SocialMediaandPoliticalExpressionRoderickandPryde

Running head: SOCIAL MEDIA AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION 1
Social Media and Political Expression: Latitude of Acceptance
Emma Roderick and Taylor Pryde
Aquinas College

SOCIAL MEDIA AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION 2
Social Media Political Expression and Latitude of Acceptance Size
The growth of social media as a communication outlet serves as an opportunity for the
academic world to explore the effects of this social phenomenon on its consumers. Our research
seeks to address how political conversation occurs within the sphere of social media
communication. We recognize that political expression is an important part of the American
political system. Our research grapples with the relationship between social media consumption
and its connection/correlation to politics and political positions of individuals. This study seeks
to further expand on the effects of social media and to open doors in academic thought and
conversation on politics and social media. This paper will present the research question we
studied, a review of the relevant literature in the field, the research hypothesis, the research
methods utilized, the results of the conducted research, and a discussion of the limitations,
implications, and future potential for continued exploration of the topic.
Chapter One: Statement of the Problem
Significance of the Research:
The study examines the correlation between social media usage in political expression
and the level to which someone is established in their political views. This study attempts to
understand the relationship between social media usage and political discourse.
With the recent influx of social media usage, our study combines the measure of others’
latitude of acceptance in politics while also addressing the relationship to this new age form of
communication. Latitude of acceptance is a term that describes the range of ideas that a person
accepts as reasonable or worthy of consideration. We chose to apply this method of measuring
one’s position based off a study from 1961 by Sherif and Hovland. Our own study looked to

address whether or not using social media for political expression had diminished our ability to
have an open mind and engage in positive discussion around the issues of politics. This is
important to be aware of so that as responsible citizens and social media users we can
responsibly engage in open minded conversations and contribute to a culture of respect, free
speech, and democracy.
ResearchQuestion
Our research question was born after a Political Science professor asked our class
whether or not we felt that social media usage has hindered our ability to have an open mind
when discussing politics. We formulated the research question (RQ): Is there a relationship
between social media usage and the latitude of acceptance participants exhibit in political
discussion. We focused our study on traditional college age students at Aquinas College (18-24
year olds). We looked to see whether our subjects used social media at all focusing on four major
social media outlets: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest. We then asked subjects the
extent to which they used these outlets for political expression. An example of a question we
posed to the participants is: “do you share or post political articles or statuses on your personal
Facebook page?” With the options of yes, frequently/ sometimes/ rarely/ no, never. The survey
instrument we developed intended to analyze the social media usage using Sherif and Hovland’s
Ordered Alternatives questionnaire that they had developed in 1961. Sherif and Hovland made
this instrument to test individual’s latitude of acceptance within politics so we felt this was an
appropriate instrument to add to our own research to measure how an individual’s latitude of
acceptance is influenced by social media usage. The analysis of these two variables seeking to
illuminate the relationship between social media usage and political attitudes and stances so as a

community of social media users we can move forward in having healthy communication in all
aspects of discourse.
Review of Literature
The literature that we have decided to focus on covers a wide array of topics such as; the
hostile media effect, Judgment and Decision Making (JDM) and the Ordered Alternatives
Questionnaire. Many of them are directly applicable and some of them are simply linked to our
research, but more-so serve the purpose of showing other variables that could be looked at for
future research. Since we could not find literature that directly looked at what we decided to
research, we had to go about our literature review in a bit of a roundabout way. From looking at
how opinionated news affects a person's world view, to the hostile media effect, we have learned
a great deal about the topic in general and it gave us a good launching point when we started our
research.
Briley, Shrum & Wyer (2013) performed research dealing with television and Internet
use consumption and a person’s perception of reality. The researchers analyzed advertisements
as well as regular televisions programs (including but not limited to news broadcasts). The
researchers investigated the motivational factors that would follow either on-line (television as
well as the internet) or memory based processes. The conclusions drawn were that with our
media saturated world, a person has trouble distinguishing what is true news and what could best
be categorized as sensationalist media. This poses a particular problem to politicians who are
trying to give their constituents an accurate idea of what they are doing for them.
This article closely relates to our own research as it deals with judgment formation in
relation to the news that people consume. The “news” we were interested in just happened to be

found on social media, and just like the sensationalist/ opinionated news that Briley, Shrum &
Wyer (2013) were focusing on, the “news” found on social media could come from questionable
sources. Such unreliability could result in a polarizing effect, thereby lessening a person's
latitude of acceptance.
We continued our reading linked to opinionated news sources and the alteration of a
person's worldview with the Feldman (2011) article. Feldman expresses concern over the
polarizing effects opinionated news has had on the public's perception of what is happening in
the world. Feldman also states that the polarizing effects of this type of opinionated news could
contribute to audience members watching news programs that only feed their previously held
opinions, thus strengthening such views. Feldman’s 437 sample size was adequate, but there
could always be more participants. Her procedure was unique and challenged the participants to
think critically about how they learn from news. Feldman's conclusions were that opinionated
news exercises a negative direct effect on learning, although she could not determine why.
Next we read another article by Feldman (2009), with the limited research that is
available in our subject area we did not feel right about not including this research article. Again
Feldman looks into the growth of opinionated news and how it could have a polarizing effect in
regards to public perception. In this article, Feldman specifically labels overtly opinionated news
networks such as MSNBC and CNN. An online survey was performed over a three-day period
and all subjects were randomly assigned a differently biased news video (neutral, far-left & far-
right) on the same topic. Then different issues (partisanship, information processing and attitude
change) were studied through focused response questions. The results demonstrated that in the
non-opinionated news source there was a balance of positive and negative thoughts. Whereas
with the biased videos there was a significant increase in source-resistant processing. This is an

important article for our research as it's findings support the hypothesis that polarization is not
just an abstract concept, but markedly affects how a person views their world. Reading this piece
reinforced our confidence in the validity of social media as a topic
The article by Hansen, G. J., & Kim, H. (2011), introduced us to the concept of the
hostile media effect (HME). Hansen and Kim suggest HME as a possible cause for some of the
biased postings on social media. The HME is defined as the feeling that individuals have when it
is perceived that the news coverage is biased against them, their “side” of an issue. Hansen and
Kim take an empirical look into how the hostile media effect could be contributing to a growing
divide in political biases. They conclude that the hostile media effect has a moderate effect size
when looking at its involvement in how people view media that does not align with their political
views. This article is not as closely linked to our idea as the Feldman (2011), (2009) or Briley,
Shrum & Wyer (2013), but it still touched on the idea surrounding polarization due to overtly
opinionated news outlets. We believe that the concept of HME would be an interesting angle to
take if we had the opportunity to continue our research in the future.
The question posed in the article by Obar, J.A, Zube, P & Lampe, C. (2012) was if social
media could promote civic engagement and collective action. This is the idea that keeps
advocacy groups going, and Obar, Zube and Lampe seeking to find out if this is true. This study
surveyed advocacy groups to document how frequently they use social media to reach out to
potential supporters and how much they rely on social media as a tool. The results were that the
bigger the organization, the more likely it is to actually employ people to operate their social
media sites. Additionally, larger organizations are more reliant on social media as a way to
engage with the public.

This was another article that we thought supported our idea that social media is an
important tool for political groups. Obar, Zube & Lampe’s research indicates that large scale
political organizations rely heavily on social media; consequently social media is saturated with
political articles and content.
The study done by Lueders, Hall, Pennington & Knutson (2014) investigated if the
Interpersonal Perception Task and the Social Skills Inventory could be associated with how
accurately a person can interpret judgments made on social media. This research is important
because it gives a good idea as to how swayed a person could be when they are not given the full
scope of an issue at hand, much like how sensational media interprets news stories. This is a
qualitative research article and the researchers concluded that given limited information, people
were not able to create an accurate judgment of another person using social media.
Plaisier and Konijn (2012) sought to understand how adolescents experience peer-
pressure and rejection when it comes to social media. We thought this was a relevant piece of
information since a future study could focus on different age groups, including teenagers, in
regards to how frequently they take a political position in social media relative to their latitude of
acceptance. This study looks into how peer-rejection on social media could inhibit a teenager’s
likelihood of posting on social media. Plaisier and Konijn (2012) discusses how social media
often portrays highly antisocial behavior and how being (or not being) accepted by their peers
can alter their social media consumption. Anti-social media behavior was indicated to be linked
to viewing content on social media that can be seen as reckless and/or irresponsible (drug use,
fighting, bullying, reckless driving etc.) It is stated in this study that adolescents that are rejected
by their peers can more easily fall into a pattern of antisocial behavior. The researchers also used
a Likert-type scale in their instrument, the same as we used in our instrument. It was found that

males in the study showed a stronger preference to anti-social media content than the females
did. While their results were only slightly correlated, the idea that peer-rejection could have such
an impact on social media behavior could be an interesting future study connection as our initial
research question was interested in anti-social communication in general and was then narrowed
down to looking at the latitude of acceptance of participants.
In the research done by Reid (2012) HME was again discussed. Reid gathered data from
news stations that were generally right leaning, generally left leaning and a neutral news
broadcasts. Reid performed several empirical studies and came to the conclusion that people
perceive media that leans against their views to be hostile because they are so partisan that any
contradiction is seen as aggressive toward their opinion. This is due to the level of sensationalism
that runs rampant in partisan news broadcasts. We believe that this research helps drive home the
point that sensationalist media can alter how a person consumes media and how polarizing such
a system can become.
The research done by Wegener, Petty, Blankenship, & Detweiler-Bedell (2010) takes an
empirical look at how and why anchoring techniques can be used in research. They particularly
look at how anchoring can be looked at in conjunction with Judgment and Decision Making
(JDM). They have concluded that numerical anchoring when it comes to JDM can give a better
understanding as to why an individual thinks in a certain way, but also be able to assume future
decisions that a person would be likely to make. Attitudinal anchors can be a key element in
understanding and learning about biases.
Since we used the ordered alternatives questionnaire (OAQ) we used the questionnaire as
a knowledge base of how and why anchoring techniques are used in research was a good choice.

This article gave us the idea to use the OAQ to find out our subject’s latitude of acceptance and
using that to decide how opinionated our subjects were in correlation to the amount of political
stimuli they interact with online. We were originally going to try and use anchoring techniques to
understand how opinionated our subjects were, but upon further thought we decided to go with
the latitude of acceptance instead. Looking at one’s attitudinal anchor could further help us
understand the relationship between social media expression and political stances even though it
was not the dependent variable we chose to look at.
Lastly, Chan (2015) completed quantitative research asking how online political
participation translated into real life political participation. Some examples of political action
could be active voting, publicly supporting/opposing a political candidate/proposition or
participating in a political rally. We found the survey questions helpful in understanding political
participation in the process of creating our instrument. These researchers surveyed 176
undergraduate students from several local Hong Kong universities. They answered questions
based on their average social media use and how it could be linked to political participation.
They used a Likert-type scale and each participant answered twenty-two questions. They
concluded that social pressure was the main factor (out of the four that were explored) that
encouraged participants of the study to physically participate in politics. Since our dependent
variable is the use of social media as a political platform it made sense to use this article, as
posting political stimuli on a social media site is considered by Chan to be political participation.
Summary. Our literature reflects a wide range of topics encompassing various factors
related to our research question. Some of our literature pointed out specific evidence supporting
our idea that polarizing news could impact the world view of the consumer, and this idea lead us
to our final research question. Others were the stepping-stones we needed as new researchers in

need of direction. Over all our literature helped us gain the confidence to pick a direction and go
find our answers.
Statement of the ResearchHypothesis and Null Hypothesis:
H1 : For traditional age college students, the more they report using social media as
political platforms, the smaller their identified latitude of acceptance regarding their political
stances.
H0: For traditional age college students, there is no relationship between reported use of
social media as political platforms and the size of their identified latitude of acceptance regarding
their political stances.
The independent variable (IV) for our study was the reported use of social media as a
political platform. Our dependent variable (DV) dealt with the identified size of the subject’s
latitude of acceptance regarding general political stances. We gained knowledge of our subject’s
latitude of acceptance using the Ordered Alternatives questionnaire. We anticipated a negative
correlation between the subject’s latitude of acceptance and their reported use of social media as
a political platform.
Chapter Two: Methodology
ResearchDesign
Our research included the use of a paper survey that subjects completed in various sites
on the Aquinas College campus. Our survey instrument was intended to measure the amount of
social media participation by the student and how much they express themselves politically on
social media. We chose to look at four specific social media outlets being Facebook, Twitter,

Instagram, and Pinterest. We chose these four specifically as we are personally aware of
students using these outlets to post and communicate about political topics, we did not have
enough participants answer for Instagram and Pinterest to use in measuring our correlations (see
later in Chapter Four: limitations). The instrument asked about whether or not the subject had an
account and then whether or not they used their account for political expression. If the student
stated that they used it for political expression, they were then asked a series of questions
measured on an interval scale. We asked three questions for each social media outlet and they
varied according to site specifics. Each question was measured on a Likert-type scale with four
options: No, never/ rarely/ sometimes/ yes, frequently or many/ some/ not very many/ none.
This measurement of the student’s political expression or lack of served as our independent
variable.
The next section of our instrument used Sherif, M., Hovland, C. (1961)’s Ordered
Alternative’s Questionnaire. This was designed to measure the size of the respondents’ latitude
of acceptance. The original use by the OAQ was to examine individual’s political opinions, so
we were able to use the same instrument and it was still relevant despite it being from 1961. The
respondents had the ability to choose one most acceptable statement and one least acceptable
statement, they could then indicate other options they found either acceptable and the options
they found unacceptable. They were also able to leave statements blank if they found it neither
acceptable nor unacceptable. The last section was looking at the demographics of our
respondents. We asked respondents to report biological sex, academic status (freshman,
sophomore, junior, senior, or other) and their major.

Subjects:
Our pilot study consisted of 20 Aquinas College students between the ages 18-23. There
were 10 students who identified themselves as male and 10 students who identified themselves
as female. We used convenience sampling to go into classrooms and use students as subjects
upon following proper IRB approved procedure for obtaining subjects by first contacting
professors.
Our main subject included 108 subjects. There were 42 individuals who identified as
male and 58 participants who identified as female. Our subjects were Aquinas College students
between the ages of 18 and 23. We wanted to reach a diverse academic background so we
attempted to reach multiple disciplines in the recruiting process. We visited a Geography class, a
Communication class, two political science classes, a business class, and surveyed the Aquinas
cross country team. The team and classrooms had a mixture of majors and increased our
diversity of responses to spread across almost 50 academic programs. We obtained subjects by
gaining permission from professors and coaches to use their athletes/students as potential survey
respondents.
Procedures
Following the approval by the Aquinas College Institutional Review Board (IRB) a pilot
study was conducted of 20 students (n=20). Upon review of the pilot study, there were no
changes made to the instrument and we proceeded in gathering subjects. Our method of
recruitment involved contacting various professors and one sports coach to retrieve subjects from
a wide range of disciplines while staying within the age restrictions (18-24) approved by the
IRB. We stated the class period in which we wished to visit the classroom and upon approval

visited the classroom. We provided a verbal explanation of the research and an outline of the
consent form prior to physically handing out two consent forms (one for their own personal
record) to students and then allowing them to pick up the survey instrument (See Appendix A for
communication samples).
The consent form was given to the subjects on paper (See Appendix B), it provided an
explanation of the research including its utility in the academic world as well as its future use as
a final presentation. The consent form explained the confidentiality and anonymity that would be
provided to participants. It stated that there were no anticipated risks in participation. The
consent form also included both of our contact information along with our faculty advisors, Dr.
Penny Avery and Dr. Dave Weinandy. When participants signed the consent form we requested
that they place the form in the envelope we provided. There was then a pile of survey
instruments that they could grab and complete. (See Appendix C for survey instrument). The
consent forms were placed by the participants in an envelope prior to the retrieval of the survey
so there was no way the name and identity of the participants could be tied to their survey
instrument responses. The surveys and consent forms were then brought to our faculty advisor’s
office and locked in a secure cabinet. The anonymity and confidentiality of the subjects was
maintained at all moments in the research process.
Chapter Three: Results
Analysis Techniques
Our hypothesis does not name a specific social media outlet, so we decided to study the
four social media websites that we perceived to have the best design for political expression. We
chose Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest. We ended up gathering 72 pieces of

information regarding Facebook and 43 pieces of information regarding Twitter. However, due
to sample size we ended up having to make the choice to disregard Instagram and Pinterest as
sites to measure. If we were able to have had a much larger sample size we may have been able
to gather enough information on these social media outlets to connect them to our hypothesis, but
as of now that is not possible with our current research. Chapter 4: Limitations discusses
reasoning behind the inability to use Instagram and Pinterest in our study.
Our data consisted of our two main variables . First our IV was the reported use of social
media as a political platform, and we gained that information by measuring responses on our
Likert-type survey questions. Our Likert-type questions asked subjects if they participated in
various political actions on social media websites and in what frequency. Our DV dealt with the
identified size of the subject’s latitude of acceptance regarding general political stances. For this
we borrowed Sherif and Hovland’s Ordered Alternatives questionnaire that they had developed
in 1961. Table 1 features the results correlating to the amount of reported use of social media as
a political platform.

Table 1: Independent Variable Results
N Mean Std. Deviation
Age 104 20.16 1.387
Facebook #1 72 3.11 .640
Facebook #2 72 2.07 1.053
Facebook #3 72 1.74 .856
Twitter #1 43 2.23 .972
Twitter #2 43 2.30 .964
Twitter #3 43 1.51 .631
Since we used the OAQ to examine our DV, we had to code a value to each possible
answer that a subject could give in the OAQ. The OAQ had instructions that read as follows;
“Write ++ next to the ONE statement you find most acceptable. Write + next to other
statements you find acceptable. Write an OO next to ONE statement you find the most
unacceptable. Write an O next to any statements you find unacceptable. You may leave
spots blank if you do not find the statement acceptable or unacceptable.”
We coded our subject’s responses so we could best understand their latitude of acceptance, to
observe how it would interact with our IV. We were looking for participants with low scores in

their latitude of acceptance but high reports of social media expression. We then examined the
correlation statistics between our IV and DV, those can be found in Table 2.
Table 2: IV and DV Correlation Chart
Ordered
Alternatives
Ordered
Alternatives
Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (1-tailed)
N 104
Facebook
Question #1
Pearson Correlation .090
Sig. (1-tailed) .225
N 72
Facebook
Question #2
Pearson Correlation -.298**
N 72
Facebook
Question #3
N 72
Twitter
Question #1
N 43
Twitter
Question #2
Pearson Correlation -.276*
N 43
Twitter
Question #3
Pearson Correlation -.085
N 43
Our first Facebook question in section two had no correlation with our DV (r = .090 cv =
.195 p > .05). We believe this to be due to how the question itself was worded. As seen in Table
1, Facebook #1 only had a standard deviation of .640, the mean being 3.11. The question’s
wording could have had something to do with this result, this will be discussed further in Chapter
Four: Limitations.

The second Facebook question did have a significant correlation with our DV, and
supports our hypothesis (r= -.298 cv= .232 p < .025). This shows that there is a negative
correlation between our subject’s latitude of acceptance, and the amount of political posts they
share, and/or the amount of political opinions they post via their Facebook status. This is
interesting and statistically significant since this is a very direct method of expressing one’s
political opinion on social media.
Our final Facebook question also supports our hypothesis, and had significant correlation
with our DV (r= -.282, cv= .232, p < .025). This shows a negative correlation between our
subject’s latitude of acceptance and the amount our subjects will actively comment on a political
post. This shows that the lower a subject's latitude of acceptance, the more often a subject would
voice their opinions on a post that was not originally theirs.
Moving on to our findings regarding Twitter, our first Twitter question supported our
hypothesis (r= -.394, cv=.304, p < .025). This shows a negative correlation between the amount
of Twitter accounts a subject follows and their latitude of acceptance. Put into practice this
means that a person who shows to have stronger opinions on political issues will follow more
Twitter accounts that are political in nature. This finding coincides with the results of the second
Twitter question.
The second Twitter question asked our subjects if they “retweet” tweets that relate to a
political issue. This supported our hypothesis (r= -.276, cv= .257, p < .05) and showed a negative
correlation between our IV and DV. This shows that not only are people following the accounts
but also they are reading them and sharing them with their own followers, making this a true
“political activity”.

Finally our last Twitter question did not support our hypothesis (r= -.085, cv= .257,
p > .05). This question explored whether or not our subjects commented on political tweets. This
could be because it may not be common for the Twitter users to commonly comment on tweets
no matter their content (political or not). We speculate that the more common mode of
communication on Twitter is following accounts and retweeting tweets. While we cannot say this
for certain based on our research, that is our best idea as to why this did not have a supportive
correlation for this specific question.
Assessment of the Null Hypothesis and ResearchHypotheses
We are able to accept our H1 with some concessions. Since we were only able to gather a
sufficient sample size for both Facebook and Twitter, we cannot comment on other social media
outlets. However, due to the amount of subjects who use Facebook and Twitter and do not use
Instagram or Pinterest, we expected Facebook and Twitter to be the main social media outlets to
study this hypothesis on. Out of the six correlations we were able to accept, we had four of the
six questions support our hypothesis and two that did not.
The first question that did not support our hypothesis could have suffered because of our
word choice (please see the limitations section for more on this). We speculated that this
question could not be appropriate measuring political use of Facebook for the question allowed
users to remain anonymous and not express communication with their network. Also, this
question did have a relatively high mean value (mean=3.11) and while this would have supported
our hypothesis, the standard deviation was very low (sd=.64)
The only other question that did not support our hypothesis was the final Twitter
question. We speculate this result has an explanation not related to our hypothesis. We have

witnessed that “tweeting/retweeting” and following accounts to be the primary communication
tools being used on Twitter. While there is a commenting feature on Twitter, we believe it to be a
less popular way to communicate support or disdain for a cause.
For these reasons we can cautiously accept our hypothesis with the above concessions.
Our null hypothesis reads that for traditional age college students, there is no relationship
between reported use of social media as political platforms and the size of their identified
latitude of acceptance regarding their political stances. Since we had four out of six viable
questions support our hypothesis we can reject our H0.
Post-hoc Analyses:
After analyzing the data as it related to our research question, we conducted a two tailed
correlation test to look for a relationship between class status, age, and biological sex of
participants. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics for the statistics regarding class and age.
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics on Age and Class Status
Mean Std. Deviation N
Age (between 18 & 23) 20.16 1.39 104
Class Status (Freshman 1 to Senior 4) 2.44 1.131 100
DV – Ordered Index of Alternatives 27.18 2.94 104
The intention of running test was to examine whether or not age or class status impacted one’s
social media usage and latitude of acceptance. There was no statistically significant relationship
between social media usage and age (r= -.076, CV=.195, p > .05). This means that our

hypothesis shows no variance across the age span 18-24. There was equal insignificance in the
test for class status (r=-.114, CV= .195, p > .05). This means there is no correlation between
class status and social media usage and latitude of acceptance.
We conducted a two-tailed t-test comparing the biological sex of subjects (n=100) with
social media usage and latitude of acceptance. See the descriptive statistics in Table 4.
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics on Identified Gender
N Mean Std. Deviation Standard Deviation error mean
Male 42 27.00 3.12 .48076
Female 58 27.28 2.88 .37845
We ran this test of significance to determine if there was any variance in reported biological sex.
Our results showed no statistically significant evidence of variance between biological sexes.
(t=.46, df= 98, CV=1.98, p > .05) We did not anticipate any variance between age, class status,
and biological sex and this was confirmed by the tests ran.
Chapter Four: Discussion
Interpretation of results:
H1 stated that as the IV variable increases the DV will decrease. We found that we had a
acceptance of H1 with concessions. We deduced that beyond some limitations in our research
there is a negative relationship between the social media usage of an individual and the size of
their latitude of acceptance. Similarly to the Briley, Shrum & Wyer (2013) article, we speculate
that the sensationalist nature of both television news stations, and news articles easily shared

through social media have made it difficult for people to see a clear picture of what is going on
in the world. This emphasizes the effect that polarizing news sources can have on our judgment
formation and ultimately the range of what we find acceptable and unacceptable. The research
question addressed whether or not the increase in social media participation has decreased
individual’s ability to discuss political issues in a healthy productive manner. We used the
Ordered List of Alternatives as a way to measure if someone had a narrow latitude of acceptance
or was open to many ideas. Our research demonstrated that the more someone posted/interacted
on Twitter and Facebook politically, the smaller their latitude of acceptance.
This research suggests that social media may be contributing to the way we communicate
about political issues. The next step in the research would be to look at whether or not smaller
latitudes of acceptance as it relates to social media consumption also relates to the ways in which
individuals carry out political conversations. We can speculate that smaller latitudes of
acceptance would lead to bifurcated and polarized political communication, but with social
media being as new as it is to the communication research would need to be conducted to
support that claim.
The use of the Ordered Alternatives Questionnaire attested to its original success in 1961,
for we had some participants comment on the margin of the instrument that their answers were
dependent on who the political candidate would be. This indicated that some of the participants
were not aware of the true intent of our research, which further validates the legitimacy of using
the OAQ to measure one’s latitude of acceptance. This was an interesting observation made in
the review of completed surveys for it supports the methodology choice to use OAQ for the
research.

The partial support for H1 is significant in the realm of politics and communication for it
encourages social media participants to remain open minded. The tentative acceptance of H1
means that there is potential for communication degradation on political issues in the age of
social media. Addressing this RQ and our specific hypothesis is just addressing one way in
which social media can influence political discourse between users. There is potential for further
research and it is important as we enter into a society in which our online interactions become
central to our communication identities.
Limitations:
The research presented several limitations. The most glaring weakness was surrounding
our choice of social media outlets to measure. The participant’s use of Pinterest as a political
platform was insufficient.
Table 5: Frequency Table for Pinterest
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes 2 1.9 100.0 100.0
No 102 98.1
Total 104 100.0
There were only two respondents who indicated use of Pinterest for political outlets. In the same
way, Instagram use as a platform recorded similar small numbers. This indicates that although 47
participants recording having a Pinterest account, only 2 recorded using it for political purposes.

We have concluded that Pinterest was an inappropriate social media outlet to measure and would
not test that in future subjects.
Table 6: Frequency Table for Instagram
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes 14 13.5 100.0 100.0
No 90 86.5
Total 104 100.0
Although Instagram had more participants, there still seemed to be inconclusive evidence that
Instagram is used for political expression. Although 14 participants indicated using Instagram as
a social media platform, the responses to the questions asking the extent to which they use
Instagram as a political platform indicated very little involvement.
Table 7: DV Data on the use of Instagram as a political platform
N Min Max Mean Std.
Deviation
Instagram
Question #1
14 1 4 2.5 1.092
Instagram
Question #2
14 1 3 1.71 .914
Instagram
Question #3
14 1 4 1.86 1.099

Between the small sample size and the average of 2 out of 3 of the questions being below 2
(measured on a 1-4 scale) indicates that within this population there is very little use of
Instagram for political expression. This also was expressed in the fact there was insufficient
evidence of a negative correlation that was necessary in order to claim our hypothesis as true.
We decided that like Pinterest, Instagram does not exhibit significant enough evidence to be used
as a social media outlet for political expression. We would not use Instagram as a platform of
measurement in future research. This could be because Instagram is not typically used for
political expression, but it also could be contributed to a failure in asking the correct questions.
We had 14 people indicate that they would consider their Instagram use as “political,” yet they
reported very low in response to the questions posed on the instrument.
We also discovered a problem in our questions posed regarding Facebook. Our
calculations indicated negative correlations that supported our hypothesis in the second and third
question posed in regards to Facebook use as a political platform, but no relationship at all
recorded between the IV and the DV in our first question. Our first question asked whether or not
participants intentionally read political articles posted by their friend. 72 respondents answered
this question there was a calculated correlation of .090, which is not statistically
significant/supporting H1. The other two questions about Facebook did support H1 as we
recorded correlations of -.298 and -.282. We believe the difference in calculated correlations is
due to failure in the first question to be relevant to the hypothesis. Our hypothesis was looking to
address the “use of social media as a political platform” and we believe this question didn’t relate
because participants could record reading political posts without using Facebook as a political
platform. Essentially, there is no risk of judgment by peers in the act of anonymously reading a

Facebook post. We speculate that because there is less risk in reading something and not
publicizing a public opinion the responses did not match the hypothesis. We believe that for
future research it would be important to limit questions to public political expression so that
something with as little risk as anonymously reading political posts would not skew the results as
our research showed. Additionally, we have speculated that perhaps the wording “intentionally”
had an adverse effect on our subjects. We intended this to mean the action associated with
naturally coming across a political article found on social media and opting to intentionally click
on the link and continue reading. We believe that our subjects interpreted our use of
“intentionally” to be asking them if they seek out political stimuli on social media, rather than
letting it come to them by happenstance.
We also experienced error in the third question for Twitter in which we asked participants
if they commented on Political tweets. As discussed in Chapter 3, the third question for Twitter
did not report a significant correlation between the IV and DV. We believe this may be caused
by the question choice. We speculate that commenting on tweets is not a typical interaction to
take place on Twitter and therefore there were low reports of commenting on tweets regardless
of the participants’ latitude of acceptance. We believe that we should ask questions that relate to
more typical behavior on each respective social media site.
In addition we also had limitations in that we had an alarmingly significant amount of
surveys we could not include in our research (14). Every survey we had to remove from the
study was due to error by the subjects in following the directions in section 3, the Ordered List of
Alternatives. We provided the instructions to participants that they should choose one option
they found most acceptable and one option they found most unacceptable. We had 14
participants choose more than one most acceptable or more than one most unacceptable option

(or both). This could be caused by number of factors including environmental distractions that
inhibited participants ability to follow instructions, a general lack of interest in the research
process resulting in minimal effort in following instructions, or an issue in the wording in the
instructions. We do not believe the fault lies in the instructions, for our pilot study did not
indicate any issues in comprehending the instructions in any part of the instrument.
Our final limitation speculation is addressing the external validity. External validity
measures the ability to generalize something to the larger population. Our population was very
homogenous in that it was all Aquinas Students. This limits a certain amount of diversity in that
all the participants were college educated attending a small Catholic school in West Michigan.
Additionally, we did not use random sampling, which means we have allowed for research bias.
Our bias could have effected in the study in the classes/participants we chose to use. We
attempted to minimize this by reaching as many academic disciplines as we could.
Recommendations for Future Research:
The limitations and error present the most opportunity for future change. We would be
more specific in the questions we asked about each site to make sure they measure political
expression and are relevant to typical behavior on the social media site. In future research we
would only look at Facebook and Twitter so we may have more opportunity to ask more
questions and get a more accurate measurement of each person’s political expression tendencies.
The research question posed whether or not we are losing our ability to engage in
political discourse in the age of social media. This opens possibility for other communication
concepts, such as conflict, as it relates to political conversation. There are many dependent
variables that could be researched in an effort to judge the effects of social media usage and

political expression. We believe that measuring the latitude of acceptance using an ordered
alternatives instrument is an effective way of measuring the relationship between social media
usage and political expression and would recommend this in future research. Overall, our
recommendation for future research in replication would be to fix the issues with the independent
variable (as discussed in limitations) so that participants can accurately depict their political
involvement on social media.
We believe there is future potential for more research in this subject area as it relates to
our RQ. We anticipate the potential for research conducted on whether or not small latitudes of
acceptance translates to negative communication experiences or relational satisfaction in peers.
Social media has the ability to change communication in very drastic ways and the academic
world of research should continue to question and observe these changes. This can raise social
consciousness as to the effects of our online identities. Within the world of politics this research
has validity in that it exposes the effects of social media on citizens as it relates to the
formulation of their political stance. This can open the door for future research in campaigning
practices as they relate to social media. This topic is not only relevant, but also pertinent in the
age of social media and we believe there is continued potential for growth and expansion of
knowledge in the world of academic research.
Summary
In conclusion, we have accepted H1 with belief that addressing some specific limitations
with two of the questions, there is validity in the hypothesis. We found statistical significance in
4 out of 6 of the posed questions measuring social media usage (IV) compared to the DV. This
study requires attention to the limitations discovered in analyses as we look towards future

research. The findings were supported by the literature available on the subject. The support
found for H1 exposed one aspect of the growing effect social media has on communication, but
we believe there is potential for more research on this topic. This research exposes a relationship
between variables that is important to understand as we aim to become responsible social media
users as it relates to our political schemas.

References
Briley, D. A., Shrum, L., & Wyer, R. S. (2013). Factors Affecting Judgments of Prevalence and
Representation: Implications for Public Policy and Marketing. Journal Of Public Policy
& Marketing,32112-118. doi:10.1509/jppm.12.045
Chan W.L. (2015). Exploring the Influence of Social Interaction, Pressure and Trust in a Social
Media Environment on Political Participation: The Case of Occupy Central in 2014.
Online Journal Of Communication & Media Technologies, 5(4), 77-101.
Feldman, L. (2011). The Effects of Journalist Opinionation on Learning From the News. Journal
Of Communication, 61(6), 1183-1201. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01602.x
Feldman, L. (2011). The Opinion Factor: The Effects of Opinionated News on Information
Processing and Attitude Change. Political Communication, 28(2), 163-181.
doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.565014
Hansen, G. J., & Kim, H. (2011). Is the Media Biased Against Me? A Meta-Analysis of the
Hostile Media Effect Research. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 169-179.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.565280
Sherif, M., Hovland, C. (1961). Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in
Communication and Attitude Change. American Journal of Sociology. pp. 126-127
Obar, J.A, Zube, P & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of How Advocacy Groups
in the United States Perceive and Use Social Media as Tools for Facilitating Civic
Engagement and Collective Action. Journal of Information Policy.
Lueders, A., Hall, J., Pennington, N., & Knutson, K. (2014). Nonverbal Decoding on Facebook:
Applying the IPT-15 and the SSI to Personality Judgments. Journal Of Nonverbal

Behavior, 38(4), 413-427. doi:10.1007/s10919-014-0195-z
O'Keefe D. Persuasion: Theory & Research [e-book]. 1990. Available from:
Communication Source. Chapter Two, Social Judgement Theory.
Plaisier, X. S., & Konijn, E. A. (2012). Peers, Media, and Morals: How Peer-rejection Impacts
Moral Judgment and Preferences for Antisocial Media Content in Adolescents.
Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-41.
Reid, S. A. (2012). A Self-Categorization Explanation for the Hostile Media Effect. Journal Of
Communication, 62(3), 381-399. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01647.x
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and
numerical anchoring: Breadth, depth, and the role of (non-)thoughtful processes in
anchoring theories.Journal Of Consumer Psychology (Elsevier Science), 20(1), 28-32.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.007

Appendix A
Sample Email to Aquinas Sports Team Coach
Dear (coach of sports team),
Our names are Taylor Pryde and Emma Roderick. We are members of the Communication
Research Methods course CN 498. We are conducting research addressing political stances in the
age of social media. Our project is titled Political Stances in the Age of Social Media and has
been approved by the Aquinas College Institutional Review Board. We are researching 18-24
year old Aquinas students and are interested in using athletes on your sport’s team. If you are
willing, we would like to use 10-15 minutes of your practice time to survey your athletes. We are
requesting a confirmation, time and suitable location in which you would like us to visit your
athletes if you choose to invite us for research.
If you have any questions in regards to the research you may contact either of the primary
researchers
Taylor Pryde- TNP002@aquinas.edu
Emma Roderick- ECR001@aquinas.edu
You may also contact faculty research advisors:
Dr. Penny Avery: AB4C (office) averypen@aquinas.edu
Dr. David Weinandy: AB4B (office) weinadav@aquinas.edu
Thank you for your time,
Taylor Pryde and Emma Roderick
Sample Email to Aquinas Professors
Dear (Professor’s name and title),
Our names are Taylor Pryde and Emma Roderick. We are members of the
Communication Research Methods course CN 498. We are conducting research addressing
political stances in the age of social media. Our project is titled Political Stances in the Age of
Social Media and has been approved by the Aquinas College Institutional Review Board. We are
researching 18-24 year old Aquinas students and are interested in using students in your class as

subjects. We are interested in your (insert class title) on (insert day and meeting time). If you are
willing, we would like to use 10-15 minutes of your class time to survey your students if they
choose to volunteer. We are requesting a confirmation and time in which you would like us to
visit your classroom if you choose to invite us for research.
If you have any questions in regards to the research you may contact either of the primary
researchers
Taylor Pryde- TNP002@aquinas.edu
Emma Roderick- ECR001@aquinas.edu
You may also contact our faculty research advisors:
Thank you for your time,
Taylor Pryde and Emma Roderick
Verbal Explanation of Research
Hello my name is Taylor Pryde, and my name is Emma Roderick
We are here today to conduct research as part of our Communication Research Methods Course.
We are looking for students between 18-24 years.
The purpose of this study is to explore the potential relationship between social media usage and
political stances in the age group of 18-24 year olds. The study will examine personal social
media habits and political stances held by participants.
There are no anticipated risks in participating in this study, and you will benefit by participating
in this study as it will increase knowledge of the relationship between social media consumption
and political stances.
If you are interested in participating we ask that you read and sign this consent form, we will be
providing two copies so you may keep one for your personal record.
We will then provide a survey that should take 10-15 minutes to complete.

We want to state that this is entirely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time.
If you agree to participate, you will answer a series of questions in regard to your social media
consumption and utility as well as your opinion about a number of political statements.
Confidentially and anonymity is addressed on the consent form and the contact information of
myself and (Emma or Taylor) as well as our faculty advisors. Let us know if you have any
questions.
Thank you very much!

Appendix B
Aquinas College Informed Consent Form for Research
Project Title: Political Stance in the Age of Social Media
This project has received Aquinas College Institutional Review Board Approval (2016-154)
Principal Researchers: Emma Roderick ECR001@aquinas.edu
Taylor Pryde TNP002@aquinas.edu
Who Can Participate:
Aquinas College students between 18-24 years of age may participate in this study.
Purpose of this Study:
The purpose of this study is to explore the potential relationship between social media usage and
political stances in the age group of 18-24 year olds. The study will examine personal social
media habits and political stances held by participants. This research will be conducted as part of
the Communication Research Methods course (CN498) for Aquinas College and will be
presented in the Spring Semester as a culmination of the research process.
ResearchMethods:
If you agree to participate, you will answer a series of questions in regard to your social media
consumption and utility as well as your opinion about a number of political statements. This
should take 10-15 minutes for you to complete.
Risks:
There are no anticipated risks involved in taking part in this study.
Benefits:
There are no direct benefits to the participant, but participation in this study will increase
knowledge of the relationship between social media consumption and political stances.
Anonymity and Confidentiality:
If you participate in this study, your survey responses will be anonymous. The consent forms and
the survey responses will be collected in two separate envelopes. There will be no way for either
of the primary researchers to tie your identity to your responses. Only the two principal
researchers and our faculty research advisors will have access to the surveys and consent forms.

They will be locked in a filing cabinet in one of the faculty research advisor’s offices. At the
conclusion of the research project in May 2016, all the paper copies will be shredded and
disposed of properly.
Voluntary Participation:
You have the choice of whether to participate in this study. If you choose to participate, you can
withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
Questions:
If at any point you have any questions regarding the study, please contact either of the primary
researchers. Our contact information is as follows:
Taylor Pryde: TNP002@aquinas.edu
Emma Roderick: ECR001@aquinas.edu
You may also contact our faculty research advisors:
Faculty ResearchAdvisors:
Consent to Participate:
By signing your name below, you indicate that you A) are 18-24 years of age, B) an Aquinas
College Student C) have read and understand the preceding information, and D) Have received
satisfactory answers to any questions you have E) voluntarily give consent to participate in this
study, knowing you may withdraw at any time, if desired, without any penalty.
We ask that you keep a signed copy of this consent form for your own personal record.
Signature: Date:
Printed Name:

Appendix C
Political Stances in the Age of Social Media Survey IRB 2016-154
Circle which applies:
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
*If you are not any of these ages, please withdraw yourself fromthe study
Section1
Social Media Usage:
For which of these social media platforms do you have an account? Check all that apply.
Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest
I do not use social media
Political usage in social media: Which of these social media platforms have you used to read, respond,
or communicate personally about topics regarding policy or government?
Check all that apply.
Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest
I do not use social media for political purposes I do not use social media
The next section will address each social media platform specifically. Only respond to the sections that
you answered in the section above titled “Political usage in social media”. If you answered you do not
use social media for political purposes or do not use social media at all, you may skip section 2 but still
complete sections 3 and 4. All respondents will be asked to complete sections 3 and 4 of the survey.
Section 2
If you answered yes for political usage with Facebook:
Do you intentionally read political postings by your friends? (Circle ONE)
Yes,frequently Sometimes Rarely No, never

Do you share or post political articles or status updates on your personal Facebook page? (Circle
ONE)
Do you comment on political posts? (Circle the one that best applies)
If you answered yes for political usage with Twitter:
Approximately howmany Twitter accounts do you followthat you would consider political
accounts? (Circle ONE)
Many Some Not very many None
Do you retweet tweets that relate to political issues? (Circle ONE)
Do you comment on political tweets? (Circle the one that best applies)
If you answered yes for political usage with Instagram:
Approximately howmany Instagram accounts do you followthat post on political issues? (Circle
ONE)
Do you post pictures that relate to political issues? (Circle ONE)
Do you comment on pictures that relate to political issues? (Circle the one that bestapplies)
If you answered yes for political usage with Pinterest:
Howmany of your Pinterest boards are political accounts? (Circle ONE)

Do you pin political pins on your personal boards? (Circle the one that best applies)
Yes,Frequently Sometimes Rarely No, never
Do you comment on pins that relate to political issues? (Circle the one that best applies)
Yes,Frequently Sometimes Rarely No, never
ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE ASKED TO COMPLETE SECTIONS 3 AND 4
Section3
Listed belowthere will be a series of hypothetical statements
Read all of the statements before you begin assessing their level ofacceptability.
Write ++ next to the ONE statement you find most acceptable. Write + next to other statements you
find acceptable. Write an OO next to ONE statement you find the most unacceptable. Write an O
next to any statements you find unacceptable. You may leave spots blank ifyou do not find the
statement acceptable or unacceptable.
_____ (A) The election of the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates in November
is absolutely essential from all angles in the country's interests.
_____ (B) On the whole the interests of the country will be served best by the election of the
Republican candidates for president and vice-president in the coming election.
_____ (C) It seems that the country's interests would be better served if the presidential and vice-
presidential candidates of the Republican party are elected this November.
_____ (D) Although it is hard to decide, it is probable that the country's interests may be better
served if the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates are elected in November.
_____ (E) From the point of view of the country's interests, it is hard to decide whether it is
preferable to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates of the Republican party or the
Democratic party in November.
_____ (F) Although it is hard to decide, it is probable that the country's interests may be better
served if the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates are elected in November.
_____ (G) It seems that the country's interests would be better served if the presidential and vice-
presidential candidates of the Democratic party are elected this November.
_____ (H) On the whole the interests of the country will be served best by the election of the
Democratic candidates for president and vice-president in the coming election.
_____ (I) The election of the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates in November
is absolutely essential from all angles in the country's interests.

Section4:
Circle which applies:
Male Female
Circle which best describes you:
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other (specify):
Write in your intended/declared major(s); undecided is an acceptable response:

SocialMediaandPoliticalExpressionRoderickandPryde

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à SocialMediaandPoliticalExpressionRoderickandPryde

Similaire à SocialMediaandPoliticalExpressionRoderickandPryde (20)

SocialMediaandPoliticalExpressionRoderickandPryde