Refine
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Psychology (2) (remove)
Institute
In the public debate it is often assumed that communication in so-called “Echo Chambers” - online structures in which like-minded people share mostly messages that confirm their mutual, shared attitudes - can lead to negative outcomes such as increased societal polarization between groups holding opposing beliefs. This thesis aimed to examine this assumption from a psychological perspective and substantiate it empirically. First, based on existing research and psychological theories, a working definition of Echo Chambers was formulated, that highlights two key factors: Selective Exposure to attitudinally congruent messages and communication in homogeneous networks. Then, three studies were conducted to test links between these factors and two individual-level outcomes that are associated to subjects’ actual behavior: Their False Consensus, that is, how strongly subjects perceive the public in agreement with their own attitudes, and their Intergroup Bias, which reflects to which degree subjects’ identify as members of an in-group that is in conflict with negatively perceived out-groups. The studies employed questionnaire-based, experimental, as well as real-word data driven approaches. Overall, they confirm that exposure to Echo Chamber-like online structures can indeed lead to a more favorably distorted perception of public opinions and to more signs of Intergroup Bias in subjects’ communicational style. Thus, the thesis provides first psychologically founded empirical evidence for effects of online Echo Chamber exposure on behavior-related individual-level outcomes. The results can serve as a basis for further research as well as for the discussion of possible strategies to counter negative effects of online Echo Chambers.
Securitization Theory has been applied and advanced continuously since the publication of the seminal work “Security – A New Framework for Analysis” by Buzan et al. in 1998. Various extensions, clarifications and definitions have been added over the years. Ontological and epistemological debates as well as debates about the normativity of the concept have taken place, furthering the approach incrementally and adapting it to new empirical cases. This paper aims at contributing to the improvement of the still useful framework in a more general way by amending it with well-established findings from another discipline: Psychology. The exploratory article will point out what elements of Securitization Theory might benefit most from incorporating insights from Psychology and in which ways they might change our understanding of the phenomenon. Some well-studied phenomena in the field of (Social) Psychology, it is argued here, play an important role for the construction and perception of security threats and the acceptance of the audience to grant the executive branch extraordinary measures to counter these threats: availability heuristic, loss-aversion and social identity theory are central psychological concepts that can help us to better understand how securitization works, and in which situations securitizing moves have great or little chances to reverberate. The empirical cases of the 9/11 and Paris terror attacks will serve to illustrate the potential of this approach, allowing for variances in key factors, among them: (point in) time, system of government and ideological orientation. As a hypotheses-generating pilot study, the paper will conclude by discussing further research possibilities in the field of Securitization.