Political persuasion on social media: A moderated moderation model of political discussion disagreement and civil reasoning

References

• American Association of Public Opinion Research. 2016. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Available at: https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf (accessed June 7, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, A. A., D. Brossard, D. A. Scheufele, M. A. Xenos, and P. Ladwig. 2014. The “nasty effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (3):373–87. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachmann, I., and H. Gil de Zúñiga. 2013. News platform preference as a predictor of political and civic participation. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 19 (4):496–512. doi:10.1177/1354856513493699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., S. Messing, and L. Adamic. 2015. Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science (New York, N.Y.) 348 (6239):1130–2. doi:10.1126/science.aaa160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, P. 2014. How social media reduces mass political polarization: Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the United States. http://pablobarbera.com/static/barbera-polarization-social-media.pdf (accessed June 7, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Barker, D., and A. B. Lawrence. 2006. Media favouritism and presidential nominations: Reviving the direct effects model. Political Communication 23 (1):41–59. doi:10.1080/10584600500477013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnidge, M. 2015. The role of news in promoting political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior 52:211–8. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. M. 2002. Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior 24 (2):117–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beam, M. A., M. J. Hutchens, and J. D. Hmielowski. 2016. Clicking vs. sharing: the relationship between online news behaviors and political knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior 59:215–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., and A. Segerberg. 2012. The logic of connective action: the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication and Society 15 (5):739–68. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y. 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bimber, B., M. C. Cunill, L. Copeland, and R. Gibson. 2015. Digital media and political participation: the moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social Science Computer Review 33 (1):21–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisgin, H., N. Agarwal, and X. Xu. 2012. A study of homophily on social media. World Wide Web 15 (2):213–232. doi:10.1007/s11280-011-0143-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode, L. 2016. Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society 19 (1):24–48. doi:10/1080/15205436.2015.10455149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode, L., E. K. Vraga, P. Borah, and D. V. Shah. 2014. A new space for political behavior: Political social networking and its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (3):414–429. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, R. M., C. J. Faris, J. J. Jones, A. D. Kramer, C. Marlow, J. E. Settle, and J. H. Fowler. 2012. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489 (7415):295–298. doi:10.1038/nature11421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosnjak, M., M. Das, and P. Lynn. 2016. Methods for probability-based online and mixed-mode panels. Symposium issue on methods for probability-based online and mixed-mode panels. Social Science Computer Review 34 (1):3–5. doi:10.1177/0894439315579246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brundidge, J. 2010. Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: the contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60 (4):680–700. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, J., Shah, D. V. D. V. McLeod, J. M. McLeod, D. M. Scholl, R. M., and M. R. Gotlieb. 2009. Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O‐S‐R‐O‐R model of communication effects. Communication Theory 19 (1):66–88. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conover, P. J., D. D. Searing, and I. M. Crewe. 2002. The deliberative potential of political discussion. British Journal of Political Science 32 (1):21–62.
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., and S. Keeter. 1996. What americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Diehl, T., B. E. Weeks, and H. Gil de Zúñiga. 2016. Political persuasion on social media: Tracing direct and indirect effects of news use and social interaction. New Media and Society 29 (2):214–239. doi:10.1177/1461444815616224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eveland Jr, W. P., and H. M. Hutchens. 2009. Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication 59 (2):205–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eveland W. P., M. J. Hutchens, and A. C. Morey. 2013. Political network size and its antecedents and consequences. Political Communication 30 (3):371–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, L. 2011. The opinion factor: the effects of opinionated news on information processing and attitude change. Political Communication 28 (2):163–81. doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.565014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, L., E. W. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, and A. Leiserowitz. 2012. Climate on cable. The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics 17 (1):3–31. doi:10.1177/1940161211425410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. 1991. Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K., S. Dvir Gvirsman, B. K. Johnson, Y. Tsfati, R. Neo, and A. Dal. 2014. Applications of pro- and counter-attitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research 40 (3):309–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. 2000. By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., and L. Black. 2007. Public deliberation as the organizing principle of political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation 4 (1):1–49. http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol4/iss1/art3
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., and M. Xenos. 2010. Of attitudes and engagement: Clarifying the reciprocal relationship between civic attitudes and political participation. Journal of Communication 60 (2):318–43. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01484.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glynn, C. J., M. E. Huge, and L. H. Hoffman. 2012. All the news that’s fit to post: a profile of news use on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior 28 (1):113–9. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga. H. 2012. Modeling the process of political participation in the EU. In European identity & culture: Narratives of transnational belonging, eds. R. Friedman and M. Thiel, 75–95. New York: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H. 2015. Toward a European public sphere? the promise and perils of modern democracy in the age of digital and social media. International Journal of Communication 9:3152–3160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., and S. Valenzuela. 2010. Who uses Facebook and why. In Facebook and philosophy: What's on your mind? ed. D. Wittkower, xxi–xxxi. Chicago: Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., L. Molyneux, and P. Zheng. 2014. Social media, political expression and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication 64(4):612–34. doi:10.1111/jcom.12103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., S. Valenzuela, and B. Weeks. 2016. Motivations for political discussion: Antecedents and consequences on civic participation. Human Communication Research 42 (4):533–52. doi:10.1111/hcre.12086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. 1983. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociological Theory 1:201–233. http://www.jstor.org/stable/202051
   Google Scholar
• Halpern, D., and J. Gibbs. 2013. Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior 29 (3):1159–1168. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. 2017. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heatherly, K. A., Y. Lu, and J. K. Lee. 2017. Filtering out the other side? cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites. New Media & Society 19 (8):1271–89. doi:10.1177/1461444816634677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosman, L. A., T. M. Huebner, and S. A. Siltanen. 2002. The impact of power-of-speech style, argument strength, and need for cognition on impression formation, cognitive responses, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 21 (4):361–79. doi:10.1177/026192702237954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, G. A., and K. Arceneaux. 2007. Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science 51 (4):957–977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huckfeldt, R., J. Mendez, and T. Osborn. 2004a. Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: the political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology 25 (1):65–95. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huckfeldt, R., P. E. Johnson, and J. Sprague. 2004b. Political disagreement: the survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., G. Sood, and Y. Lelkes. 2012. Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective. Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3):405–431. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, E., and P. E. Lazarsfeld. 1955. Personal influence: the part played by people in mass communication. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kempf, D. S., and K. M. Palan. 2006. The effects of gender and argument strength on the processing of word-of-mouth communication. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal 10 (1):1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J., R. O. Wyatt, and E. Katz. 1999. News, talk, opinion, participation: the part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication 16 (4):361–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. 2011. The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: the relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2):971–977. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., Hsu, S. H. Gil de Zúñiga. H., and H. 2013. Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: the moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication 63 (3):498–516. doi:10.1111/jcom.12034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, K. H., M. A. Stefanone, and G. A. Barnett. 2014. Social network influence on online behavioral choices: Exploring group formation on social network sites. American Behavioral Scientist 58 (10):1345–1360. doi:10.1177/0002764214527092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladd, J. M. and G. S. Lenz. 2008. Exploiting a rare shift in communication flows to document news media persuasion: The 1997 United Kingdom general election. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =1189811 (accessed June 7, 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. K., J. Choi, C. Kim, and Y. Kim. 2014. Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication 64 (4):702–22. doi:10.11/jcom.12077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitan, L. C., and P. S. Visser. 2009. Social network composition and attitude strength: Exploring the dynamics within newly formed social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (5):1057–1067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, Y., K. A. Heatherly, and J. K. Lee. 2016. Cross-cutting exposure on social networking sites: the effects of SNS discussion disagreement on political participation. Computers in Human Behavior 59:74–81. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. 1999. Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement, ed. S. Macedo, 211–42. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. E., and D. L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2):176–87. doi:10.1086/267990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messing, S., and S. J. Westwood. 2014. Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research 41 (8):1042–1063. doi:10.1177/0093650212466406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, D. S., and S. G. Tarrow. 1998. The social movement society: Contentious politics for a new century. New York: Roman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Kiley, J., and K.E. Matsa. 2014. Political polarization and media habits (Report for the Pew Research Internet Project). Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/ (accessed June 7, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Morrell, M. E. 2005. Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior 27 (1):49–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. 2006. Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C., and P. S. Martin. 2001. Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: the role of mass media. American Political Science Review 95 (1):97–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C., P. M. Sniderman, and R. A. Brody. 1996. Political persuasion: The birth of a field of study. In Political persuasion and attitude change, eds. D.C. Mutz, P.M. Sniderman, and R.A. Brody, 1–14. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, T. E., Z. M. Oxley, and R. A. Clawson. 1997. Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior 19 (3):221–46. doi:10.1023/A:1024834831093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng, E. W. J., and B. H. Detenber. 2006. The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10 (3):00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00252.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofcom. 2015. News consumption in the UK 2015, executive summary. London, UK. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tvresearch/news/2015/News_consumption_in_the_UK_2015_executive_summary.pdf (accessed December 1, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6 (2):259–83. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. 2014. Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann. 1983. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10 (2):135–46. doi:10.1086/208954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19:123–205. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. A. Krosnick. 1995. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. 2015. State of the news media 2015. http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/state-of-the-news-media-2015 (accessed March 1, 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Quan-Haase, A., and A. L. Young. 2010. Uses and gratifications of social media: a comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30 (5):350–361. doi:10.1177/0270467610380009.
   Google Scholar
• Rojas, H. 2015. Egocentric publics and perceptions of the worlds around us. In New technologies and civic engagement: New agendas in communication, ed. H. Gil de Zúñiga, 93–102. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rojas, H., M. Barnidge, and E. P. Abril. 2016. Egocentric publics and corrective action. Communication and the Public 1 (1):27–38. doi:10.1177/2057047315619421.
   Google Scholar
• Shah, D. V., J. Cho, W. P. Eveland, and N. Kwak. 2005. Information and expression in a digital age modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research 32 (5):531–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilly, C., and S. Tarrow. 2015. Contentious politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turcotte, J., C. York, J. Irving, R. M. Scholl, and R. J. Pingree. 2015. News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20 (5):520–35. doi:10.111/jcc4.12127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verba, S., K. L. Schlozman, and H. E. Brady. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. New York: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wallsten, K., and M. Tarsi. 2016. Persuasion from below? an experimental assessment of the impact of anonymous comments sections. Journalism Practice 109 (8):1019–1040. doi:10.1080/17512786.2015.1102607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, B. E., A. Ardèvol-Abreu, and H. Gil de Zúñiga. 2017. Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 299 (2):214–239. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, W. 2000. Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology 51 (1):539–570. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaller, J. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge.
   Google Scholar