Video Reflection #9 – [09/27] – [Shruti Phadke]
The effect of cognitive biases on information selection and processing is a well-established phenomenon. According to Eli Pariser, the person who coined the term “filter bubble”:
“A world constructed from the familiar is a world in which there’s nothing to learn … (since there is) invisible auto propaganda, indoctrinating us with our own ideas.”
Some previous research has been put into how to nudge the reader towards more cross-cutting content. For example, ConsiderIt exposes users to the choices made by others to provoke perspective re-evaluation. Similarly, OpinionSpace encourages users to seek out diversity through the graphical reflection of their own content. Other than this, the formation of diverse views mainly depends on “serendipitous discovery”, the conscience of mainstream media or the user’s willingness to accept the opposing content. Dr. Stroud mentions that selectivity can be influenced using forced exposure and prompting for accuracy or informing users of their filter bubble. But, is just “exposure” to anti attitudinal content enough to promote real diversity? Does is matter how the information is framed? Jonathan Haidt’s Moral foundation theory interests me the most in this regard. Haidt and colleagues found that liberals are more sensitive to care and fairness while the conservatives emphasize more on the loyalty, authority, and sanctity. This raises a question of whether a conservative reader can be encouraged to read a left-leaning news by using words associated with conservative moral foundations? Similarly, will a liberal entertain conservative thoughts simply if they highlight fairness and empathy? Stroud’s findings in the second research present strengthen the argument. She reports observing that newsrooms encourage controversy. Also, partisan comments attract more incivility. This might make newsrooms a discouraging place to get exposed to cross-cutting content especially if it is associated with unfavorable framing.
This can form a basis for an experiment that studies how the framing of information affects the acceptance of a cross-cutting content. This research can be done in the collaboration of linguistic experts who can attest to various framings of a similar information consistent with the moral foundations of the user group. Participants can be self-identified liberals and conservatives not getting exposed to the differently polarized news. A control group can consist of users who are exposed to cross-cutting content without reframing the news/information. There can be two treatment groups with the following treatments
1. Exposure to cross-cutting content with conservative moral framing
2. Exposure to cross-cutting content with liberal moral framing
Finally, the effect can be observed in terms are how likely conservatives/liberals are to select a cross-cutting information which is wrapped up in a language corresponding to a specific moral foundation. Further, instead of limiting the study to conservative/liberal moral foundations, the experiment can also explore the effect of all moral foundation dimensions. (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity)
This type of study can inform what makes cross-cutting news more appealing to specific users and how it can promote diverse ideologies.
