[1]	陈建美, 林鸿飞, 杨志豪(2009). 基于语法的情感词汇自动获取. 《智能系统学报》,(2),100-106. Cited in this article [2]

[2]	邓杭(2020). 突发公共卫生事件的危机传播与新闻发布. 《现代传播(中国传媒大学学报)》(4),67-72. Cited in this article [1]

[3]	龚艳萍, 马艳玲(2017). 不同情绪对网络群体极化影响的实证研究——基于VAR模型. 《商业经济研究》,(24),39-41. Cited in this article [4]

[4]	霍凤宁, 禹婷婷, 孙宝文(2015). 网络群体极化的判定、测量与干预策略研究. 《电子政务》,(10),19-26. Cited in this article [2]

[5]	李红涛, 韩婕(2020). 新冠中的非典往事:历史类比、记忆加冕与瘟疫想象. 《新闻记者》(10),15-31. Cited in this article [1]

[6]	廖圣清(2010). 上海市民的意见表达及其影响因素研究. 《新闻大学》,(2),41-49. Cited in this article [1]

[7]	廖圣清(2015). 构建社会责任传播制度,让互联网“管得紧”. 《人民论坛》,(14),40-41. Cited in this article [1]

[8]	廖圣清(2017). 新媒介技术环境下上海大学生的意见表达研究. 《新闻大学》,(6),104-112+155. Cited in this article [3]

[9]	廖圣清, 程俊超, 于建娉, 郑晨予(2022). 新闻回帖的传播网络结构对群体极化的影响. 《新闻界》,(7),24-33. Cited in this article [4]

[10]	刘友芝, 朱战缘(2020). 传媒消息来源的偏向性对早期风险预警的影响——以代表性媒体的新冠肺炎早期报道为例. 《新闻界》,(7),12-20+67. Cited in this article [1]

[11]	彭晓哲, 周晓林(2005). 情绪信息与注意偏向. 《心理科学进展》,(4),488-496. Cited in this article [1]

[12]	王晰巍, 朱泓飞, 李玥琪, 何金昌(2021). 突发公共卫生事件下网络谣言辟谣效果评价和实证研究. 《图书情报工作》,(19),36-43. Cited in this article [1]

[13]	王一牛, 罗跃嘉(2003). 突发公共卫生事件下心境障碍的特点与应对. 《心理科学进展》,(4),387-392. Cited in this article [1]

[14]	温忠麟, 叶宝娟(2014). 中介效应分析:方法和模型发展. 《心理科学进展》,(5),731-745. Cited in this article [1]

[15]	吴惠凡(2013). 媒介融合背景下意见表达方式的变化与反思. 《国际新闻界》,(11),6-18. Cited in this article [1]

[16]	钟皓曦(2020). 疫情相关中文新闻CSDC-News.检索于 https://covid19.thunlp.org/archives/4/. https://covid19.thunlp.org/archives/4/ Cited in this article [1]

[17]	Anderson A. K., & Sobel N. (2003). Dissociating intensity from valence as sensory inputs to emotion. Neuron, 39(4), 581-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00504-X https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S089662730300504X Cited in this article [2]

[18]

Anderson C. A., Berkowitz L., Donnerstein E., Huesmann L. R., Johnson J. D., Linz D., Malamuth N. M., & Wartella E. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 81-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x Abstract Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts. The effects appear larger for milder than for more severe forms of aggression, but the effects on severe forms of violence are also substantial (r =.13 to.32) when compared with effects of other violence risk factors or medical effects deemed important by the medical community (e.g., effect of aspirin on heart attacks). The research base is large; diverse in methods, samples, and media genres; and consistent in overall findings. The evidence is clearest within the most extensively researched domain, television and film violence. The growing body of video-game research yields essentially the same conclusions.

[19]

Asker D., & Dinas E. (2019). Thinking fast and furious: Emotional intensity and opinion polarization in online media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(3), 487-509. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz042 https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/83/3/487/5566253 Cited in this article [1] Abstract How do online media increase opinion polarization? The “echo chamber” thesis points to the role of selective exposure to homogeneous views and information. Critics of this view emphasize the potential of online media to expand the ideological spectrum that news consumers encounter. Embedded in this discussion is the assumption that online media affects public opinion via the range of information that it offers to users. We show that online media can induce opinion polarization even among users exposed to ideologically heterogeneous views, by heightening the emotional intensity of the content. Higher affective intensity provokes motivated reasoning, which in turn leads to opinion polarization. The results of an online experiment focusing on the comments section, a user-driven tool of communication whose effects on opinion formation remain poorly understood, show that participants randomly assigned to read an online news article with a user comments section subsequently express more extreme views on the topic of the article than a control group reading the same article without any comments. Consistent with expectations, this effect is driven by the emotional intensity of the comments, lending support to the idea that motivated reasoning is the mechanism behind this effect.

[20]

Barsade S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/3094912 Cited in this article [1] Abstract Group emotional contagion, the transfer of moods among people in a group, and its influence on work group dynamics was examined in a laboratory study of managerial decision making using multiple, convergent measures of mood, individual attitudes, behavior, and group-level dynamics. Using a 2 times 2 experimental design, with a trained confederate enacting mood conditions, the predicted effect of emotional contagion was found among group members, using both outside coders' ratings of participants' mood and participants' self-reported mood. No hypothesized differences in contagion effects due to the degree of pleasantness of the mood expressed and the energy level with which it was conveyed were found. There was a significant influence of emotional contagion on individual-level attitudes and group processes. As predicted, the positive emotional contagion group members experienced improved cooperation, decreased conflict, and increased perceived task performance. Theoretical implications and practical ramifications of emotional contagion in groups and organizations are discussed.

[21]	Beckers K., & Harder R. A. (2016). “Twitter Just Exploded” Social media as alternative vox pop. Digital Journalism, 4(7), 910-920. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1161493 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2016.1161493 Cited in this article [1]

[22]	Berkowitz L., & Harmon-Jones E. (2004). Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion, 4(2), 107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.107 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.107 Cited in this article [1]

[23]	Bowen F., & Blackmon K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393-1417. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.2003.40.issue-6 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/14676486/40/6 Cited in this article [1]

[24]

Brown A. D., & Curhan J. R. (2013). The polarizing effect of arousal on negotiation. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1928-1935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480796 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797613480796 Cited in this article [2] Abstract In this research, we examined the impact of physiological arousal on negotiation outcomes. Conventional wisdom and the prescriptive literature suggest that arousal should be minimized given its negative effect on negotiations, whereas prior research on misattribution of arousal suggests that arousal might polarize outcomes, either negatively or positively. In two experiments, we manipulated arousal and measured its effect on subjective and objective negotiation outcomes. Our results support the polarization effect. When participants had negative prior attitudes toward negotiation, arousal had a detrimental effect on outcomes, whereas when participants had positive prior attitudes toward negotiation, arousal had a beneficial effect on outcomes. These effects occurred because of the construal of arousal as negative or positive affect, respectively. Our findings have important implications not only for negotiation, but also for research on misattribution of arousal, which previously has focused on the target of evaluation, in contrast to the current research, which focused on the critical role of the perceiver.

[25]	Burke P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 836-849. Cited in this article [1]

[26]	Chaudhry I., & Gruzd A. (2020). Expressing and challenging racist discourse on Facebook: How social media weaken the “spiral of silence” theory. Policy & Internet, 12(1), 88-108. Cited in this article [1]

[27]

Chen G., Zhou S., & Zhi T. (2019). Viewing mechanism of lonely audience: Evidence from an eye movement experiment on barrage video. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 327-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.025 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0747563219302687 Cited in this article [1]

[28]	Chen H. M. (2013, February). Group polarization in virtual communities: The case of stock message boards. Paper presented at iConference 2013 Proceedings. Texas. Cited in this article [1]

[29]	Citron D. K. (2014). Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MAMA: Harvard University Press. Cited in this article [1]

[30]	Coe K., Kenski K., & Rains S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.2014.64.issue-4 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jcom.2014.64.issue-4 Cited in this article [1]

[31]	Coleman R., & Wu H. D. (2010). Proposing emotion as a dimension of affective agenda setting: Separating affect into two components and comparing their second-level effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(2), 315-327. Cited in this article [1]

[32]	Coviello L., Sohn Y., Kramer A. D., Marlow C., Franceschetti M., Christakis N. A., & Fowler J. H. (2014). Detecting emotional contagion in massive social networks. PloS one, 9(3), e90315. Cited in this article [1]

[33]	De Koster W. & Houtman D. (2008). Stormfront is like a second home to me. Information, Communication & Society, 11(8), 1155-1176. Cited in this article [1]

[34]

Del Vicario M., Vivaldo G., Bessi A., Zollo F., Scala A., Caldarelli G., & Quattrociocchi W. (2016). Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on facebook. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-016-0001-8 Cited in this article [1] Abstract Krabbe disease (KD) is a neurodegenerative disorder caused by the lack of β- galactosylceramidase enzymatic activity and by widespread accumulation of the cytotoxic galactosyl-sphingosine in neuronal, myelinating and endothelial cells. Despite the wide use of Twitcher mice as experimental model for KD, the ultrastructure of this model is partial and mainly addressing peripheral nerves. More details are requested to elucidate the basis of the motor defects, which are the first to appear during KD onset. Here we use transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to focus on the alterations produced by KD in the lower motor system at postnatal day 15 (P15), a nearly asymptomatic stage, and in the juvenile P30 mouse. We find mild effects on motorneuron soma, severe ones on sciatic nerves and very severe effects on nerve terminals and neuromuscular junctions at P30, with peripheral damage being already detectable at P15. Finally, we find that the gastrocnemius muscle undergoes atrophy and structural changes that are independent of denervation at P15. Our data further characterize the ultrastructural analysis of the KD mouse model, and support recent theories of a dying-back mechanism for neuronal degeneration, which is independent of demyelination.

[35]	Dubois E., & Szwarc J. (2018, August). Self-censorship, polarization, and the-spiral of silence on social media. Paper presented at Policy & Politics Conference. Oxford. Cited in this article [5]

[36]

Dvir-Gvirsman S. (2017). Media audience homophily: Partisan websites, audience identity and polarization processes. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1072-1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625945 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444815625945 Cited in this article [2] Abstract The study suggests that media consumers favor certain websites not only due to their content but also due to their audience. A new concept is introduced: “audience homophily,” which describes one’s preference for partisan media websites catering to a homogeneous, likeminded consumership. This attraction is explained in terms of the need for self-consistency, and I suggest that over time such behavior will polarize political identity through a spiral of reinforcement. Based on both a survey-experiment (N = 300) and a panel study combined with web-tracking technology that recorded online-exposure behavior (N = 397), it was found that individuals with more extreme ideology present higher levels of audience homophily and that, longitudinally, audience homophily is somewhat associated with ideological polarization, intolerance, and accessibility of political self-definition.

[37]	Evans J. H., Bryson B., & DiMaggio P. (2001). Opinion polarization: Important contributions, necessary limitations. American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 944-959. https://doi.org/10.1086/320297 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/320297 Cited in this article [1]

[38]	Finucane A. M. (2011). The effect of fear and anger on selective attention. Emotion, 11(4), 970. Cited in this article [1]

[39]	Fraser C., Gouge C., & Billig M. (1971). Risky shifts, cautious shifts, and group polarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(1), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.v1:1 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/10990992/1/1 Cited in this article [1]

[40]	Fredrickson B. L., & Branigan C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313-332. Cited in this article [1]

[41]	Fromkin H. L. (1970). Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of undistinctiveness upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 521. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030059 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0030059 Cited in this article [1]

[42]

Fuchs C. (2014). Social media and the public sphere. TripleC, 12(1), 57-101. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v12i1.552 https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/552 Cited in this article [1] Abstract Social media has become a key term in Media and Communication Studies and public discourse for characterising platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia, LinkedIn, Wordpress, Blogspot, Weibo, Pinterest, Foursquare and Tumblr. This paper discusses the role of the concept of the public sphere for understanding social media critically. It argues against an idealistic interpretation of Habermas and for a cultural-materialist understanding of the public sphere concept that is grounded in political economy. It sets out that Habermas’ original notion should best be understood as a method of immanent critique that critically scrutinises limits of the media and culture grounded in power relations and political economy. The paper introduces a theoretical model of public service media that it uses as foundation for identifying three antagonisms of the contemporary social media sphere in the realms of the economy, the state and civil society. It concludes that these limits can only be overcome if the colonisation of the social media lifeworld is countered politically so that social media and the Internet become public service and commons-based media.Acknowledgement: This paper is the extended version of Christian Fuchs’ inaugural lecture for his professorship of social media at the University of Westminster that he took up on February 1st, 2013. He gave the lecture on February 19th, 2014, at the University of Westminster.The video version of the inaugural lecture is available at:https://vimeo.com/97173645

[43]

Gearhart S., & Zhang W. (2014). Gay bullying and online opinion expression: Testing spiral of silence in the social media environment. Social Science Computer Review, 32(1), 18-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313504261 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0894439313504261 Cited in this article [2] Abstract Social network sites (SNSs) such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn have recently attracted the attention of public opinion scholars. However, research testing existing public opinion theories in a social media context is scarce. This study represents arguably the first empirical examination of the spiral of silence theory in the social media environment. Through an experimental manipulation embedded in an Internet survey, respondents (N = 760) were presented with a hypothetical scenario (i.e., friendly or hostile) concerning gay bullying, an issue suited for investigation due to its moral components. Willingness to self-censor and to some extent, congruency with the national opinion climate were significant predictors of various online opinion response strategies, indicating the presence of the spiral of silence phenomenon in the social media environment. However, individual characteristics such as issue importance were related to willingness to communicate about the issue, suggesting a liberating effect on opinion expression.

[44]

Hallinan B., Brubaker J. R., & Fiesler C. (2020). Unexpected expectations: Public reaction to the Facebook emotional contagion study. New Media & Society, 22(6), 1076-1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819876944 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444819876944 Cited in this article [1] Abstract How to ethically conduct online platform-based research remains an unsettled issue and the source of continued controversy. The Facebook emotional contagion study, in which researchers altered Facebook News Feeds to determine whether exposure to emotional content influences a user’s mood, has been one focal point of these discussions. The intense negative reaction by the media and public came as a surprise to those involved—but what prompted this reaction? We approach the Facebook study as a mediated controversy that reveals disconnects between how scholars, technologists, and the public understand platform-based research. We examine the controversy from the bottom up, analyzing public reactions expressed in comments on news articles. Our analysis reveals fundamental disagreements about what Facebook is and what a user’s relationship to it should be. We argue that these divergent responses emphasize the contextual nature of technology and research ethics, and conclude with a relational and contextual approach to ethical decision-making.

[45]

Hamlett P. W., & Cobb M. D. (2006). Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: Structured deliberations and polarization cascades. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 629-648. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.2006.34.issue-4 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15410072/34/4 Cited in this article [1]

[46]	Hatfield E., Cacioppo J. T., & Rapson R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953 Cited in this article [3]

[47]

Hayes A. F., Glynn C. J., & Huge M. E. (2012). Cautions regarding the interpretation of regression coefficients and hypothesis tests in linear models with interactions. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.651415 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19312458.2012.651415 Cited in this article [1]

[48]

Hayes A. F., Glynn C. J., & Shanahan J. (2005). Validating the willingness to self-censor scale: Individual differences in the effect of the climate of opinion on opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(4), 443-455. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh072 https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ijpor/edh072 Cited in this article [1]

[49]

Hinsz V. B., & Davis J. H. (1984). Persuasive arguments theory, group polarization, and choice shifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167284102012 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167284102012 Cited in this article [1] Abstract An experiment investigating the influence of information exchange (the number and persuasiveness of arguments) on group polarization and choice shifts found both the number and the persuasiveness of arguments to have significant influences. The results generally supported Persuasive Arguments Theory, al-though a weighted-average version of the theory was found to be incomplete since it did not provide for the effects of number of arguments. The results also supported the importance of distinguishing between group polarization and choice shifts-the individual and group levels of analysis respectively.

[50]

Ho S. S., & McLeod D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35(2), 190-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207313159 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093650207313159 Cited in this article [1] Abstract This study used an experiment embedded within a Web-based survey to examine the influence of contextual (i.e., face-to-face vs. online chat room discussion) and social-psychological factors on individuals' willingness to express opinions. In this experiment, respondents were asked whether they would be willing to express an opinion if they were placed in a face-to-face discussion group in one condition and in an online chat room discussion group in the other condition. Results indicate that print news use, fear of isolation, communication apprehension, future opinion congruency, and communication setting significantly predict willingness to speak out. In addition, not only did fear of isolation have a negative main effect on opinion expression, but this effect was significantly attenuated by computer-mediated discussion. Findings suggest that computer-mediated communication may avoid some of the dysfunctional social-psychological influences found in face-to-face interactions and create a forum conducive for public deliberation.

[51]

Huber M., Van Boven L., Park B., & Pizzi W. T. (2015). Seeing red: Anger increases how much Republican identification predicts partisan attitudes and perceived polarization. PLoS one, 10(9), e0139193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139193 https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139193 Cited in this article [4]

[52]	Isenberg D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141 Cited in this article [1]

[53]

Jin X., Li J., Song W., & Zhao T. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 and public health emergencies on consumer purchase of scarce products in China. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 617166. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.617166 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.617166/full Cited in this article [1] Abstract Objectives: During public health emergencies, people often scramble to buy scarce goods, which may lead to panic behavior and cause serious negative impacts on public health management. Due to the absence of relevant research, the internal logic of this phenomenon is not clear. This study explored whether and why public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic stimulate consumers' preference for scarce products.

[54]	Johnson-Laird P. N., & Oatley K. (1989). The language of emotions: An analysis of a semantic field. Cognition and Emotion, 3(2), 81-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699938908408075 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699938908408075 Cited in this article [1]

[55]	Ju C., & Tao W. (2017). Relationship strength estimation based on Wechat Friends Circle. Neurocomputing, 253, 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2016.11.075 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925231217304381 Cited in this article [1]

[56]	Kenny D. A., Korchmaros J. D., & Bolger N. (2003). Lower level mediation in multilevel models. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 115. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.115 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.115 Cited in this article [1]

[57]	King A. A., & Anderson F. D. (1971). Nixon, Agnew, and the “silent majority”: A case study in the rhetoric of polarization. Western Speech, 35(4), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570317109373712 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10570317109373712 Cited in this article [1]

[58]	Kramer A. D., Guillory J. E., & Hancock J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788-8790. Cited in this article [2]

[59]

Krosnick J. A., Boninger D. S., Chuang Y. C., Berent M. K., & Carnot C. G. (1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6), 1132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1132 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1132 Cited in this article [1]

[60]

Ksiazek T. B., Peer L., & Lessard K. (2016). User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments. New Media & Society, 18(3), 502-520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814545073 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444814545073 Cited in this article [1] Abstract With the emergence and rapid acceptance of online news come new and varied opportunities for user engagement with content, along with alternative metrics for capturing those behaviors. This study focuses on interactive engagement with online news videos. We propose a theoretical framework for conceptualizing user engagement on a continuum from exposure to interactivity. Furthermore, we make a distinction between user–content (e.g. commenting) and user–user (e.g. replying to another user’s comment) modes of interaction. We then explore publicly available measures of these concepts and test a series of hypotheses to explore commenting and conversational behaviors in response to YouTube news videos. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications for advancing our understanding of user engagement with online news.

[61]	Kunda Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480. Cited in this article [1]

[62]	Kushin M. J., Yamamoto M., & Dalisay F. (2019). Societal majority, Facebook, and the spiral of silence in the 2016 US presidential election. Social Media+ Society, 5(2), doi: 2056305119855139. Cited in this article [3]

[63]

Kwon K. H., & Cho D. (2017). Swearing effects on citizen-to-citizen commenting online: A large-scale exploration of political versus nonpolitical online news sites. Social Science Computer Review, 35(1), 84-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315602664 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0894439315602664 Cited in this article [2] Abstract Swearing, the use of taboo languages tagged with a high level of emotional arousal, has become commonplace in contemporary political culture. The current study attempts to understand the ways in which swearing influences citizen-to-citizen news commenting online. Based on a large corpus of the 2-month user comments from 26 news websites in South Korea, the study examines swearing effects as well as its interplay with anonymity on garnering public attention and shaping other users’ perceptions of the comments. Findings suggest that swearing generally has a positive effect on increasing user attention to comments as well as gaining other users’ approvals. Comparisons between political and nonpolitical topics further suggest that swearing effect on gaining public attention is particularly prominent for political discussions. In contrast, the magnitude of change toward positive valence in public perception to comments is much greater for nonpolitical topics than for politics. From the findings, we conclude that an acceptable degree of swearing norms in online discussions vary across news topical arenas. The results also lead to discussions about the possibility of like-minded exposure to political comments as a default condition for online discussions. Finally, the study highlights the role of high-arousal emotions in shaping discursive participation in contemporary networked sociodigital environment.

[64]	Lazarus R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cited in this article [1]

[65]	Lea M., & Spears R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 34(2), 283-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90045-9 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0020737391900459 Cited in this article [1]

[66]	Levendusky M. (2013). Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Political communication, 30(4), 565-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737435 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2012.737435 Cited in this article [1]

[67]	Li S., Liu Z., & Li Y. (2020). Temporal and spatial evolution of online public sentiment on emergencies. Information Processing & Management, 57(2), 102177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102177 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306457318310781 Cited in this article [1]

[68]	Li Y., Liu J., & Ren J. (2019). Social recommendation model based on user interaction in complex social networks. PloS one, 14(7), e0218957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218957 https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218957 Cited in this article [1]

[69]	Livingstone S. (2013). Making Sense of Television: The Psychology Of Audience Interpretation. London, UK: Routledge. Cited in this article [1]

[70]	Loosen W., & Schmidt J. H. (2012). (Re-) discovering the audience: The relationship between journalism and audience in networked digital media. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 867-887. Cited in this article [1]

[71]	Loughran T., & McDonald B. (2011). When is a liability not a liability? Textual analysis, dictionaries, and 10-Ks. The Journal of Finance, 66(1), 35-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.2011.66.issue-1 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15406261/66/1 Cited in this article [1]

[72]	MacKinnon D. P., Krull J. L., & Lockwood C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371 Cited in this article [1]

[73]	Manago A. M., Taylor T., & Greenfield P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 369. Cited in this article [1]

[74]

Masullo G. M., Lu S., & Fadnis D. (2021). Does online incivility cancel out the spiral of silence? A moderated mediation model of willingness to speak out. New Media & Society, 23(11), 3391-3414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820954194 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444820954194 Cited in this article [6] Abstract \n This study tested whether different negatively valenced emotional reactions—feeling angry or depressed—to incivility produce varying intentions to speak out. A related goal was to assess whether these emotional responses led to intentions to speak out regardless of whether one holds a minority or majority viewpoint. Results of an online experiment (\n N\n  = 1126) showed that intentions to speak out varied based on the intensity of the emotional responses people had after being exposed to incivility. Specifically, when uncivil messages produced lower levels of either emotion—anger or depression—people were less likely to speak out, regardless of opinion climate. However, if emotional responses were more intense for either emotion, people were more likely to speak out, regardless of opinion climate.\n

[75]

McCluskey M., & Hmielowski J. (2012). Opinion expression during social conflict: Comparing online reader comments and letters to the editor. Journalism, 13(3), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911421696 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464884911421696 Cited in this article [2] Abstract News outlets serve democratic norms by providing a wide range of viewpoints, including opinions from the public. This study examined opinion expression in online reader posts and letters to the editor in a community facing social conflict. Analysis of opinion expression about the Jena Six showed more balance in both the range and tone of opinions from online reader comments than reader letters. Online posts more often challenged community institutions than did letters. Ability to post anonymous comments, the absence of media gatekeepers and a younger audience are potential reasons why online reader comments differed from reader letters.

[76]	Metzler H., Rimé B., Pellert M., Niederkrotenthaler T., Di Natale A., & Garcia D. (2023). Collective emotions during the COVID-19 outbreak. Emotion, 23(3), 844. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001111 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/emo0001111 Cited in this article [1]

[77]

Miyata K., Yamamoto H., & Ogawa Y. (2015). What affects the spiral of silence and the hard core on Twitter? An analysis of the nuclear power issue in Japan. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(9), 1129-1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215580618 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764215580618 Cited in this article [3] Abstract We test the Spiral of Silence theory about Internet use in Japanese Internet society. We looked at Twitter and analyzed whether the Spiral of Silence theory would hold for it. Twitter’s speed and scope of information dissemination is fast and extremely wide ranging. For these reasons, Twitter is an appropriate field for analyzing the influences of the Internet on the formation of public opinion. By integrating social investigation and behavioral log analysis, we test a model that incorporates an individual’s attitudes (measured via a questionnaire) and an individual’s communication network structure and actual communication behavior (measured via behavior log analysis). The results from our analysis show a positive correlation between individuals’ perception that their opinion represents the majority view and the number of times they have spoken out. Moreover, while homogeneity of opinions of a personal network on Twitter influenced speaking out by a majority group, homogeneity of opinions does not influence speaking out by a minority group.

[78]	Moy P., Domke D., & Stamm K. (2001). The spiral of silence and public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 7-25. Cited in this article [1]

[79]	Muddiman A., Stroud N. J., & McCombs M. (2014). Media fragmentation, attribute agenda setting, and political opinions about Iraq. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(2), 215-233. Cited in this article [1]

[80]	Mullen T., & Collier N. (2004, July). Incorporating topic information into sentiment analysis models. Paper presented at proceedings of the ACL 2004 on Interactive poster and demonstration sessions. Barcelona. Cited in this article [1]

[81]	Myers D. G., & Lamm H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602. Cited in this article [1]

[82]	Nekmat E., & Gonzenbach W. J. (2013). Multiple opinion climates in online forums: Role of website source reference and within-forum opinion congruency. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(4), 736-756. Cited in this article [1]

[83]	Noelle-Neumann E. (1991). The theory of public opinion: The concept of the spiral of silence. Annals of the International Communication Association, 14(1), 256-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1991.11678790 https://academic.oup.com/anncom/article/14/1/256/7828443 Cited in this article [2]

[84]	Noelle-Neumann E. (1993). The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion-Our Social Skin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cited in this article [4]

[85]	Nussbaum M. C. (2003). Upheavals Of Thought: The Intelligence Of Emotions, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cited in this article [1]

[86]	Oeldorf-Hirsch A., & Sundar S. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0747563214006232 Cited in this article [1]

[87]

Pang N., Ho S. S., Zhang A. M., Ko J. S., Low W. X., & Tan K. S. (2016). Can spiral of silence and civility predict click speech on Facebook?. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 898-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.066 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0747563216305568 Cited in this article [6]

[88]

Papacharissi Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444804041444 Cited in this article [1] Abstract The proponents of cyberspace promise that online discourse will increase political participation and pave the road for a democratic utopia. This article explores the potential for civil discourse in cyberspace by examining the level of civility in 287 discussion threads in political newsgroups. While scholars often use civility and politeness interchangeably, this study argues that this conflation ignores the democratic merit of robust and heated discussion. Therefore, civility was defined in a broader sense, by identifying as civil behaviors that enhance democratic conversation. In support of this distinction, the study results revealed that most messages posted on political newsgroups were civil, and further suggested that because the absence of face-to-face communication fostered more heated discussion, cyberspace might actually promote Lyotard’s vision of democratic emancipation through disagreement and anarchy (Lyotard, 1984). Thus, this study supported the internet’s potential to revive the public sphere, provided that greater diversity and volume of discussion is present.

[89]	Pariser E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What The Internet Is Hiding From You. London, UK: Penguin Books Limited. Cited in this article [1]

[90]	Park C. S., & Kaye B. K. (2018). News engagement on social media and democratic citizenship: Direct and moderating roles of curatorial news use in political involvement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(4), 1103-1127. Cited in this article [1]

[91]	Picard R. W. (2000). Affective Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Cited in this article [1]

[92]

Postmes T., Spears R., & Lea M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689-715. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365098025006006 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009365098025006006 Cited in this article [1] Abstract Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is sometimes heralded for its power to break down social boundaries and to liberate individuals from social influence, group pressure, and status and power differentials that characterize much face-to-face interaction. We review research conducted within the framework of the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE) demonstrating that this is not always the case. When communicators share a common social identity, they appear to be more susceptible to group influence, social attraction, stereotyping, gender typing, and discrimination in anonymous CMC. Although CMC gives us the opportunity to traverse social boundaries, paradoxically, it can also afford these boundaries greater power, especially when they define self- and group identity.

[93]

Rao Y., Xie H., Li J., Jin F., Wang F. L., & Li Q. (2016). Social emotion classification of short text via topic-level maximum entropy model. Information & Management, 53(8), 978-986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.04.005 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378720616300386 Cited in this article [1]

[94]

Riordan M. A. (2017). Emojis as tools for emotion work: Communicating affect in text messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(5), 549-567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17704238 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0261927X17704238 Cited in this article [1] Abstract Emojis are pictures commonly used in texting. The use and type of emojis has increased in recent years; particularly emojis that are not faces, but rather objects. While prior work on emojis of faces suggest their primary purpose is to convey affect, few have researched the communicative purpose of emojis of objects. In the current work, two experiments assess whether emojis of objects also convey affect. Different populations of participants are shown text messages with or without different emojis of objects, asked to rate the message’s affective content, and indicate their confidence in their ratings. Overall results suggest that emojis of objects communicate positive affect, specifically joy. These findings are framed in the sociological theory of emotion work, suggesting that the time and effort involved in using emojis may help maintain and enhance social relationships.

[95]	Rioux K. (2000, November). Sharing information found for others on the world wide web: A preliminary examination. Paper presented at Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting. Chicago. Cited in this article [1]

[96]	Russell J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0077714 Cited in this article [4]

[97]	Sailunaz K., & Alhajj R. (2019). Emotion and sentiment analysis from Twitter text. Journal of Computational Science, 36, 101003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2019.05.009 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877750318311037 Cited in this article [1]

[98]

Scheufele D. A., & Eveland Jr W. P. (2001). Perceptions of ‘public opinion’ and ‘public’ opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/13.1.25 https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ijpor/13.1.25 Cited in this article [2]

[99]

Schöne J. P., Parkinson B., & Goldenberg A. (2021). Negativity spreads more than positivity on Twitter after both positive and negative political situations. Affective Science, 2(4), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-021-00057-7 Cited in this article [1] Abstract What type of emotional language spreads further in political discourses on social media? Previous research has focused on situations that primarily elicited negative emotions, showing that negative language tended to spread further. The current project extends existing knowledge by examining the spread of emotional language in response to both predominantly positive and negative political situations. In Study 1, we examined the spread of emotional language in tweets related to the winning and losing parties in the 2016 US elections, finding that increased negativity (but not positivity) predicted content sharing in both situations. In Study 2, we compared the spread of emotional language in two separate situations: the celebration of the US Supreme Court approval of same-sex marriage (positive) and the Ferguson unrest (negative), finding again that negativity spread further. These results shed light on the nature of political discourse and engagement.

[100]

Sia C. L., Tan B. C., & Wei K. K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated communication: Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 70-90. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.1.70.92 https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/isre.13.1.70.92 Cited in this article [1] Abstract Group polarization is the tendency of people to become more extreme in their thinking following group discussion. It may be beneficial to some, but detrimental to other, organizational decisions. This study examines how computer-mediated communication (CMC) may be associated with group polarization. Two laboratory experiments were carried out. The first experiment, conducted in an identified setting, demonstrated that removal of verbal cues might not have reduced social presence sufficiently to impact group polarization, but removal of visual cues might have reduced social presence sufficiently to raise group polarization. Besides confirming the results of the first experiment, the second experiment showed that the provision of anonymity might also have reduced social presence sufficiently to raise group polarization. Analyses of process data from both experiments indicated that the reduction in social presence might have increased group polarization by causing people to generate more novel arguments and engage in more one-upmanship behavior. Collectively, process and outcome data from both experiments reveal how group polarization might be affected by level of social presence. Specifically, group discussion carried out in an unsupported setting or an identified face-to-face CMC setting tends to result in weaker group polarization. Conversely, group discussion conducted in an anonymous face-to-face CMC setting or a dispersed CMC setting (with or without anonymity) tends to lead to stronger group polarization. Implications of these results for further research and practice are provided.

[101]

Sobieraj S., & Berry J. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360 Cited in this article [1]

[102]

Sobkowicz P., Kaschesky M., & Bouchard G. (2012). Opinion mining in social media: Modeling, simulating, and forecasting political opinions in the web. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 470-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.005 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0740624X12000901 Cited in this article [1]

[103]

Stoner J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Cited in this article [1]

[104]

Stoycheff E. (2016). Under surveillance: Examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA internet monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(2), 296-311. Cited in this article [1]

[105]

Strecher V. J., McEvoy DeVellis B., Becker M. H., & Rosenstock I. M. (1986). The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Education Quarterly, 13(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818601300108 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/109019818601300108 Cited in this article [1] Abstract The concept of self-efficacy is receiving increasing recognition as a predictor of health behavior change and maintenance. The purpose of this article is to facilitate a clearer understanding of both the concept and its relevance for health education research and practice. Self-efficacy is first defined and distinguished from other related concepts. Next, studies of the self-efficacy concept as it relates to health practices are examined. This review focuses on cigarette smoking, weight control, contraception, alcohol abuse and exercise behaviors. The studies reviewed suggest strong relationships between self-efficacy and health behavior change and maintenance. Experimental manipulations of self-efficacy suggest that efficacy can be enhanced and that this enhancement is related to subsequent health behavior change. The findings from these studies also suggest methods for modifying health practices. These methods diverge from many of the current, traditional methods for changing health practices. Recommendations for incorporating the enhancement of self-efficacy into health behavior change programs are made in light of the reviewed findings.

[106]

Stroud N. J. (2011). Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cited in this article [2]

[107]

Sun N., Wei L., Shi S., Jiao D., Song R., Ma L., Wang H., Wang C., Wang Z., You Y., Liu S., & Wang H. (2020). A qualitative study on the psychological experience of caregivers of COVID-19 patients. American Journal of Infection Control, 48(6), 592-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.03.018 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0196655320302017 Cited in this article [1]

[108]

Sunstein C. R. (1999). The law of group polarization. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, 91, 1-30. Cited in this article [1]

[109]

Sunstein C. R. (2008). Neither hayek nor habermas. Public Choice, 134(1), 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9202-9 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-007-9202-9 Cited in this article [1]

[110]

Sypher B. D. (2004). Reclaiming civil discourse in the workplace. Southern Journal of Communication, 69(3), 257-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940409373296 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10417940409373296 Cited in this article [1]

[111]

Taber C. S., & Lodge M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.2006.50.issue-3 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15405907/50/3 Cited in this article [1]

[112]

Trice M. (2011). How we comment on web journalism: A case study on dialogue found in news articles. In Drushel. B. E., & German, K. (Eds.). The Ethics of Emerging Media: Information, Social Norms, and New Media Technology (pp. 235-249) London and New York, UK and US: The Continuum International Publishing Group. Cited in this article [1]

[113]

Tsfati Y., Stroud N. J., & Chotiner A. (2014). Exposure to ideological news and perceived opinion climate: Testing the media effects component of spiral-of-silence in a fragmented media landscape. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161213508206 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1940161213508206 Cited in this article [1] Abstract \n Spiral-of-silence theory assumes that a monolithic stream of messages from mainstream media, leaving little ability for audiences to seek ideologically congruent news, affects people’s perceptions of the distribution of opinion in society. While these assumptions may have been valid when Noelle-Neumann developed her theory forty years ago, the new media landscape, characterized by the proliferation of ideological media outlets, makes them seem outdated. Do audiences of conservative-leaning media perceive a conservative opinion climate while audiences of liberal-leaning media perceive a more liberal distribution of opinion? And if so, what are the consequences? We examine these questions using two data sets collected in extremely different contexts (Study 1 in the context of the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza,\n n\n = 519; Study 2, in the context of the 2004 U.S. presidential elections using the National Annenberg Election Survey,\n n\n = 9,058). In both studies, selective exposure to ideological media outlets was associated with opinion climate perceptions that were biased in the direction of the media outlets’ ideologies. In Study 2, we also demonstrated that partisan selective exposure indirectly contributes to political polarization, and that this effect is mediated by opinion climate perceptions.\n

[114]

Von Keyserlingk M. A. G., Olenick D., & Weary D. M. (2008). Acute behavioral effects of regrouping dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(3), 1011-1016. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0532 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022030208713572 Cited in this article [1]

[115]

Walther J. B., DeAndrea D., Kim J., & Anthony J. C. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 469-492. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.2010.36.issue-4 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/hcre.2010.36.issue-4 Cited in this article [1]

[116]

Wang B., & Zhuang J. (2017). Crisis information distribution on Twitter: A content analysis of tweets during Hurricane Sandy. Natural Hazards, 89(1), 161-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2960-x Cited in this article [1]

[117]

Way B. M., & Masters R. D. (1996). Emotion and cognition in political information-processing. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 48-65. Cited in this article [1]

[118]

Whyte G. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making: A prospect theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 430-455. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1018 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749597883710186 Cited in this article [1]

[119]

Yardi S., & Boyd D. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316-327. Cited in this article [1]

[120]

Zhang W., & Watts S. A. (2008). Capitalizing on content: Information adoption in two online communities. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(2), 73-94. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/ Cited in this article [1]

[121]

Zhao J., He H., Zhao X., & Lin J. (2022). Modeling and simulation of microblog-based public health emergency-associated public opinion communication. Information Processing & Management, 59(2), 102846. Cited in this article [1]

[122]

Zhu J., & Thagard P. (2002). Emotion and action. Philosophical Psychology, 15(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080120109397 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515080120109397 Cited in this article [1]

[123]

Zollo F., Novak P. K., Del Vicario M., Bessi A., Mozetič I., Scala A., Caldarelli G., & Quattrociocchi W. (2015). Emotional dynamics in the age of misinformation. PloS one, 10(9), e0138740. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138740 https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138740 Cited in this article [2]

[124]

Zuber J. A., Crott H. W., & Werner J. (1992). Choice shift and group polarization: An analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.50 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.50 Cited in this article [1]