An Investigation into the Effectiveness of Media Literacy Messages on Social Networking Sites
Stephani Pio 10919066 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
dr. Annemarie van Oosten Date: 24 June 2016
Abstract
This study, a 2 x 3 online-based factorial experiment, investigated the effectiveness of media literacy messages on social networking sites (SNS), to determine emerging adults’ attitudes towards sexism after viewing a sexual media message on Facebook. The study examined the effects of the context of media literacy messages as being perceived to be either privately displayed or publicly shared in a Facebook post, as well as the type of feedback (no feedback, positive feedback or negative feedback) given as comments on a media literacy message, and the interaction effect of context and type of feedback on the main dependent variable,
attitudes towards sexism. Further exploratory analyses were conducted in order to assess whether context and type of feedback given on a media literacy message on Facebook had an effect on the perception of the media literacy message (ie., individual attitudes towards the media literacy message, perceived realism of the media literacy message, perceived educational value of the media literacy message and participants’ willingness to share a media literacy message on Facebook). A main effect was confirmed for the context in which the media literacy message is presented, revealing that the (perception of) sharing a media literacy message decreases sexist attitudes, compared to merely reading a media literacy message outside the context of social sharing. The exploratory analyses further revealed significant effects of context on individual attitudes, perceived realism, educational value and willingness to share the media literacy message, as well as a significant effect for the type feedback given on individual attitudes towards the media literacy message.
An Investigation into the Effectiveness of Media Literacy Messages on Social Networking Sites
The broader message to women couldn’t be clearer: SeXXXy images are appropriate, but images of women’s bodies doing normal women body things are not. (The
Guardian, 2015).
Taken from the article, Social Media is protecting men from periods, breast milk and body hair (The Guardian, 2015), this quotation reveals the existence and prevalence of gender stereotypes and sexist views within current media, with particularly detrimental effects for females. In recent times, researchers have found that the media climate has changed in that its content now frequently contains sexually stereotypical content such as the objectification of women and greater acceptance of the sexual double standard (Aubrey, 2004; Aubrey & Frisby, 2011; Klaassen & Peter, 2015). Moreover, while young women are participating in and using new media technologies (Gill, 2008, 2011), they are also increasingly faced with renewed conditions of sexual objectification (Ringrose & Barajas, 2011). In addition to this, media portrayals have been found to generally provide little information about sexual health and tend to promote stereotypes (Pinkleton, Austin, Cohen, Chen & Fitzgerald, 2013). Consequently, as a result of the omnipresence of sexualized media content, research has found that these portrayals often provide young people with misguided sexual representations which have the potential to lead to negative personal outcomes (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003a, 2003b).
In response to the pervasiveness of sexualized media content, media literacy has been recommended as an educational tool that could help to deter the potentially negative
influence of this type of media (Pinkleton, Austin, Chen, & Cohen, 2008). Media literacy is defined as “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages in a wide variety of forms” (Aufderheide, 1993, p. 1). Thus, the intention of introducing media literacy
content to an online context would to be help young people develop the necessary tools required to analyze the reliability and trustworthiness of media messages and use them effectively in their decision-making processes (Brown, 2006). In this process, media literacy messages introduce young people to the process of critically analyzing media messages that may have an influence on their attitudes and behaviours (Bergsma & Carney, 2008).
One way in which young people have the opportunity to build resilience to the influences of stereotypical and objectifying media content is through reading and sharing messages on social networking sites (SNS), such as Facebook. Research has shown that SNS represent platforms where young people can practice self-expression, express their identity (Livingstone, 2008) and counter stereotypical and objectifying sexual media messages (Albury, 2015; Salter, 2013). Therefore, focusing on the role of SNS for hosting media literacy interventions is particularly apt, given its practical relevance as SNS become increasingly popular amongst young people.
As such, the rise of social media has afforded young people new opportunities to confront stereotypical mass media content through sharing this content, as well as enabled young people to use their self-expression online in order to educate and empower themselves. Research has shown that the expression of ideas, or even the mere anticipation of expressing an idea to an audience can influence a person more than the reception of the ideas by others (Pingree, 2007). It is therefore surprising that the use of social media, in sharing media literacy messages, has currently been so understudied. Moreover, SNS also accommodate for the reciprocal interaction with others that lends itself to feedback through these channels by one’s peers (Walther, Liang, DeAndrea, Tong, Carr, Spottswood & Amichai-Hamburger, 2011). However, currently there exists a gap in the literature regarding the effect of feedback on young people’s attitudes, especially towards a media literacy message, in the context of social media.
The purpose of this study is thus to investigate the effectiveness of media literacy messages on SNS, taking into account the effect of (the perception of) sharing versus not sharing a media literacy message, as well as the effect of the type of feedback received on a media literacy message, on attitudes towards sexism. The following research questions are posed:
RQ1: Does sharing a media literacy message on social media increase the effectiveness of the media literacy message in changing attitudes towards sexism, compared to privately reading the media literacy message?
RQ2: What is the effect of the type of feedback (no feedback vs. negative feedback vs. positive feedback) provided on a media literacy message on one’s attitudes towards sexism?
Theoretical Background The Effectiveness of Media Literacy Messages
Previous research on media literacy programmes has addressed a broad range of topics including health promotion, social issues, violence, body image and sexual media content (Jeong, Cho & Hwang, 2012). For example, Jeong et al., (2012) found that media literacy programs advocating health promotion are effective interventions and have the potential to reduce harmful media effects. Additionally, it has been shown that women who viewed a media literacy video are more likely to report that women are not realistically portrayed in objectifying advertisements (Reichart, Latour, Lambiase and Adkins, 2007). Similarly, after going through a media literacy program, young viewers indicated that they were less likely to overestimate the extent to which teens are sexually active, to consider sexual imagery desirable and to believe sex to provide social benefits (Pinkleton et al., 2013).
Despite differing opinions of some experts in the field, media literacy messages are ultimately planned with the intention of reducing media’s influence on an audience’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviours (Pinkleton et al., 2013). This is done with the aim of
changing people’s interpretation of media content or changing the effects of media content on behavior (Jeong et al., 2012). Furthermore, previous research has found that an important determinant of the effectiveness of media literacy messages is the context in which the message is portrayed (Jeong et al., 2012). A context in which an active audience may be particularly relevant is social media. Social media enable users to create profiles, develop personal networks, engage in dialogue and share and create media content (Evers, Albury, Byron & Crawford, 2013). Social media could thus be seen as an important platform for media literacy messages as the sharing of articles, posts and videos occur on platforms such as Facebook. In addition to this, there is some initial evidence that social media is being increasingly used to share counter messages that counter stereotypical sexualized media content and has further provided an evolving platform for sexual health communication among young people (Evers et al., 2013).
In line with this, the Message Interpretation Process (MIP) model outlines the process of media influence. The MIP is proposed as a theoretical framework aimed at understanding how people process information and make decisions that can lead to behavioural change (Pinkleton et al., 2008) and has often been used as a tool to explain the effectiveness of media literacy content (Jeong et al., 2012). Using the MIP model in relation to media literacy
messages on social media thus helps to explain why sharing media literacy messages on SNS, such as Facebook, may be effective.
Additionally, the extent to which online media literacy messages involve its audience may determine the effectiveness of the message (Jeong et al., 2012). Walther et al., (2011) suggest that active audience involvement is high on social media, such as self-expression,
self-perception and feedback. Moreover, Banerjee and Greene (2006) found a media literacy intervention, which included the production of messages, to be more effective than one which focused only on the analysis of messages. It was further found that active audience
involvement elicited greater mental efforts and comprehension, in comparison to passive audience involvement (Banerjee & Greene, 2006). These findings suggest that media literacy messages may be more effective with an active audience than with a passive audience.
The Effect of Context on Media Literacy Messages
Young people’s increasing use of social networking sites presents an opportunity to explore and create new ways in which young people can engage with media literacy
messages via social media (Evers et al., 2013). Moreover, in the context of (the perception of) sharing media literacy messages in this study, research has shown that individuals who had received and expressed their personal thoughts and opinions on a certain issue were more cognitively involved, learned more from the message and experienced greater attitudinal changes than those who had simply read the message (Nekmat, 2012). For instance, when introduced to a specific topic or issue, students who had communicated their thoughts and provided explanations regarding particular topics were found to display higher learning results than those who had not done so (Sfard & Kieran, 2001). Similarly, extant research has found that the mental processes required for a student to express their thoughts during
explaining or discussing enabled them to develop their own understanding of the topic, which resulted in deeper and longer lasting learning (Hake, 1998; Matthews, 1996; Springer, Stanne & Donovan, 1999; as cited in Nekmat, 2012). Moreover, a study by Preslin, Boyle,
Davenport, Farley, Jacobs, Michalak & Xu, (2010; as cited by Nekmat, 2012) found that individuals who had expressed a message to influence others to consider their position in an important societal issue eventually felt more strongly about the issue than the audience they
were targeting. These findings thus help in explaining why sharing media literacy messages on social media may be effective as social media has an active audience with high
involvement. With young people increasingly making use of SNS, it seems a natural progression, in this field, to further consider the effect of sharing on active audience
involvement, in the context of social media platforms, such as Facebook. Thus, the following hypothesis is posed:
H1a: The effect of a media literacy message in decreasing attitudes towards sexism, will be stronger when (the perception of) online sharing of the media literacy message occurs, compared to merely reading a media literacy message
Furthermore, given the focus on sexualized media content in this particular study, it is necessary to recognize that peer-to-peer sharing of sexual information on social media may be unlikely, due to the stigma associated with the topic of sexual health (Evers et al., 2013). Extant research has found that young people are generally reluctant to seek sexual health information for reasons including stigma, denial of risk and lack of interest (Janssen & Davis, 2009; Pitts, Dowsett, Couch, Keys & Duterte, 2006, Sorenson & Brown, 2007; as cited by Evers et al., 2013). This can be seen as evidence of young people being cautious about and carefully managing their online identities and what they choose to share and not share on SNS (Ever et al., 2013). These findings suggest that awareness of online identity and what others might think of the content one posts online, is an important determinant of what people choose to share on social media, as well as an important determinant of how they interpret content on social media. It is thus necessary to investigate the role of type of feedback received on a media literacy message and how this might affect one’s attitudes towards a media literacy message.
The Effect of Feedback on Media Literacy Messages
Although the effect of feedback on message perception is relatively unexplored within the context of online communication, previous research provides evidence on the outcomes of this activity. It has been found that online feedback is an important component of SNS activity that ties in with the concepts of online identity and self-presentation (Walther et al., 2011). According to Walther et al. (2011), feedback acts as a contributing factor to the modification of one’s behaviours, as well as on the perception of self and of others.
Furthermore, in a study focusing on the use of SNS by a Dutch teen audience, Valkenburg, Peter & Schouten (2006) found that teens who received positive feedback on their profiles from friends showed significantly greater self-esteem, while negative feedback lead to a decrease in self-esteem. In addition to this, research reveals that content is more likely to be shared if it conjures up a strong emotional reaction (Berger & Milkman, 2012), which has been found to be especially apparent for positive content. As such, these findings suggest that there exists potential for a strong effect of positive feedback on a media literacy message on one’s perception of the message. The following hypothesis is proposed:
H2a: The effect of a media literacy message in decreasing attitudes towards sexism, will be stronger when positive feedback is received on a media literacy post, rather than when no feedback or negative feedback is received
Furthermore, active involvement in the media literacy message may also make one more sensitive to the perception of type of feedback received on the message. As previously stated, online feedback is an important component of SNS activity that ties in with the concepts of online identity and self-presentation (Walther et al., 2011). It can thus be expected that active involvement might be related to online identity and self-presentation, which could foster an increased sensitivity to the type of feedback received when sharing a media literacy message It is therefore proposed that:
H3a: The effect of positive feedback on a media literacy message will be stronger when (the perception of) online sharing of the media literacy message occurs
Exploratory Analyses: Effects on Perceptions of Media Literacy Messages
Based on the MIP model, previous research focusing on adolescents has gained insight into their propensity for affectively based decision making versus logically based decision making, through examining adolescents’ active consideration of media messages and the effect of these messages on themselves and their peers (Pinkleton et al., 2008). The emphasis on deconstructing media messages, has led to the assumption that active
consideration of message intent, content and effects will result in more logical decision-making, referred to as ‘reflective thinking’ (Pinkleton et al., 2008). Representations of logic based decision making may include the extent to which a media message appears to be realistic, or similar to past experiences (Pinkleton et al., 2008). In the context of perceptions of media literacy messages, young people may judge the article on the basis of its portrayal in their online social world. However, without the element of “reflective thinking”, is has been found that individuals are more likely to fall into a more affective based routine of decision making (Pinkleton et al., 2008). This may include individual attitudes towards the message, which reflect the extent to which media portrayals contain content that the individual likes (Pinkleton et al., 2008).
The present study thus focuses on variables measuring affective and cognitive
processing of media literacy messages in order to assess whether the manipulation of context and type of feedback is more likely to influence affective or cognitive processing of the media literacy message. In the exploratory analysis of this study, individual attitudes towards the media literacy message and willingness to share a media literacy message will measure
affective processing of the media literacy message. The expected findings are that the effects of (the perception of) sharing a media literacy message and receiving positive feedback on a media literacy message would induce greater attitudinal changes and increase willingness to share a media literacy message on Facebook. As such, the following three research questions are posed, based on the context of the media literacy message, the type of feedback received on a media literacy message, and the interaction effect between context and type of feedback on a media literacy message:
RQ1a: Does (the perception of) online sharing of a media literacy message increase affective processing of the message, by increasing willingness to share a media literacy message (H1b) and inducing more positive attitudes towards the media literacy message (H1c)?
RQ2a: Does the perception of receiving positive feedback on a media literacy post online increase affective processing of the message, by increasing willingness to share a media literacy message (H2b) and inducing more positive attitudes towards the media literacy message (H2c)?
RQ3a: Does the effect of positive feedback on a media literacy message become stronger when (the perception of) online sharing of the media literacy message occurs and does this effect increase the affective processing of the message, by increasing willingness to share a media literacy message (H3b) and inducing more positive attitudes towards the media literacy message (H3c)?
Alternatively, the perceived realism as well as the perceived educational value of the media literacy message will measure cognitive processing of the media literacy message. The expected findings being that the effects of (the perception of) sharing a media literacy
message and receiving positive feedback on a media literacy message would increase the perceived realism and perceived educational value of the media literacy message. As such, the following three research questions are posed based the context of the media literacy
message, the type of feedback received on a media literacy message, and the interaction effect between context and type of feedback on a media literacy message:
RQ1b: Does (the perception of) online sharing of a media literacy message increase cognitive processing of the message, by increasing perceived realism (H1d) and perceived educational value (H1e) of the media literacy message?
RQ2b: Does the perception of receiving positive feedback on a media literacy post online increase cognitive processing of the message, by increasing perceived realism (H2d) and perceived educational value (H2e) of the media literacy message?
RQ3b: Does the effect of positive feedback on a media literacy message become stronger when (the perception of) online sharing of the media literacy message occurs and does this effect increase the cognitive processing of the message, by increasing perceived realism (H3d) and perceived educational value (H3e) of the media literacy message?
Methods Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted among a sample of females aged between 18-25 (N= 15) that was representative of the participants required for the factorial experiment. In the pilot study, participants were briefed on the study. As a cover story, participants were told that the study was about their opinion of Facebook posts and comments that are left on these posts. They were also notified that some of the questions were related to media and gender
stereotypes but that these questions were more focused in a societal context rather than very personal questions. Participants were then asked to rate feedback comments on the Facebook post used in the manipulation of the study, based on the valence of these comments (positive vs. negative). Participants were provided with 10 comments (5 positive vs. 5 negative) from which they were asked to select the three most positive and three most negative comments.
This was done to ensure that, out of a variety of comments, the top comments matched the description of either positive or negative comments. The rating scale for the comments was a 7-pt Likert scale (from 1 = “Extremely negative” to 7 = “Extremely positive”). Prior to rating the feedback comments, participants were provided with a definition and an example of what is meant by the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’.
Regarding positive feedback, the three comments that scored the highest mean score on a scale from one to seven, were chosen for the experiment as these were considered as the most positive comments, based on the 7-pt scale (from 1 = “Extremely negative” to 7 = “Extremely positive”) (Refer to Appendix A). Regarding negative feedback, the three comments that scored the lowest mean score on a scale from one to seven, were chosen for the experiment as these were considered as the most negative comments based on the 7-pt scale (from 1 = “Extremely negative” to 7 = “Extremely positive”) (refer to Appendix A).
Participants
The participants in the study consisted mostly of students at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and were representative of an emerging adult age bracket (18-25 years old). Overall, the study consisted of 118 female only participants (N=118) aged between 18-25 years old. The majority of these participants (62.1%) indicated that they were currently enrolled as Bachelor students, 6.8% were pre-Masters students and 17.4% were Masters students. Given the nature and content of the study, which used a popular press article focused on gender stereotypes and the objectification of women in current media, the study made use of female participants only. Participants were assured that their participation was voluntary and anonymous and that they had the option to have their participation terminated at any time.
The research design of this study consisted of a 2 x 3 (Context [private vs. public] x Type of Feedback [no feedback vs. negative vs. positive]) between-subjects factorial experimental design. A between-subjects design was used for both factors with the aim of avoiding desensitization to the conditions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions. Each condition consisted of the following number of participants: private context, no feedback (n=22); private context, negative feedback (n=22); private context, positive feedback (n=23); public context, no feedback (n=23), public context, negative feedback (n=14), public context, positive feedback (n=14); thereby making the total sample size of the study 118 participants (N=118).
Procedure
At the start of the experiment, participants were asked for their informed consent to participate in the study. Participants were then asked screening questions about their age and study. If participants were not female and lay outside of the age of 18-25, they were
automatically sent to the end of the survey as they did not meet the study requirements. For those who met the requirements, they were then asked to fill in information regarding
Facebook related behaviours and attitudes such as frequency of Facebook use, peer norms of posting content on Facebook and skepticism about Facebook content. These variables were later used as a randomization check.
Regarding frequency of Facebook use, 90.7% of participants stated that they used Facebook on a daily basis (n=107). When asked about their frequency of posting content (ie. statuses, photos, articles, videos) on Facebook, the majority of participants (53.4%) answered that they rarely posted content on Facebook (n=63), while others (33.9%) stated that they sometimes posted content on Facebook (n=40). However, when asked about the frequency with which peers posted content on Facebook, 51.70% of respondents answered that their
peers sometimes posted content (n=61), whilst 36.4% of participants answered that their peers posted content on Facebook very often (n=43).
Participants were then randomly assigned to one of six conditions (i.e., private context, no feedback, private context, negative feedback, private context, positive feedback; public context, no feedback; public context, negative feedback; public context, positive feedback) and shown a Facebook post (see description of the manipulation below).
Participants were given a link to a Facebook post (a popular press article) and told that they would be asked questions about the post at a later stage. Participants in the public conditions were first told that they had to share an article as a post on their Facebook profile after reading the article.
Before viewing the Facebook post, participants were notified that the person whose post was about to be shown gave their permission to share the post. This mitigated the concerns participants might have felt about the researchers sharing people’s Facebook pages in experiments, as any negative feelings about such sharing could influence their willingness to participate in a sincere manner.
In all conditions, participants were exposed to the same Facebook post. The Facebook post content was a popular press article focusing on media literacy regarding societal views on social media, gender equality and sexuality (refer to Appendix B). The study used Qualtrics and it was thus possible to measure the time participants spent reading the post in order to make sure that the participants read the full post. After reading the post as well as viewing an image of the post as it would appear on Facebook (either with positive, negative or no feedback, depending on the condition), the dependent variable ‘Attitudes towards Sexism’ was measured, as well as the variables measuring the cognitive and affective processing of the media literacy message (i.e., perceived realism of the media literacy message, perceived educational value of the media literacy message, individual attitudes
towards the media literacy message, as well as willingness to share the media literacy message. After the experiment, participants in the public context were asked whether they had been told to share an article on their Facebook page, as a manipulation check. If
participants answered ‘no’, they were deleted from the sample, as this indicated that they did not pay attention to the manipulation. Participants were also asked whether they were
exposed to positive, negative or no feedback to ensure that participants payed attention to the condition which they were randomly assigned to.
Manipulations
Context. The factor ‘Context’ was divided into two conditions: private vs. public. In the private condition, participants were asked to just read a Facebook post as well as the feedback given about the post in the form of comments that were written about the post below, which were either positive, negative, or with no feedback given.
For the purpose of this study, we want to investigate responses to articles posted on Facebook. Please first read the article in the link below. When you are done reading the article, please click the arrows and continue to the next section.
In the public condition, participants were told that they would be asked to share the post that followed after reading the post and the comments left below, which were either positive, negative, or with no feedback given. For example:
For the purpose of this study, we want to investigate responses to Facebook posts. We would therefore like to ask you to share an article on your Facebook wall and inform us about the comments you receive afterwards. Please first read the article in the link
below. When you are done reading the article, please click the arrows and continue to the next section.
When participants, in both the private and public conditions, were shown the Facebook post, the post was presented as an visual example of sharing the post on their Facebook page, in order to increase the psychological realism of the manipulation.
Type of feedback. The factor ‘Type of feedback’ was divided into three conditions: no feedback versus negative feedback versus positive feedback. Participants in the no feedback condition were asked to read the Facebook post, view an image of the post as it would appear on a Facebook newsfeed and then continue to answer the questions that followed (refer to Appendix C). Participants in the positive and negative conditions were asked to read the Facebook post, view an image of the post as it would appear on a Facebook newsfeed and then continue to answer the questions that followed (for positive context with positive feedback, refer to Appendix D and for negative context with negative feedback, refer to Appendix E).
Measures
Dependent variable: attitudes towards sexism. Participants were asked about their attitudes concerning the role of men and women and subtle forms of sexism in contemporary society using the Modern Sexism scale (MS). Questions were answered on a 7-pt Likert scale (from 1 = “Strongly agree” to 7 = “Strongly disagree”). The MS scale, developed by Swim and Cohen (1997) contains 8-items, with statements such as “It is rare to see women treated in a sexist manner in the media”, and “discrimination against women is no longer a problem”.
A principal components factor analysis (PCA) was run with eight items that measured attitudes towards sexism on the Modern Sexism scale (MS). After a direct oblimin rotation, both the Eigen-value-criterion (bigger than 1: eigenvalue component 1 is 3.82) and the scree plot showed that there was one component that explained 54.63% of the variance in the original variables (items). After an initial factor analysis, one scale item “Over the past few years, the government and news media have been showing more concern about the treatment of women than is warranted by women’s actual experiences”, was deleted as it differed from the other items and loaded on its own factor. Removing this item resulted in a total of 7 scale items for the MS scale. The reliability for this factor was .86 (α=.86). In the Item-Total Statistics Table, it was evident that the Cronbach’s Alpha of this factor could not be higher if any of the seven items were deleted. Hence, the scale was reliable as Cronbach’s Alpha was bigger than .70, with a mean average of 5.06 (M=5.06) and standard deviation of .99 (SD=.99).
Exploratory analyses: dependent variables
Individual attitudes towards the media literacy message. Participants’ attitudes towards the media literacy message was operationalized as their predisposition to respond in a positive, negative or neutral way to media literacy messages after having been exposed to these messages on Facebook. The items measuring individual attitudes were based on a scale previously used by Nekmat (2012) and were measured on a semantic differential scale with the following anchors: 1(very negative) 5 (very positive); 1 (very harmful) 5 (very
beneficial); 1 (very bad) 5 (very good) 5; 1 (very foolish) 5 (very wise); 1(very unfavourable) 5 (very favourable).
A principal components factor analysis (PCA) was run with five items that measured individual attitudes towards the Facebook post. After a direct oblimin rotation, both the Eigen-value-criterion (bigger than 1: eigenvalue component 1 is 3.97) and the scree plot
showed that there was one component that explained 79.37% of the variance in the original variables (items). The reliability for this factor was .93 (α=.93). In the Item-Total Statistics Table, it was evident that the Cronbach’s Alpha of this factor could not be higher if any of the five items were deleted. Hence, the scale was reliable as Cronbach’s Alpha was bigger than .70, with a mean average of 3.71 (M=3.71) and standard deviation of .84 (SD=.84).
Perceived realism of the media literacy message. Participants were asked about the perceived realism of the media literacy message based on a scale previously used by Buselle (2001) to measure the perceived realism of media content. Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with the following statements, on a 7-pt Likert scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”) with items such as “I find the article realistic”, “the depiction of the characters in the article is similar to real life”, “You can learn a lot about being a woman by reading this article”, and “By reading this article, I learnt how to act as a woman”.
A principal components factor analysis (PCA) was run with four items that measured perceived realism of . After a direct oblimin rotation, both the Eigen-value-criterion (bigger than 1: eigenvalue component 1 is 2.55) and the scree plot showed that there was one component that explained 63.76% of the variance in the original variables (items). The reliability for this factor was .80 (α=.80). In the Item-Total Statistics Table, it was evident that the Cronbach’s Alpha of this factor could be higher (α=.81) if one scale item was removed, however this item was kept as the reliability of the scale was already sufficiently high and the scale was reliable as it was higher than .70, with a mean average of 4.36 (M=4.36) and standard deviation 1.15 (SD=1.15).
Perceived educational value of the media literacy message. The perceived
educational value of the media literacy message was measured using scale items developed for this study. Participants answered questions, on a 7-pt Likert scale (from 1 = “Strongly
disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”) that helped to assess the perceived educational value of the media literacy message. This included the following statements: “The information from the article will be useful to me”, “the article was interesting”, “the article taught me things I did not know before”, “the article made me think about the content”.
A principal components factor analysis (PCA) was run with four items that measured the perceived educational value of the Facebook post. After a direct oblimin rotation, both the Eigen-value-criterion (bigger than 1: eigenvalue component 1 is 2.65) and the scree plot showed that there was one component that explained 66.36% of the variance in the original variables (items). The reliability for this factor was .82 (α=.82). In the Item-Total Statistics Table, it was evident that the Cronbach’s Alpha of this factor could be higher (α=.86) if one scale item was removed, however this item was kept as the reliability of the scale was already sufficiently high and the scale was reliable as it was higher than .70, with a mean average of 4.51 (M=4.51) and standard deviation 1.22 (SD=1.22).
Willingness to share media literacy messages. Participants were asked about their willingness to share media literacy messages on their Facebook feed. Behavioural willingness was measured using the willingness model by Gerrard, Gibbons, Houlihan, Stock and
Pomery (2008). Using this measure, a hypothetical situation was first described, for example:
Imagine that you come across this article as a post by a friend on their Facebook timeline.
Then, the likelihood that people will read/like/share such content was asked. For example:
How likely is it that you…a) will read this post, b)… will ‘like’ this post, c)…will place a comment below this post, and d)…will share this post on your own profile page
Participants answered questions, on a 7-pt Likert scale (from 1 = “Extremely
unlikely” to 7 = “Extremely likely”) that helped to evaluate willingness to share. A principal components factor analysis (PCA) was run with four items that measured willingness to share the Facebook post. After a direct oblimin rotation, both the Eigen-value-criterion (bigger than 1: eigenvalue component 1 is 2.55) and the scree plot showed that there was one component that explained 63.63% of the variance in the original variables (items). The reliability for this factor was .81 (α=.81). In the Item-Total Statistics Table, it was evident that the Cronbach’s Alpha of this factor could be higher (α=.83) if one scale item was removed, however this item was kept as the reliability of the scale was already sufficiently high and the scale is reliable as it was higher than .70, with a mean average of 3.42 (M=3.42) and standard deviation 1.47 (SD=1.47).
Results
SPSS version 22.0 was used to analyze all data in this research. The results presented below are in accordance with the main dependent variable tested in this study: attitudes towards sexism. Exploratory analyses also tested the following variables: Individual attitudes towards the media literacy message, perceived realism of the media literacy message,
perceived educational value of the media literacy message, and willingness to share the media literacy message on social media.
Randomization Check
In order to check if random assignment to the conditions was successful, a MANOVA was conducted, with context (public vs. private) and type of feedback (no feedback vs.
negative feedback vs. positive feedback) as the fixed factors and frequency of Facebook use, frequency of posting on Facebook, frequency of peers posting on Facebook and skepticism towards Facebook content as the dependent variables. The analysis showed no effect of
context, Wilks’ 𝜆 =.942, F(4,109)=1.68, p=.161, partial η2
=.058, no effect of type of feedback, Wilks’ 𝜆 =. 984, F(8, 218)= .24, p=.986, partial η2
=.008, and no interaction effect of context and type of feedback, Wilks’ 𝜆 =.913, F(8, 218)=.91, p=.259, partial η2
=.045. This indicated that no differences existed between conditions regarding frequency of Facebook use, frequency of posting on Facebook, frequency of peers posting on Facebook and skepticism towards Facebook content as the dependent variables, which suggested that randomization was successful.
Manipulation Check
A manipulation check, “As far as you can recall, were you asked to share an article on your Facebook wall?” was measured with the answer options “No, I was not asked to share an article” and “Yes, I was asked to share an article” in order to assess whether the
manipulation check for context was correctly interpreted. After running an analysis measuring the association between context and the manipulation check for context, the findings indicated that there was a significant association between context and the
manipulation check for context, Cramer’s V= .69, p<.001. Participants in the private context condition (n=67) were statistically significantly different from participants in the public context condition (n=50). Overall, participants were successfully able to indicate whether they had been asked to share or not share an article on Facebook.
A manipulation check, “Were the comments below the post mainly positive or negative?” was measured on a 10-pt scale (1= “Extremely negative” to 10= “Extremely positive”) to assess whether the manipulation check for type of feedback was correctly interpreted. The results of a one-way ANOVA indicated that the independent variable, type of feedback (no feedback vs. negative vs. positive) had a significant effect on the dependent variable, the manipulation check for type of feedback, F(2, 67)=233.67, p<.001. Participants
in the no feedback condition (M= 4.00, SD=2.45) were statistically significantly different from the negative feedback condition (M= .91, SD=1.28), as well as statistically significantly different from the positive feedback condition (M= 9.09, SD=1.62). Overall, participants were successfully able to indicate whether they had received no feedback, negative feedback or positive feedback on a Facebook article in the study.
Main Analyses
To test hypotheses 1a, 2a and 3a, the direct effects of context and type of feedback on a media literacy message posted on Facebook, and their interaction effect, on attitudes
towards sexism, was tested. First, a univariate ANOVA was conducted with attitudes towards sexism as the dependent variable and context (public vs. private) and type of feedback (no feedback vs. negative feedback vs. positive feedback) as the as the independent variables. The analysis showed only an effect of context, F(1, 111)=7.00, p=.009, partial η2 =.059 on attitudes towards sexism. There was no effect of type of feedback, F(2, 111)= .48, p= .622, partial η2 =.009 nor an interaction between context and type of feedback, F(2, 111)= .12, p=.890, partial η2 =.002 on attitudes towards sexism. In response to H1 there was a direct effect of context, and in response to H2, there was no direct effect of type of feedback. Moreover, in response to H3, there was no interaction effect between context and type of feedback. Furthermore, it should be noted that the assumption of equal variances was upheld, Levene’s test F(5, 111)=1.14, p=.342.
Regarding the direct effect of context, a mean comparison showed that participants in the public condition (M=4.79), scored lower than participants in the private condition
(M=5.28) on the MS scale. This is in line with hypothesis 1, as attitudes towards sexism decreased more in the public condition (M=4.79), than in the private condition (M=5.28). In terms of the direct effect of type of feedback, Bonferroni post-hoc analyses revealed that
participants in the no feedback condition (M=4.92), had an almost similar attitude towards sexism than participants in the negative feedback condition (M=5.09), as well as participants in the positive feedback condition (M=5.10), therefore not supporting hypothesis 2.
Exploratory Analyses
Additionally, exploratory analyses were conducted on the following variables: individual attitudes toward, perceived realism and perceived educational value of and willingness to share a media literacy message on Facebook. A MANOVA was conducted with context and type of feedback as the fixed factors, and the four variables related to the media literacy message (individual attitudes towards the media literacy message, perceived realism of the media literacy message, perceived education value of the media literacy message and willingness to share the media literacy message) as the dependent variables. The analysis showed only an effect of context, Wilks’ 𝜆 =.879, F(4,108)=3.72, p=.007, partial η2=.121, but no effect of type of feedback, Wilks’ 𝜆 =. 901, F(8, 216)=1.45, p=.177,
partial η2=.051, and no interaction effect of context and type of feedback, Wilks’ 𝜆 =.969,
F(8, 216)=.43, p=.900, partial η2=.016.
Mean comparisons for the effect of context showed that participants in the private condition (M=3.94) had a more positive attitude towards the media literacy message than participants in the public condition (M=3.40). Participants in the private condition (M=4.63), experienced a greater level of perceived realism of the media literacy message than
participants in the public condition,(M=4.02). Participants in the private condition (M=4.73) had a greater perception of educational value of the media literacy message than participants in the public condition (M=4.20). Finally, participants in the private condition (M=3.76) were more willing to share the media literacy message than participants in the public condition (M=2.98). Furthermore, post-hoc analyses for the effect of type of feedback showed that
participants in the positive feedback condition (M=3.97) had a more positive attitude towards the media literacy message than participants in the no feedback condition (M=3.60), as well as a more positive attitude towards the media literacy message than participants in the negative feedback condition (M=3.44).
Figure 1.1 Direct effect of setting: mean scores
Discussion
This study investigated the effectiveness of media literacy messages on a social media platform such as Facebook. More specifically, the study focused on the role of media literacy messages on influencing attitudes towards sexism. The study had the goal of testing the effect of context, or (the perception of) sharing media literacy messages in social media, on one’s attitudes towards sexism. In addition to this, the study aimed to assess whether the type of feedback one receives on a Facebook post (ie. posting a media literacy article) has an effect on attitudes towards sexism.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Attitudes towards sexism Individual attitudes
Perceived realism Perceived educational value
Willingness to share
Private Public
The results showed that, sharing a media literacy message on social media
significantly decreased sexist attitudes compared to merely reading a media literacy messages outside of the context of social sharing, therefore supporting H1a. Thus, in response to RQ1, the study found that sharing a media literacy message on social media does increase the effectiveness of the media literacy message in changing attitudes towards sexism. Furthermore, the exploratory analysis revealed that (the perception of) online sharing of media literacy messages had a significant influence on individual attitudes towards the media literacy message, perceived realism and perceived educational value of the media literacy message and on their willingness to share the message on their Facebook wall. These findings showed that (the perception of) online sharing of a media literacy message did not increase affective processing of the message (RQa), however, it did increase the cognitive processing of the message (RQd). In response to RQ2, there was no significant effect of the type of feedback provided on a media literacy message on one’s attitudes towards sexism, thus not supporting H2a.
Implications for Research on the Use of Media Literacy Messages on Social Networking Sites
The role of context on the use of media literacy messages on social networking sites. The findings showed that those who were asked to share the media literacy media on their Facebook wall scored lower on the Modern Sexism (MS) scale, revealing that exposure to (the perception of) sharing the media literacy message lead to decreased sexist attitudes. This is in line with previous research conducted by Jeong et al. (2012) which found that an important determinant of the effectiveness of media literacy messages is the context in which the message is portrayed. This was clear in the findings as the public context of sharing a media literacy message decreased sexist attitudes more than in the private context. The
findings further lends itself to previous research which found that individuals who had received and expressed (ie. shared) their personal thoughts and opinions on a certain issue were more cognitively involved, learned more from the message and experienced greater attitudinal changes than those who had simply read the message (Nekmat, 2012). Moreover, it is known from previous research, that active audience involvement, such as self-expression, self-perception and feedback, is high on SNS (Walther et al., 2011). As such, the findings of the study at hand present a strong case for the future use of media literacy messages on social media platforms where an active audience is present.
The exploratory analysis revealed that participants in the private condition experienced significantly more positive attitudes towards the media literacy message,
perceived the media literacy message to be more realistic as well as perceived the educational value of the media literacy message to be greater, and would be more willing to share a media literacy message online than those in the public condition. The findings of the exploratory analysis stand in contrast to initial expectations, as it was found that both affective and cognitive processing of the media literacy message increased in the private condition. Based on dual-process theories of attitude change and information processing, message acceptance or rejection is a result of how individuals associate message content with desired outcomes as well as based on a comparison of content accuracy of the message versus what individuals factually believe to be true (Pinkleton et al., 2013). In the case of this particularly study, no differences were found between the private and public conditions regarding the dual
processing of the media literacy message. Future research could further explore this dual process model in the case of future media literacy interventions by exploring the effect of self-expression, as well as the process one undergoes when one is actively involved by having to share a media literacy message.
The role of feedback on the use of media literacy messages on social networking sites. Social networking sites serve as a platform for the reciprocal interaction with others that lends itself to receiving feedback through these channels by one’s peers. Research by Walther et al. (2011) found that online feedback is an important component of SNS activity that ties in with the concepts of online identity and self-presentation. Inconsistent with our expectations, the results of the study revealed that the type of feedback received on a media literacy message does not play a leading role in one’s attitudes towards sexism after being exposed to a media literacy message. In particular, the “unnaturalness” of the negative feedback condition could be seen as an explanation for why the manipulation was not successful (refer to Appendix D). In a real-world setting, it could be expected to be unlikely that one’s peers would post overtly negative feedback on what one posts on one’s Facebook wall. Future research could conduct a similar study in which the negative condition is either excluded or presented in the study in a more natural manner. Despite the lack of a main effect, it was found that the type of feedback received on a media literacy message has a significant effect on attitudes towards the media literacy message, with positive feedback inducing more positive attitudes towards the media literacy message.
In addition to this, future research could explore the impact of strength of tie in determining whether the effect of type of feedback is moderated by the strength of tie between the individual and the person posting the feedback. In a field experiment on Facebook, Wang and Chang (2013) sought to assess how online social ties and product-related risks influence purchase intentions. The results of their study suggest that the information and recommendations provided by strong-tie contacts have a greater impact on purchase intentions than those provided by weak-tie contacts. Although this particular study was related to purchase intentions, it would be interesting to explore whether the same results would occur within a media literacy setting in which the product is replaced by a media
literacy message and the information and recommendations is replaced by feedback on a Facebook post (medial literacy message). In addition to this, there is a need for future
research to assess whether strength of tie, through distinguishing between close and weak tie contacts, plays a role regarding exposure to the effects of feedback on someone’s else’s post. A limitation of the manipulation is a lack of distinction between the effects of feedback on one’s own post, versus the effects of exposure to the feedback on someone else’s post.
Overall, the study found that there was no direct effect of type of feedback, nor an interaction effect between setting and type of feedback on attitudes towards sexism. Although previous research has found that online feedback is an important component of SNS activity that ties in with the concept of self-presentation (Walther et al., 2011), it appears that, when taking into account the setting of sharing or not sharing a media literacy message, the type of feedback posted has little effect. Moreover, despite findings that reveal that content is more likely to be shared if it conjures up a strong emotional reaction, particularly positive content (Berger & Milkman, 2012), the results indicate that positive feedback did not significantly affect the desire to share a media literacy message. The findings of the exploratory analyses thus suggested that the effect of sharing is not affected by the type of feedback or vice versa. This could, in part, be due to the fact that the results revealed that the effect of feedback was not that strong to begin with.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The research design and results in the present study are limited in some respects. Firstly, it is necessary to recognize potential confounds of the stimuli, such as the content of the popular press article chosen as the media literacy message in the study which might indicate that the results in the present study are generalizable to other factors beyond the content of the study. Moreover, as the study used an experimental research design, internal
validity is high, however, the external validity of the experimental design should also be considered. External validity is reduced as the study did not make use of participants’ actual Facebook accounts and Facebook friends, but rather created a new Facebook account to use as the stimuli in the study. In addition to this, the orientation of the study was a one-shot media effects experiment, and thus, based on the experimental approach that was adopted in the study, it is necessary to recognize the sacrifice of ecological validity for internal validity. In the experiment, participants were asked to read an article that was posted by Sarah
Anderson, a person they did not know, on her Facebook wall and then view a screenshot of what the post would look like on Facebook, depending on the condition. Although a real Facebook account was created in order to develop realistic content for the experiment, future research could attempt to increase ecological validity by designing a study that made use of the participants’ actual Facebook profile and friends, which might have a different impact on the results. Future research should consider a longitudinal research design that would afford researchers the opportunity to expose participants repeatedly to stimuli (ie. Multiple popular press articles) rather than on a single occasion only.
Furthermore, the present study focused on a Dutch sample of female only emerging adults, which might call into question the generalizability of the results beyond this specific research context. Future research could replicate a similar study amongst female emerging adults, or female adolescents, from a different context other than a predominantly Dutch background. Additionally, it might be interesting for future research to conduct a similar study with female adolescents as these individuals may be more influenced by media literacy messages. This is particularly apt, within the context of this study, as research suggests that sexual content in the media has been shown to influence adolescents’ sexual socialization processes and behavior (Pinkleton et al., 2013). This would result in further contributions towards extant research which has been fueled by adolescents’ regular and increasing
consumption of sexual media content in recent years (Ward, 2003 as cited in Vandenbosch & Eggermont, 2015). Additionally, the decision to not include men in this particular study was made due to the topical issue of gender stereotypes and sexualized media content, which is often targeted at women. However, considering research has shown that the objectification of idealized female bodies in sexualized media messages has also extended to male bodies (Vandenbosch & Eggermont, 2015), it might be interesting for future research to employ male respondents and to study the effectiveness of media literacy messages on social networking sites and assess whether results may differ, based on gender.
Lastly, due to some technical difficulties in the random assignment to conditions, as well as difficulty with finding respondents who met the specific requirements of the study, the number of participants, and the unequal amount of participants in each condition, can be considered a limitation to the study. Future research should endeavour to employ more respondents and assess whether this has an impact on the current results. In addition to this, technical difficulties with the survey resulted in two conditions not working straight away, meaning that randomization is not perfect in this study. However, the randomization check showed that there were no significant differences between the conditions in several important variables.
Conclusion
To conclude, the results of this study provide evidence for the use of media literacy messages on SNS as a potentially effective strategy for reaching an emerging adult audience with critical media messages regarding sexualized media content, by improving their
understanding of media as well as their critical thinking abilities regarding media messages. In answer to the initially proposed research questions, the findings of the study reveal that (the perception of) sharing a media literacy message on social media does increase the effectiveness of the media literacy message in changing attitudes towards sexism, however,
the findings also suggest that the type of feedback received on a media literacy message on social media has an insignificant effect on one’s attitudes towards sexism.
Taken together, the findings from this study suggest that media literacy messages hold promise within the context of social networking sites. The long-term effects of exposure to these types of media messages may be more thoughtful decision making, which is based on a better use of information sources by young people. As such, giving young people the tools they need to self-navigate through an ever-evolving and complex media landscape might result in young people making better choices for themselves and be less likely to be manipulated into believing skewed and objectifying media portrayals. In conclusion, the current research established the importance of media literacy messages in an online, social media context and can be seen as a benchmark for fueling further research in a prevalent and important field of research, given the presence of social media in young people’s daily lives.
References
Albury, K. (2015). Selfies, Sexts, and Sneaky Hats: Young People's Understandings of Gendered Practices of Self-Representation. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1734-1745.
Aubrey, J. S. (2004). Sex and punishment: An examination of sexual consequences and the sexual double standard in teen programming. Sex Roles, 50(7-8), 505-514.
Aubrey, J. S., & Frisby, C. M. (2011). Sexual objectification in music videos: A content analysis comparing gender and genre. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 475-501.
Aufderheide, P. (1993). Media Literacy. A Report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. Aspen Institute, Communications and Society Program, 1755
Banerjee, S. C., & Greene, K. (2006). Analysis versus production: Adolescent cognitive and attitudinal responses to antismoking interventions. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 773-794.
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?. Journal of marketing research, 49(2), 192-205.
Bergsma, L. J., & Carney, M. E. (2008). Effectiveness of health-promoting media literacy education: a systematic review. Health Education Research, 23(3), 522-542. Brown, J. D., L'Engle, K. L., Pardun, C. J., Guo, G., Kenneavy, K., & Jackson, C. (2006).
Sexy media matter: exposure to sexual content in music, movies, television, and magazines predicts black and white adolescents' sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 117(4), 1018-1027.
Busselle, R. W. (2001). Television exposure, perceived realism, and exemplar accessibility in the social judgment process. Media Psychology, 3(1), 43-67.
Evers, C. W., Albury, K., Byron, P., & Crawford, K. (2013). Young People, Social Media, Social Network Sites and Sexual Health Communication in Australia:" This is Funny, You Should Watch It". International Journal of Communication, 7, 263-280..
Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., Houlihan, A. E., Stock, M. L., & Pomery, E. A. (2008). A dual-process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype willingness model. Developmental Review, 28(1), 29-61.
Gill, R. (2008). Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism & psychology, 18(1), 35-60.
Gill, R. (2011). Sexism reloaded, or, it's time to get angry again!. Feminist Media Studies, 11(01), 61-71.
Jeong, S. H., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media literacy interventions: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 454-472.
Klaassen, M. J., & Peter, J. (2015). Gender (in) equality in Internet pornography: A content analysis of popular pornographic Internet videos. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(7), 721-735.
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2003a). A biennial report of the Kaiser Family Foundation 2003: Sex on TV 3. Retrieved from
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&Page ID=14278
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2003b). National Survey of Adolescents and Young Adults: Sexual health knowledge, attitudes and experiences. Retrieved from
http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/loader.
cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=14269
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New media & society, 10(3), 393-411.
Nekmat, E. (2012). Message expression effects in online social communication. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(2), 203-224.
Pingree, R. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17(4), 439-461. Reichert, T., LaTour, M. S., Lambiase, J. J., & Adkins, M. (2007). A test of media literacy
effects and sexual objectification in advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 29(1), 81-92.
Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., Cohen, M., Chen, Y. C. Y., & Fitzgerald, E. (2008). Effects of a peer-led media literacy curriculum on adolescents' knowledge and attitudes toward sexual behavior and media portrayals of sex. Health communication, 23(5), 462-472.
Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., Chen, Y. C. Y., & Cohen, M. (2013). Assessing Effects of a Media Literacy-Based Intervention on US Adolescents' Responses to and
Interpretations of Sexual Media Messages. Journal of Children and Media, 7(4), 463-479.
Ringrose, J., & Barajas, K. E. (2011). Gendered risks and opportunities? Exploring teen girls' digitized sexual identities in postfeminist media contexts. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 7(2), 121-138.
Salter, M. (2013). Justice and revenge in online counter-publics: Emerging responses to sexual violence in the age of social media. Crime, Media, Culture, 0(0), 1-18.
Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: Rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students' mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(1), 42-76.
Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, Covert, And Subtle Sexism A Comparison Between the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism Scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 103-118.
The Guardian (2015). Social media is protecting men from periods, breast milk and body hair. [Press release]. Retrieved from:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/social-media-protecting-men-periods-breast-milk-body-hair
Walther, J. B., Liang, Y. J., DeAndrea, D. C., Tong, S. T., Carr, C. T., Spottswood, E. L., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2011). The effect of feedback on identity shift in computer-mediated communication. Media Psychology, 14(1), 1-26.
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents' well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 584-590.
Vandenbosch, L., & Eggermont, S. (2015). The role of mass media in adolescents’ sexual behaviors: Exploring the explanatory value of the three-step self-objectification process. Archives of sexual behavior, 44(3), 729-742.
Appendix A Feedback Comments
Participants in the positive condition received the following types of comments at the bottom of the Facebook post:
Mai Holdom: “This is why I am so glad that social media exists-let’s continue to create a platform where we can openly talk about these types of issues. Great post, Sarah! (M=6.40, SD=.74)
Harriet Butterfield: “Hi Sarah! I think Mai makes a really good point! I really hope to see more people like you talking about and raising awareness about these important societal topics on social media!” (M=6.33, SD=.62)
Bram Theunissen: “Yes! Love it and totally agree-let’s stop discrimination, against men and women. As Harriet said, we can use social media for important societal topics like promoting tolerance for all. Great article!” (M=6.40, SD=.74)
Participants in the negative condition received the following types of comments at the bottom of the Facebook post:
Mai Holdom: “I don’t really understand why people feel like it is necessary to post these kinds of “serious” articles on Facebook…can’t we all just stick to keeping social media light and social?!” (M=2.73, SD=1.83)
Harriet Butterfield: “Yes, I agree Mai. I’m a woman and I don’t want to see used tampons or period related-things on websites either. I know all of these things exist, but I don’t want to see it on my social media accounts”. (M=3.33, SD=2.13)
Bram Theunissen: “Sorry Sarah, but I kind of agree with Harriet and Mai. I feel like this topic has been so overdone. Can’t we move on from this gender issue now? The media will always make use of stereotypes and I just think that we shouldn’t take life so seriously.” (M=2.27, SD=1.98)
Appendix B Popular Press Article
Appendix C No feedback stimuli
Appendix D Negative feedback stimuli
Appendix E Positive feedback stimuli
