravano & Ascensión Andina-Díaz & Miguel A Meléndez-Jiménez, 2016. "Bounded Confidence under Preferential Flip: A Coupled Dynamics of Structural Balance and Opinions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    19. Irfan Kanat & Yili Hong & T. S. Raghu, 2018. "Surviving in Global Online Labor Markets for IT Services: A Geo-Economic Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 893-909, December.
    20. Jae H. Kim & Kamran Ahmed & Philip Inyeob Ji, 2018. "Significance Testing in Accounting Research: A Critical Evaluation Based on Evidence," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(4), pages 524-546, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0507-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.