Jisun An

Partisan sharing: facebook evidence and societal consequences

The hypothesis of selective exposure assumes that people seek out information that supports their views and eschew information that conflicts with their beliefs, and that has negative consequences on our society. Few researchers have recently found counter evidence of selective exposure in social media: users are exposed to politically diverse articles. No work has looked at what happens after exposure, particularly how individuals react to such exposure, though. Users might well be exposed to diverse articles but share only the partisan ones. To test this, we study partisan sharing on Facebook: the tendency for users to predominantly share like-minded news articles and avoid conflicting ones. We verified four main hypotheses. That is, whether partisan sharing: 1) exists at all; 2) changes across individuals (e.g., depending on their interest in politics); 3) changes over time (e.g., around elections); and 4) changes depending on perceived importance of topics. We indeed find strong evidence for partisan sharing. To test whether it has any consequence in the real world, we built a web application for BBC viewers of a popular political program, resulting in a controlled experiment involving more than 70 individuals. Based on what they share and on survey data, we find that partisan sharing has negative consequences: distorted perception of reality. However, we do also find positive aspects of partisan sharing: it is associated with people who are more knowledgeable about politics and engage more with it as they are more likely to vote in the general elections.

Sharing political news: the balancing act of intimacy and socialization in selective exposure

One might think that, compared to traditional media, social media sites allow people to choose more freely what to read and what to share, especially for politically oriented news. However, reading and sharing habits originate from deeply ingrained behaviors that might be hard to change. To test the extent to which this is true, we propose a Political News Sharing (PoNS) model that holistically captures four key aspects of social psychology: gratification, selective exposure, socialization, and trust & intimacy. Using real instances of political news sharing in Twitter, we study the predictive power of these features. As one might expect, news sharing heavily depends on what one likes and agrees with (selective exposure). Interestingly, it also depends on the credibility of a news source, i.e., whether the source is a social media friend or a news outlet (trust & intimacy) as well as on the informativeness or the enjoyment of the news article (gratification). Finally, a Twitter user tends to share articles matching his own political leaning but, at times, the user also shares politically opposing articles, if those match the leaning of his followers (socialization). Based on our PoNS model, we build a prototype of a news sharing application that promotes serendipitous political readings along our four dimensions.

Fragmented social media: a look into selective exposure to political news

The hypothesis of selective exposure assumes that people crave like-minded information and eschew information that conflicts with their beliefs, and that has negative consequences on political life. Yet, despite decades of research, this hypothesis remains theoretically promising but empirically difficult to test. We look into news articles shared on Facebook and examine whether selective exposure exists or not in social media. We find a concrete evidence for a tendency that users predominantly share like-minded news articles and avoid conflicting ones, and partisans are more likely to do that. Building tools to counter partisanship on social media would require the ability to identify partisan users first. We will show that those users cannot be distinguished from the average user as the two subgroups do not show any demographic difference.

Why individuals seek diverse opinions (or why they don't)

Fact checking has been hard enough to do in traditional settings, but, as news consumption is moving on the Internet and sources multiply, it is almost unmanageable. To solve this problem, researchers have created applications that expose people to diverse opinions and, as a result, expose them to balanced information. The wisdom of this solution is, however, placed in doubt by this paper. Survey responses of 60 individuals in the UK and South Korea and in-depth structured interviews of 10 respondents suggest that exposure to diverse opinions would not always work. That is partly because not all individuals equally value opinion diversity, and mainly because the same individual benefits from it only at times. We find that whether one looks for diverse opinions largely depends on three factors--ones prior convictions, emotional state, and social context.

Whom should we sense in “social sensing” - analyzing which users work best for social media now-casting

Given the ever increasing amount of publicly available social media data, there is growing interest in using online data to study and quantify phenomena in the offline “real” world. As social media data can be obtained in near real-time and at low cost, it is often used for “now-casting” indices such as levels of flu activity or unemployment. The term “social sensing” is often used in this context to describe the idea that users act as “sensors”, publicly reporting their health status or job losses. Sensor activity during a time period is then typically aggregated in a “one tweet, one vote” fashion by simply counting. At the same time, researchers readily admit that social media users are not a perfect representation of the actual population. Additionally, users differ in the amount of details of their personal lives that they reveal. Intuitively, it should be possible to improve now-casting by assigning different weights to different user groups.In this paper, we ask “How does social sensing actually work?” or, more precisely, “Whom should we sense-and whom not-for optimal results?”. We investigate how different sampling strategies affect the performance of now-casting of two common offline indices: flu activity and unemployment rate. We show that now-casting can be improved by (1) applying user filtering techniques and (2) selecting users with complete profiles. We also find that, using the right type of user groups, now-casting performance does not degrade, even when drastically reducing the size of the dataset. More fundamentally, we describe which type of users contribute most to the accuracy by asking if “babblers are better”. We conclude the paper by providing guidance on how to select better user groups for more accurate now-casting.