Abstract
Older generations did not have access to the technology that is available today, but interaction through communication engagement opened the revolving door of society delineating our predecessors as individuals. A perfect example of this sociological defining phenomenon can be seen in the evolution of linguistic communication where idioms have transformed into instant message slang commonly referenced as internet acronyms. This new vocabulary has been analyzed by researchers under the perspective lens of influential online emotion. Additional studies have been conducted categorizing user emotions through a value based structured framework regarding human reactions to religious, political, and entertainment topics on social media platforms. The main goal of this research proposal is to analyze the sociopsychological ramifications of anger interfering with mutual respect on social media over an extended period of time. By examining what determines influence on social media, a foundation can be built upon for the investigation into how anger is now socially accepted. The anger emotion will be categorized under the lens of propaganda stories which are tweeted online by influential accounts. Overall, by analyzing anger on social media a better clarification of how anger has transformed so swiftly should provide insight into how this issue can be corrected for mutual respect to return as a social norm.
Introduction
Social media has become the dominant norm across society today as the newly formed “public square” for sharing ideas, opinions, and political grandstanding. As a result, the world is more interconnected than ever before. Correspondingly, the sociopsychological ramifications of social media platforms concerning the emotion of anger have interfered with mutual respect across society. This phenomenon is swiftly becoming an accepted learned behavior. In view of this, by combining the history of technology along with social psychology, and the sociology of technology, we can zero in on how anger interferes with mutual respect. Generally speaking, social media is driven by clicks/views which are scantily researched. Consequently, disinformation on these platforms evolves into propaganda to become the driving force behind the anger barrier producing conflict during the engagement of communication on the internet. Given these points, history, psychology, and sociology intertwine to form a triad of lens caps that are crucial to examining this rapidly growing process of dwindling mutual respect within the realm of communication. By and large, the purpose of this research is to examine how propaganda on social media platforms influences emotional anger within society.
Literature Review
Human behavior has developed along with advances in the applied sciences, but there is a continuing need for a careful examination of how anger interferes with mutual respect across society on social media platforms. When an engagement of information is read, shared, or commented on a virtually limitless number of individuals will feel some emotion. With this in mind, the missing links existing within current research fail to examine user perception of emotion over a five to ten year period. Therefore, it is incumbent to specifically address how communication engagement on social networking sites persuades the emotion, more specifically anger, over the course of a decade.
To begin with, the components of psychology provide a foundational basis for how communicative behavior morphs towards an influential state across various online platforms. Since the most successful social media apps and websites today pay special attention to allowing their users the most personalized customization options involving “favorites” and “emoticons” for an artificial approach to the expression of human emotion, case studies use these ingredients as foundations for research. As an example, in one study, Daniel Zeng and Wingyan Chung state that “the theory of emotion spread provided an established framework to track user emotions”(Zeng and Wingyan). To enumerate, Zeng and Chung mention their research examines “words along with connections to online posts to evaluate the emotion of individuals”(Zeng and Wingyan). All in all, the results of their study revealed that “negative emotions created a more influential presence versus those who demonstrated positive emotions when connected to various perspective lenses on the issue of border security” (Zeng and Wingyan)” It should be noted that, these results cannot be generalized due to the plethora of topics covered on these public forums, but it can be utilized to establish a pattern of anger forming with the intent to influence becoming a dominant social norm.
Moving forward, because the world of sports entertainment is one of the largest and most profitable across the globe, it is warranted to examine the emotional influence of anger in this area across social media. Michael Mudrick, Micheal Miller, and David Atkin (2016) conducted a study that utilized “social identity theory and concepts of impression management” to better analyze “sport-related social network posting behavior”(Atkin, Miller and Mudrick). This study found that “social media is indeed a functioning tool for devote sport lovers to interact with other individuals while sharing emotions within online platforms”(Atkin, Miller and Mudrick). In essence, the thrill of victory and the agonizing pain of defeat along with “trash talk” can bring out a blend of mixed emotions from fans on the internet. Kevin DeShazo states, “We’ve seen “fans” wish death upon athletes through Twitter, call them racial slurs, tell them they are horrible and should give up their scholarship, and any number of other criticisms you can imagine”(DeShazo). It is worth noting, the sports world consists of fans that generally already have chosen a player/team to root for so these outbursts of emotional anger are induced under precognitive circumstances through negative talk. Recognizing this division of opinion beforehand provides better insight to emotional anger growing to challenge mutual respect across the plethora of social media platforms in use today.
Shifting perspectives slightly, the component of news media on these public forums can also generate anger emotions as well. A study done by Thomas Zeitzoff examined “social media to monitor clashes between two opposing parties”(Zeitzoff). This particular analysis covered the “arena of communication on social networking sites during the conflict between Hamas and Israel in 2012” (Zeitzoff). The author goes on to mention the “amount of communication data on social media about the Gaza Conflict was incredibly large”(Zeitzoff). It is important to realize here that, just as in the previous case studies (the political issues of border security and sports) there are two opposing sides which take to social media to vent, and this essentially draws out emotional anger towards the opposing side. In other words, the state of anger intensifies within the online social media bubble while growing massively at the same time. According to Thomas Zeitzoff, “results of this study demonstrated that, these social platforms enhanced communication surrounding the Gaza Conflict, and played a vital part in terms of what information was published on social media”(Zeitzoff). With careful attention on the state of war already in play (Gaza Conflict), there is substance here for propaganda to spread into the equation of emotional anger between two sides that can grow exponentially through the “going viral” phenomenon on the internet. Furthermore, as both parties seek to essentially control what information is published on social media, the seed for emotional anger blossoms once deceptions have been proven to be invalid. By and large, this case study demonstrates that “social media can be utilized for illusionary purposes that drastically shift the playing field of emotional anger when two parties are engaged in an agitated state beforehand” (Zeitzoff). For this reason, the elements of “who” and “what” is determined as influential on social media platforms needs to be addressed so that delusory information will not manipulate the emotions of users to create a viral angry mob when hoaxes become mainstream.
Under this perspective lens, the article entitled, Online Influence? Social Media Use, Opinion Leadership, and Political Persuasion points out that “mass migration to social media has grown tremendously, and user accounts are beginning to publish their own news essentially challenging legacy media outlets” (Weeks, Ardèvol-Abreu and Gil de Zúñiga). It is worth noting here that, there is indeed a technological paradigm shift occurring across society which cannot be ignored as a contributing component of emotional anger. Weeks, Ardèvol-Abreu, & Gil de Zúñiga conducted a study which discovered that the “more social media engagement that an individual experienced brought out the self-belief of influence on these platforms” (Weeks, Ardèvol-Abreu and Gil de Zúñiga). Additionally, this study references the point that, “once an individual has the belief that they are influential, a need to feed this belief manifests itself within the individual across a variety of topics online” (Weeks, Ardèvol-Abreu and Gil de Zúñiga). Given these points, we are reminded that anyone with internet access can create content which is true or false while growing in influence on social media platforms. Generally speaking, the issue of anger online can become enhanced through these outlets giving just cause for analysis in this field.
Ultimately, the purpose of this literature review is to shed light on the sociopsychological ramifications of social media platforms regarding the emotion of anger interfering with mutual respect across society over a period of ten years. An analysis of how lies by proxy, lies by omission, and lies by structure spread on the internet is warranted in order to dissect the root of emotional anger on social media. While looking at these areas and case studies through a wide perspective lens, the ability to connect the gaps within the current research discussion can be accomplished. In this review, the factors of influence, categorization of emotion, anger in the sports world, usage of propaganda by two opposing sides, and how learned behavior can develop into an addictive spreading of emotion with the intent to influence were prominent elements in the realm of communication on social media. Overall, an interdisciplinary approach to examining the emotion of anger online can provide a closer more accurate analysis because the combination of history, psychology, and sociology should establish assuring results.
Methodology
To open, Zhao, Zhan, and Liu note, “Social media influence can be measured by four factors, including output (number of posts and longevity), reactive outtake (retweets, favorites, and size of followers), proactive outtake (mentions, replies, positive references), and network positioning (degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and PageRank)” (Zhao, Zhan, & Liu, 2018). By using these components as an arranged individual base, an examination of analytics from Twitter user reactions to news stories which have been corrected or retracted by the legacy media along with influential accounts can be inspected. To clarify, using this model will allow each of the aforementioned elements to specifically identify classified traits to define influential user accounts. For example, when a journalist shares breaking news on Twitter their influence can be categorized based upon user interactions. These user reactions can then be broken down further to identify how influential they are on Twitter based upon their engagement of communication with the original headline. In order to narrow this study to a specific lens, the topics of gun control and hate crimes reported on by the legacy media along with influential accounts will be reviewed between the years of 2008-2018. Additionally, to compile this data within the element of emotion, the BOSSET model developed by Wingyan Chung and Daniel Zeng will be incorporated. Chung and Zeng mention “they were able to categorize emotions from tweets, and compile them into an infographic of data” (Zeng and Wingyan).
Ultimately, combing these two frameworks will provide a categorized series of tabulated data that will demonstrate how emotion impacts mutual respect across society through engagement on Twitter when disinformation is published by influential accounts. Since millions of people use this social media platform to express their emotions and communicate on a plethora of topics, it is warranted as a foundational research model. In brief, the final results will be demonstrated using both qualitative and quantitative data in order for them to be compared in an objective fashion regarding how emotion challenges mutual respect. Overall, the factors of online influence along with categorized emotions will be presented in an interactive algorithmic flowchart that will illustrate patterns of tweets related to a specific human feeling when propaganda stories enter the social media realm.
Rationale
Exposure to legacy media programming has an enormous impact on the human behavior known as subsequent judgment because media outlets wield the power to influence. By the same token, consumers control media through the engagement process of reciprocal communication. Additionally, the media that is created, directed, and produced is based on events that happen in reality. With this in mind, the effect of the ability of news media to choose what events get covered along with how they are covered directly correlates to ratings which are based upon the public’s reciprocal communication with these outlets. Kimberly Meltzer noted in her study that, “many journalists generally convey some interest regarding the advancing of civility within society in their articles” (Meltzer, 2014).
With this in mind, 2007-2008 was the genesis of social media which has now evolved into a public platform that encourages a lack of research and the spreading of contagious disinformation through communication on the web today. This learned behavior now even exists in journalistic ethics. In the article entitled, Associated Press Endorses ‘Accountability Journalism’ Susan Dulcos mentions that, “The new ethics are called “accountability journalism,” and the new bureau chief, Ron Fournier, believes that the conventional press model, where both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight, is exactly what journalists need to avoid” (Dulcos). Ultimately, accountability journalism clearly eliminates objectivity from mainstream media. In addition to this, it also removes the previously mentioned element of “civility” within news articles. It is for this reason that, the sociopsychological ramifications of social media platforms regarding the emotion of anger interfering with mutual respect across society adamantly needs to be examined. Propaganda can directly influence anger, and the legacy media can persuade society into believing what they see at first glance with these new ethics while leaving out elements of research and immersion unless attention is brought to this issue. In short, the spread of anger across social media has contaminated journalistic ethics and human behavior. As this bubble continues to expand, this case study will present patterns of engaging communication online with the hope that a return to civil discussions can take place allowing for the reestablishment of mutual respect.
Conclusion
In closing, in order to properly examine the repercussions of emotional anger spreading across social media, the literature review demonstrates that length of time was the largest gap in current research. To resolve this, within the methodology an explanation involving the key components of identifying social media influence is the proper foundation to start closing this missing link. In addition to this, the rationale connects the spreading of anger online to these influential accounts along with a newly established framework for journalistic ethics. The central focus of this research proposal is to properly identify the human emotion of anger on social networks so that mutual respect can be a restored characteristic amongst human behavior throughout society.
Works Cited
Atkin, David, Michael Miller and Michael Mudrick. “The influence of social media on fan reactionary behaviors.” Telematics and Informatics 33.4 (2016): 896-903. <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0736585315300691>.
DeShazo, Kevin. 4 ways student athletes can deal with haters on social media. 24 November 2014. <http://www.fieldhousemedia.net/4-ways-student-athletes-can-deal-with-haters-on-social-media/>.
Dulcos, Susan. Associated Press Endorses ‘Accountability Journalism’. 14 July 2008. <http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/257410>.
John, Royal. OU Fan Boy: When Tweeting Backfires. 1 December 2011. <https://www.cowboysrideforfree.com/2011/12/1/2601775/Matt-Lynch-tweet-OU-Oklahoma-State-Bedlam>.
Meltzer, Kimberly. “Journalistic Concern about Uncivil Political Talk in Digital News Media: Responsibility, Credibility, and Academic Influence.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 20.1 (2014): 85-107. <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1940161214558748>.
Weeks, Brian E., Alberto Ardèvol-Abreu and Homero Gil de Zúñiga. “Online Influence? Social Media Use, Opinion Leadership, and Political Persuasion.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29.2 (2017): 214-239. <https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article-abstract/29/2/214/2981869>.
Zeitzoff, Thomas. “Does Social Media Influence Conflict? Evidence from the 2012 Gaza Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 62.1 (2018): 29-63. <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002716650925>.
Zeng, Daniel and Chung Wingyan. “Dissecting emotion and user influence in social media communities: An interaction modeling approach.” Information & Management (2018). <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720617309229>.
Zhao, Xinyan, Mengqi Zhan and Brooke F. Liuc. “Disentangling social media influence in crises: Testing a four-factor model of social media influence with large data.” Public Relations Review 44.4 (2018): 549-561. <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0363811118302066>.
