They Came, They Liked, They Commented: Social Influence on Facebook News Channels

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 431-436

  Winter, Stephan ^a   Brückner, Caroline ^a   Krämer, Nicole C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; EMOTION; HUMAN; MASS MEDIUM; PEER PRESSURE; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORK; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ATTITUDE; EMOTIONS; HUMANS; MASS MEDIA; PEER INFLUENCE; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORKING;

EID: 84938826509     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0005     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Glynn CJ, Huge ME, Hoffman LH. All the news that's fit to post: A profile of news use on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior 2012; 28:113-119.
2. Mitchell A, Kiley J, Gottfried J, et al. The role of news on Facebook: common yet incidental. Pew Internet & American Life Project 2013. www.journalism.org/2013/10/24/ the-role-of-news-on-facebook/ (accessed May 1, 2015).
3. Oeldorf-Hirsch A, Sundar SS. Posting, commenting, and tagging: effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 44:240-249.
4. Messing S, Westwood SJ. Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research 2014, 41:1042-1063.
5. Lee EJ, Jang YJ. What do others' reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers' need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research 2010; 37:825-846.
6. Holton A, Chyi HI. News and the overloaded consumer: factors influencing information overload among news consumers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2012; 15: 619-624.
7. Walther JB, Liang YJ, Ganster T, et al. Online reviews, helpfulness ratings, and consumer attitudes: An extension of congruity theory to multiple sources in Web 2.0. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2012; 18:97-112.
8. Walther JB, Jang J-W. Communication processes in participatory websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2012; 18:2-15.
9. Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ, Medders RB. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication 2010; 60:413-439.
10. Konijn EA, Veldhuis J, Plaisier XS. YouTube as a research tool: three approaches. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2013; 16:695-701.
11. Walther JB, DeAndrea D, Kim J, et al. The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research 2010; 36:469-492.
12. Zillmann D, Brosius HB. (2000) Exemplification in communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Reicher SD, Spears R, Postmes T. A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology 1995; 6:161-198.
14. Winter S. (2013). Lost in Information?: Sozialpsychologische Aspekte der Selektion und Rezeption von journalistischen Online-Angeboten [social psychological aspects of selecting and processing online news]. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer
15. Ziegele M, Quiring O. (2013) Conceptualizing online discussion value. A multidimensional framework for analyzing user comments on mass-media websites. In Cohen EL, ed. Communication yearbook 37. New York: Routledge, pp. 125-153.
16. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. (1986) Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer Verlag.
17. Park HS, Levine TR, Kingsley Westerman CY, et al. The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research 2007; 33:81-102.
18. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1982; 42:116-131.
19. Xu X, Fu WW. Aggregate bandwagon effects of popularity information on audiences' movie selections. Journal of Media Economics 2014; 27:215-233.
20. Chaiken S. (1987) The heuristic model of persuasion. In Zanna M, Olson J, Herman C, eds. Social influence: the Ontario symposium. Vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3-39.
21. Sundar SS. (2008) The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ, eds. Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 72-100.
22. Bless H, Wänke M, Bohner G, et al. Need for cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Need for cognition: A scale for the assessment of involvement and enjoyment of cognitive tasks]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 1994; 25:147-154.
23. Aiken LS, West SG. (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky B, Finkenauer C, et al. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 2001; 5:323-370.
25. Donsbach W, Mothes C. (2012) The dissonant self. Contributions from dissonance theory to a new agenda for studying political communication. In Salmon CT, ed. Communication Yearbook 36. London: Routledge.