Search

With the increasing availability of big digital voter data, there are rising concerns that online political micro-targeting (PMT) may be harmful for democratic societies. However, PMT may also be beneficial to democracy because it targets voters with content that matches with their predispositions, potentially increasing political interest. For both, harmful and beneficial outcomes of PMT, we lack empirical evidence on the side of citizens. In a two-wave panel survey study, we tested the reciprocal relationships over time between perceived online PMT, trust in democracy, and political interest. We found that perceived online PMT leads to a decrease of trust in democracy, but also to an increase in political interest. The effect on political interest was independent from age. No reciprocal effects of trust in democracy and political interest on perceived PMT were observed. Overall, the results suggest that the democratic implications of PMT are more nuanced than previously assumed.

Even though there are growing concerns about the increasing hostility toward scientists, there is a lack of systematic research on its consequences. Specifically, the increased visibility of harassment through social media might already have negative effects. To fill this gap, this research project (“Effects of Witnessing Harassments Against Scientists”) entails two experimental studies that investigate the effects of witnessing harassment attacks against scientists on scientists (study 1) and on the general public (study 2: https://osf.io/uhvmk/?view_only=ce595c9b5ba94cd6a2cfe81a4563dc97 ), with a specific focus on the role of gender. This pre-registration presents the hypotheses, design, sampling plan, variables, and analysis plan for study 1: an online survey experiment with a sample of Austrian scientists. It also reports the measurement of two variables (i.e., “perceived harmfulness of attack” & “intervention intention”, that will be analyzed as part of study 2 (https://osf.io/uhvmk/?view_only=ce595c9b5ba94cd6a2cfe81a4563dc97 ).

The following study was conducted in the context of a state election in a Middle European country. The aim of the study was to learn about how individuals employ different forms of avoidance behaviors to circumvent targeted political advertising. We share our data set to enable the direct replication of our findings.

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-crx-10.1177_00936502221130840 for Living is Easy With Eyes Closed: Avoidance of Targeted Political Advertising in Response to Privacy Concerns, Perceived Personalization, and Overload by Marlis Stubenvoll, Alice Binder, Selina Noetzel, Melanie Hirsch and Jörg Matthes in Communication Research

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, in early 2020, lockdowns limited the options for physical intimacy and many resorted to technology-mediated forms of intimacy such as sexting. However, it is unclear what predicted willingness to engage in sexting during the lockdown. The present study filled this gap by investigating COVID-19-related social isolation, privacy concerns, age, and gender as predictors of willingness to engage in sexting. We further examined an interaction of COVID-19-related social isolation and privacy concerns on willingness to engage in sexting. We conducted online surveys with 494 young adults (Study 1) and with a quota-based sample of 437 adults (Study 2) in Austria. In both studies, negative binomial regressions revealed a positive effect of COVID-19-related social isolation on willingness to engage in sexting. Privacy concerns hindered young adults in Study 1 from engaging in sexting but not relatively older adults in Study 2. However, in neither study did privacy concerns moderate the effect of COVID-19-related social isolation on willingness to engage in sexting: Even individuals with high privacy concerns were more willing to sext under conditions of social isolation, suggesting that the need for intimacy outweighed the need for privacy protection. Gender had no effect in either study, indicating that men and women used sexting to cope with the unprecedented COVID-19-related situation.

Was macht das Fernsehen mit uns? Diese Frage wurde schon von George Gerbner im Jahr 1969 gestellt. Viele Aspekte wurden in diesem Bereich bereits erforscht, jedoch kommen immer weitere Forschungsmöglichkeiten ans Licht. Vor allem bei dem Thema illegale Drogen im Fernsehen, scheint sich hierbei ein neuer Forschungsaspekt aufzuzeigen, da dieses Thema in den Medien, als auch in der realen Welt, eine wichtige Rolle einnimmt. Die Kultivierungstheorie geht in diesem Zusammenhang davon aus, dass aufgrund des erhöhten Fernsehkonsums durch das Fernsehen vermittelte Antworten ausgelöst werden. In dieser Studie wird angenommen, dass durch die Fernsehserie Breaking Bad die Einstellung zu illegalen Drogen verändert wird und die Intention, diese auch wirklich in der realen Welt zu konsumieren, steigt. Dabei wird zwischen Non Viewers, Light Viewers und Heavy Viewers unterschieden. Um diesem Forschungsinteresse nachzugehen, wurde ein Online-Fragebogen konzipiert, bei dem N=359 Personen teilnahmen. Dabei wurde gezeigt, dass Heavy Viewers der Serie den Mean-World-Index signifikant geringer einschätzen und auch die prozentualle Einschätzung der Crystal Meth-KonsumentInnen deutlich geringer ist als die der Non Viewers. Des Weiteren wurde deutlich, dass die Intention die Droge, Crystal Meth zu konsumieren, bei einem häufigen Sehen der Serie signifikant ansteigt. In diesem Bereich ist es jedoch wichtig, noch weitere Forschung zu betreiben, da sich kaum eine Studie mit dem Fernsehkonsum in Bezug auf das Verhalten in der realen Welt auseinandersetzt., What does television do to us? In 1969 this question was first reported by George Gerbner. Since that time several studies took place but there are still numerous aspects we still do not know about this phenomenon. Thus there is space for new findings. Illegal drugs are an important theme in real life but also in television context. Thus there are still no studies about illegal drugs and television consumption. The Cultivation theory assumes that the more people watch television the more they tend to answer similar to the television content. This study assumes that watching Breaking Bad leads to a different attitude to illegal drugs. Furthermore, people who watch this series tend to be more likely to take these drugs. Participants are divided in Non Viewers, Light Viewers and Heavy Viewers to verify this supposed transformation . An online questionnaire was conducted to check this hypothesis. 359 participants took part. The findings show that Heavy Viewers tend to rate the Mean-World Index lower than Non Viewers. Moreover Heavy Viewers estimate the number of Crystal Meth consumers significantly lower than Non Viewers. Another test shows that Heavy Viewers are more likely to consume Crystal Meth than Non Viewers. Nevertheless, more research is necessary to gain further insights in this yet underresearched field.