In contrast to earlier studies that focus on virality, we examine how individuals share controversial news online by accounting for audience features. The results from surveys of 400 individuals suggest that they are more likely to share highly controversial news (a) on open, asymmetrical social media or (b) with communication partners with a low frequency rather than a high frequency, but are more likely to share moderately controversial news (c) on closed, symmetrical social media. This study implies that interpersonal motives determine the online path of controversial news and that media environments play unique roles in moderating and spreading controversies in society.
BaumeisterR. F. (1982). Self-esteem, self-presentation, and future interaction: A dilemma of reputation. Journal of Personality, 50, 29-45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1982.tb00743.x
2.
BaumeisterR. F.HuttonD. G. (1987). Self-presentation theory: Self-construction and audience pleasing. In MullenB.GoethalsG. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 71-87). New York, NY: Springer.
3.
BaymN. K.boydd. (2012). Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 320-329. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.705200
4.
BergerJ.MilkmanK. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?. Journal of marketing research, 49(2), 192-205.
5.
BergerJ.SchwartzE. M. (2011). What drives immediate and ongoing word of mouth?Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 869-880. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.5.869
6.
BobkowskiP. S. (2015). Sharing the news: Effects of informational utility and opinion leadership on online news sharing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 320-345.
7.
BrownB. R.GarlandH. (1971). The effects of incompetency, audience acquaintanceship, and anticipated evaluative feedback on face-saving behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 490-502. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(71)90011-4
8.
BrownJ.ReingenP. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 350-362. doi:10.1086/209118
9.
CappellaJ. N.KimH. S.AlbarracínD. (2015). Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: Psychological motives and message characteristics. Media Psychology, 18, 396-424. doi:10.1080/15213269.2014.941112
10.
ChenZ.BergerJ. (2013). When, why, and how controversy causes conversation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 580-593. doi:10.1086/671465
11.
ChoiB.LeeI. (2017). Trust in open versus closed social media: The relative influence of user-and marketer-generated content in social network services on customer trust. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 550-559.
12.
ChoiM.TomaC. L. (2014). Social sharing through interpersonal media: Patterns and effects on emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 530-541.
13.
ChuS. C. (2009). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30, 47-75. doi:10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075
14.
CookE. C.TeasleyS. D. (2011, February). Beyond promotion and protection: Creators, audiences and common ground in user-generated media. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (pp. 41-47). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1940761.1940767
15.
DasS.KramerA. (2013). Self-censorship on Facebook. In Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 120–127). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
16.
FlanaginA. J. (2017). Online social influence and the convergence of mass and interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 43, 450-463. doi:10.1111/hcre.12116
17.
FranceM. K.FinneyS. J.SwerdzewskiP. (2010). Students’ group and member attachment to their university: A construct validity study of the University Attachment Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 440-458. doi:10.1177/0013164409344510
18.
Gil de ZúñigaH. G.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 17, 319-336. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
19.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
20.
GovernJ. M.MarschL. A. (2001). Development and validation of the situational self-awareness scale. Consciousness and Cognition, 10, 366-378. doi:10.1006/ccog.2001.0506
21.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. doi:10.1086/225469
22.
HoggM. A.TerryD. J.WhiteK. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-269. doi:10.2307/2787127
23.
IhmJ.KimE. M. (2018). The hidden side of news diffusion: Understanding online news sharing as an interpersonal behavior. New Media & Society, 20, 4346-4365. doi:10.1177/1461444818772847
KimE. M.IhmJ.ParkH. A. (2017). News sharing as relational communication: Focusing on self-presentation tendency and characteristics of sharing audiences. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 31, 114-151.
27.
KimC.LeeJ. K. (2016). Social media type matters: Investigating the relationship between motivation and online social network heterogeneity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(4), 676-693.
28.
KimJ.WyattR. O.KatzE. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361-385. doi:10.1080/105846099198541
LeeC. (2013). Self-presentation and WOM: Focusing on mediating role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Korean Management Review, 42, 183-211.
33.
LinR.UtzS. (2015). The emotional responses of browsing Facebook: Happiness, envy, and the role of tie strength. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 29-38.
34.
LittE. (2012). Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 330-345. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.705195
35.
LittE.HargittaiE. (2016). The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media + Society, 2(1), 1-12.
36.
MaL.LeeC. S.GohD. H. L. (2014). Understanding news sharing in social media: An explanation from the diffusion of innovations theory. Online Information Review, 38, 598-615. doi:10.1108/OIR-10-2013-0239
37.
MarsdenP. V.CampbellK. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63, 482-501.
38.
MarwickA. E.boydD. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114-133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313
NeumanW. R. (2016). The digital difference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
NewcombT. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
42.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Education at a glance 2016: OECD indicators. Paris, France: Author.
43.
ShirkyC. (2010). Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators. New York: The Penguin Press.
44.
StephenA. T.LehmannD. R. (2009). Why do people transmit word-of-mouth? The effects of recipient and relationship characteristics on transmission behaviors (Working paper). New York, NY: Columbia University.
45.
TrillingD.TolochkoP.BurscherB. (2017). From newsworthiness to shareworthiness: How to predict news sharing based on article characteristics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94, 38-60.
46.
TurnerJ. C.OnoratoR. S. (1999). Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorization perspective. In TylerT. R.KramerR. M.JohnO. P. (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 11-46). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
VosoughiS.RoyD.AralS. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146-1151. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559
48.
WaltherJ. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001
49.
WaltherJ. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 443-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
50.
WaltherJ. B.ValkenburgP. M. (2017). Merging mass and interpersonal communication via interactive communication technology: A symposium. Human Communication Research, 43, 415-423. doi:10.1111/hcre.12120
51.
WaterlooS. F.BaumgartnerS. E.PeterJ.ValkenburgP. M. (2018). Norms of online expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. New Media & Society, 20, 1813-1831.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
