Discussing politics online is a notoriously hostile endeavor, with it seldom seeming to take long before hostilities are drawn and proceedings descend into a full blown argument. A recent Swedish study led by Lund University highlights just why this is.
The research, which explored the kind of people who tend to engage in politics online, found that the most likely people to talk politics online are those who don’t really care what other people think. This distinct personality then tends to influence the kind of debates that happen, with the often vitriolic tone putting off more sensitive souls from participating.
Unfulfilled hopes
It’s perhaps fair to say that when the Internet, and specifically social media emerged, that it would encourage a new and more participatory world of political debate. When the opportunity to contribute is expanded to all, the potential is huge for changing our democracies.
That future has not really materialized, with the authors suggesting that the sensitivity over our political beliefs are a key factor. Social media offers a largely invisible audience, unless they react to what you say by liking, commenting and so on. As such, the fear of rejection can be quite high, and when the topic is something so close and sensitive to you as politics can be, this can be a hurdle to participation.
It was this rejection sensitivity that the research found was key to participation online. Rejection sensitivity is a commonly used measure in social pyschology to identify our propensity to take risks socially. A series of questions reveal a rejection sensitivity index for each person.
After the researchers compiled these for a few thousand participants, they then monitored their political activity on social media, before taking a deep dive into around 60 of them via detailed interviews.
Thick skinned
The data revealed that rejection sensitivity was the single biggest factor affecting engagement. When people had a high fear of rejection, their political activity online was very low indeed, even if they have very good knowledge of the topic.
When participants were interviewed, it emerged that, for many at least, such sensitive issues as politics were more commonly discussed in private, or at least in a face-to-face environment. The realities of face-to-face conversations make it easier to adjust to social cues, especially involving sensitive content. Online, this is harder to do, which increases the risk of misunderstanding and our views being rejected.
For some however, this didn’t seem to matter, and they will happily share their views regardless of whether other people might take offence. Thus the majority of political content posted online is done by people with a low fear of being socially rejected.
The researchers are at pains to point out that this doesn’t necessarily make these people stubborn or excessively partisan, and doesn’t automatically make them poor contributors to the topic. Indeed, some would argue that an excessive fear of social rejection might actually contribute to more extreme attitude.
As social media becomes an increasingly important conduit through which we consume political information however, it’s increasingly important that we understand the kind of people who contribute to it. This is especially so if politicians fall into the trap of believing that what they see online is representative of the wider population. This study is a welcome contribution to this effort.
