As a combination of television viewing and social media use, social TV epitomizes the intersection of mass communication and interpersonal communication. However, it remains unknown how such a novel format of media experience influences the agenda-setting effects. A lab experiment (N = 120) examined (a) how user-to-user interactions in social TV (i.e. real-time comments from virtual co-viewers) affect the agenda-setting process and (b) how such effect is moderated by different interface types (e.g. all-in-one screen vs a second screen). Results suggest that participants who watched a news clip that featured many (vs few) comments from virtual co-viewers perceived the issue to be more important, but such effect was at work only when user comments were viewed on the second screen. In addition, exposure to many (vs few) comments decreased participants’ satisfaction with social TV and their intention to use social TV in the future.
AlthausSLTewksburyD (2002) Agenda-setting and the “new” news: patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York Times. Communication Research29(2): 180–207.
2.
Bar-AnanYLibermanNTropeY (2006) The association between psychological distance and construal level: evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General135(4): 609–622.
3.
BellmanSRobinsonJAWooleyB, et al. (2017) The effects of social TV on television advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications23(1): 73–91.
4.
BhattacherjeeA (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly25(3): 351–370.
CesarPKnocheHBultermanDC (2010) From one to many boxes: mobile devices as primary and secondary screens. In: MarcusARoibásACSalaR (eds) Mobile TV: Customizing Content and Experience. London: Springer, pp. 327–348.
7.
ChungM (2017) Not just numbers: the role of social media metrics in online news evaluations. Computers in Human Behavior75: 949–957.
8.
ChungMLimYS (2020) When health organization answers the question: differential effects of dialogic messages in website and Twitter through social presence and psychological distance. Health Communication. Epub ahead of print 26 December. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1864098.
9.
ChungMMunnoGJMoritzB (2015) Triggering participation: exploring the effects of third-person and hostile media perceptions on online participation. Computers in Human Behavior53: 452–461.
10.
ConlinLRobertsC (2016) Presence of online reader comments lowers news site credibility. Newspaper Research Journal37(4): 365–376.
11.
FiedlerKJungJWänkeM, et al. (2012) On the relations between distinct aspects of psychological distance: an ecological basis of construal-level theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology48(5): 1014–1021.
12.
FujitaKHendersonMDEndJ, et al. (2006) Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science17(4): 278–282.
13.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Bbased Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
14.
HendersonMDFujitaKTropeY, et al. (2006) Transcending the “here”: the effect of spatial distance on social judgment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology91(5): 845–856.
15.
HoustonJBHansenGJNisbettGS (2011) Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News5(2): 79–92.
16.
IyengarSKinderD (1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
JacksonSJFoucault WellesB (2015) Hijacking #myNYPD: social media dissent and networked counterpublics. Journal of Communication65(6): 932–952.
18.
JangYJLeeEJ (2017) Effects of others’ comments and moderation of site managers and journalists on public opinion perception and opinion change. Ehwa Journal of Social Sciences33(1): 337–416.
19.
KatzELazarsfeldPF (1955) Personal Influence. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
20.
KatzSJByrneSKentAI (2017) Mitigating the perception of threat to freedom through abstraction and distance. Communication Research44(7): 1046–1069.
21.
KimJNanX (2019) Temporal framing effects differ for narrative versus nonnarrative messages the case of promoting HPV vaccination. Communication Research46(3): 401–417.
22.
KimJMerrillJKYangH (2019) Why we make the choices we do: social TV viewing experiences and the mediating role of social presence. Telematics and Informatics45: 101281.
23.
LabrooAALambotteSZhangY (2009) The “name-ease” effect and its dual impact on importance judgments. Psychological Science20(12): 1516–1522.
24.
LasorsaDLWantaW (1990) Effects of personal, interpersonal and media experiences on issue salience. Journalism Quarterly67: 804–813.
LeeEJShinSY (2012) Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking15(10): 515–520.
27.
LeeEJJangYJChungM (2021) When and how user comments affect news readers’ personal opinion: perceived public opinion and perceived news position as mediators. Digital Journalism9(1): 42–63.
28.
LeeSJ (2019) The role of construal level in message effects research: a review and future directions. Communication Theory29(3): 319–338.
29.
LimJSHwangYKimS, et al. (2015) How social media engagement leads to sports channel loyalty: mediating roles of social presence and channel commitment. Computers in Human Behavior46: 158–167.
30.
LippmannW (1922) Public Opinion. New York: The Free Press.
31.
LuoYBurleyHMoeA, et al. (2018) A meta-analysis of news media’s public agenda-setting effects, 1972-2015. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly96(1): 150–172.
32.
McCombsMEShawDL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36(2): 176–187.
33.
MendelsohnM (1996) The media and interpersonal communications: the priming of issues, leaders, and party identification. The Journal of Politics58: 112–125.
34.
MuddimanAPond-CobbJMatsonJE (2020) Negativity bias or backlash: interaction with civil and uncivil online political news content. Communication Research47(6): 815–837.
O’SullivanPBCarrCT (2018) Masspersonal communication: a model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media & Society20(3): 1161–1180.
37.
ProchazkaFWeberPSchweigerW (2018) Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies19(1): 62–78.
38.
ReichZ (2011) User comments: the transformation of participatory space. In: SingerJBHermidaADomingoD, et al. (eds) Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 96–117.
39.
RobertsMWantaWDzwoTH (2002) Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research29(4): 452–465.
40.
RuizCDomingoDMicóJL, et al. (2011) Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. International Journal of Press/Politics16(4): 463–487.
41.
ScheufeleDATewksburyD (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication57: 9–20.
42.
ShinDH (2012) 3DTV as a social platform for communication and interaction. Information Technology & People25(1): 55–80.
43.
SimonHA (1954) Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions. Public Opinion Quarterly18(3): 245–253.
44.
SingerJB (2009) Separate spaces: discourse about the 2007 Scottish elections on a national newspaper web site. International Journal of Press/Politics14(4): 477–496.
45.
SoderbergCKCallahanSPKochersbergerAO, et al. (2015) The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin141(3): 525–548.
46.
TropeYLibermanN (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review117(2): 440–463.
47.
WaddellTF (2018) What does the crowd think? How online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance. New Media & Society20(8): 3068–3083.
48.
WantaWAlkazemiMF (2017) Agenda-setting: history and research tradition. In: RösslerPHoffnerCAVan ZoonenL (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–14.
49.
WantaWWuYC (1992) Interpersonal communication and the agenda-setting process. Journalism Quarterly69(4): 847–855.
50.
WeaverDHZhuJHWillnatL (1992) The bridging function of interpersonal communication in agenda-setting. Journalism Quarterly69(4): 856–867.
51.
WeberP (2014) Discussions in the comments section: factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society16(6): 941–957.
52.
WhiteKMacDonnellRDahlDW (2011) It’s the mind-set that matters: the role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research48(3): 472–485.
53.
YangJStoneG (2003) The powerful role of interpersonal communication in agenda setting. Mass Communication and Society6(1): 57–74.
54.
ZhuJHWattJHSnyderLB, et al. (1993) Public issue priority formation: media agenda-setting and social interaction. Journal of Communication43(1): 8–29.
55.
ZiegeleMBreinerTQuiringO (2014) What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news items. Journal of Communication64(6): 1111–1138.
