2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Digital Emotion Contagion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
116
1
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 194 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
3
116
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This result is in contrast to established theories of polarization which typically find an individual's social environment to be responsible for polarization effects, whether it is persuasive arguments theory (Vinokur & Burnstein, 1974), emotion contagion (Goldenberg & Gross, 2020), or the echo chamber hypothesis (Sunstein, 2007). However, the result is consistent with literature indicating that attitudes are also shaped by the private thoughts and public utterances that a person makes.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This result is in contrast to established theories of polarization which typically find an individual's social environment to be responsible for polarization effects, whether it is persuasive arguments theory (Vinokur & Burnstein, 1974), emotion contagion (Goldenberg & Gross, 2020), or the echo chamber hypothesis (Sunstein, 2007). However, the result is consistent with literature indicating that attitudes are also shaped by the private thoughts and public utterances that a person makes.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Second, attitude polarization of a user could be determined by the contributions that other NETWORK NEGATIVITY 9 people in one's communication network make (partner control). The idea that polarization is mainly driven by others in one's network is consistent with identity-based accounts of group polarization and radicalization (Mackie, 1986;Smith et al, 2020), and also with research on digital emotion contagion (Goldenberg & Gross, 2020). Third, polarization of a user could be determined by the degree to which the sentiment of one's own contributions and the sentiment of others in a network are matched (joint control).…”
Section: Network Negativitymentioning
confidence: 56%
“…That means the way that technology contributes to the way that emotions are shared and distributed. Compared to offline emotion contagion, digital emotion contagion describes the phenomenon that the receivers' emotions become more like the emotions of the people that posted emotional messages (Goldenberg and Gross 2020). Again, emotional contagion explains how the transmitted emotions of individuals can grow into digital group emotions.…”
Section: Social Media and Emotional Contagionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereas the majority of work on emotion contagion has focused on personal interactions, recent work has determined that emotions can be transmitted digitally (Coviello et al, 2014;Goldenberg and Gross, 2020). This is particularly important given that social media is ubiquitous in the present moment and many adults get their news through social media.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%