Advisor Information
Chin Chung Chao
Location
Criss Library Room 231
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Start Date
1-3-2019 2:15 PM
End Date
1-3-2019 3:15 PM
Abstract
Today’s political climate is marked by a polarized citizenry and widespread use of social media for politically-charged exchanges. It can be difficult to discern whether posts that demonstrate an extreme position on face value intended the message to be parody or whether the author expressed sincerely held beliefs. In an online Creationism debate, a user summarized this difficulty with, “Poe’s Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is [utterly] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake [it] for the genuine article.” Studies have shown people are more inclined to use elements of parody in social networking sites, introducing ambiguity, leaving it to readers to interpret meaning and the credibility of the source. Interpretation of ambiguous messages taking extreme positions on polarizing content has been shown to be influenced by factors such as political affiliation, and this interpretation process may have a polarizing effect. These findings indicate that “Poe’s Law” may not be so obvious, however, it may help us understand polarization online. This quantitative study will analyze the responses to an ambiguous online posting of polarizing content demonstrating an extreme position to determine whether there is a relationship between an individual’s interpretation of the credibility of the source and of the content, and their opinion relative to the interpreted meaning. It will be a first step in examining the validity of “Poe’s Law.”
Abiding by Poe's Law? How Users Interpret Ambiguous Messages of Polarizing Content Posted on Social Networking Sites
Criss Library Room 231
Today’s political climate is marked by a polarized citizenry and widespread use of social media for politically-charged exchanges. It can be difficult to discern whether posts that demonstrate an extreme position on face value intended the message to be parody or whether the author expressed sincerely held beliefs. In an online Creationism debate, a user summarized this difficulty with, “Poe’s Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is [utterly] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake [it] for the genuine article.” Studies have shown people are more inclined to use elements of parody in social networking sites, introducing ambiguity, leaving it to readers to interpret meaning and the credibility of the source. Interpretation of ambiguous messages taking extreme positions on polarizing content has been shown to be influenced by factors such as political affiliation, and this interpretation process may have a polarizing effect. These findings indicate that “Poe’s Law” may not be so obvious, however, it may help us understand polarization online. This quantitative study will analyze the responses to an ambiguous online posting of polarizing content demonstrating an extreme position to determine whether there is a relationship between an individual’s interpretation of the credibility of the source and of the content, and their opinion relative to the interpreted meaning. It will be a first step in examining the validity of “Poe’s Law.”