Tilburg University, Department of Communication and Cognition, the Netherlands.
University of Groningen, Department of Social Psychology, the Netherlands.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2022 Aug;228:103661. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103661. Epub 2022 Jul 1.
Online discussions about controversial topics seem more prone to misunderstanding and even polarization than similar discussions held face-to-face. Recent research uncovered an important reason why: certain behaviors that are used to communicate diplomacy and tact in face-to-face discussions - specifically, responsiveness and ambiguity - are more difficult to enact online. To improve online interaction experiences and understand the underlying mechanisms better, we ran three exploratory studies in which we tried to manipulate these diplomatic behaviors in online and face-to-face conversations. Study 1 and 2 aimed to increase ambiguity and responsiveness in online environments to test whether it would result in increased experiences of solidarity. To this end, Study 1 (N = 68, repeated measures) compared a regular chat function with a chat function in which interaction partners saw each other's typing in real time. In Study 2 (N = 74, repeated measures), we introduced a keyboard that allowed participants to make interjecting sounds alongside text-based communication. In contrast, Study 3 (N = 105, repeated measures) aimed to reduce responsiveness and ambiguity in face-to-face discussion to test whether this would hamper participants' ability to navigate disagreements while maintaining solidarity. We asked participants about their conversational experiences both quantitatively and qualitatively in all studies. We did not find the expected effects in any of the studies. The qualitative analyses of participants' behavior and commentary gave some insights into the reasons. Participants compensated for and/or distanced themselves from the manipulations. These behavioral adaptations all seemed to be socially motivated. We conclude by offering recommendations for research into online polarization.
在线讨论争议性话题似乎比面对面讨论更容易产生误解，甚至更倾向于两极分化。最近的研究揭示了一个重要原因：在面对面讨论中用于传达外交和策略的某些行为——特别是回应性和模糊性——在网上更难实施。为了改善在线互动体验并更好地理解潜在机制，我们进行了三项探索性研究，试图在在线和面对面的对话中操纵这些外交行为。研究 1 和 2 旨在增加在线环境中的模糊性和回应性，以测试这是否会导致团结感增强。为此，研究 1（N=68，重复测量）将常规聊天功能与交互双方实时看到彼此打字的聊天功能进行了比较。在研究 2（N=74，重复测量）中，我们引入了一个键盘，允许参与者在基于文本的交流中发出插话声音。相比之下，研究 3（N=105，重复测量）旨在降低面对面讨论中的回应性和模糊性，以测试这是否会妨碍参与者在保持团结的同时解决分歧的能力。我们在所有研究中都从定量和定性两个方面询问了参与者的对话体验。我们在任何一项研究中都没有发现预期的效果。对参与者行为和评论的定性分析提供了一些原因的见解。参与者对这些操纵进行了补偿和/或回避。这些行为适应似乎都是出于社交动机。最后，我们提出了有关在线极化研究的建议。
