Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:31:40.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coalitionary psychology and group dynamics on social media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

Jeff Deminchuk  and
Sandeep Mishra Open the ORCID record for Sandeep Mishra [Opens in a new window]
Jeff Deminchuk
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Regina, Regina, SK S4S 0A2, Canada jeff.deminchuk@gmail.com
Sandeep Mishra
Affiliation:
Lang School of Business & Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada sandeep.mishra@uoguelph.ca; sandeepmishra.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pietraszewski's model allows understanding group dynamics through the lens of evolved coalitionary psychology. This framework is particularly relevant to understanding group dynamics on social media platforms, where coalitions based on salience of group identity are prominent and generate unique frictions. We offer testable hypotheses derived from the model that may help to shed light on social media behavior.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e104
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barberá, P. (2020). Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. In Persily, N., & Tucker, J. (Eds.), Social media and democracy: The state of the field (pp. 34–55). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaine, T., & Boyer, P. (2018). Origins of sinister rumors: A preference for threat-related material in supply and demand of information. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(1), 67–75 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, P., Firat, R., & van Leeuwen, F. (2015). Safety, threat, and stress in intergroup relations: A coalitional index model. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(4), 434–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615583133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Burkart, D., Jost, J. T., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2019). An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(10), 1802–1813. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cinelli, M., Morales, F. G. D., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starmini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118. https://www.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dos Santos, M., & Rankin, D. J. (2010). The evolution of punishment through reputation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278, 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druckman, J. N., & Levendusky, M. S. (2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114–122. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchens, M. J., Hmielowski, J. D., & Beam, M. A. (2019). Reinforcing spirals of political discussion and affective polarization. Communication Monographs, 86, 357–376. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1575255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431 https://www.doi.org/10.1093/POQ/NFS038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., Wollebæk, D., & Enjolras, B. (2017). Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication, 33(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323117695734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, S., Barclay, P., & Sparks, A. (2017). The relative state model: Integrating need-based and ability-based pathways to risk-taking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 176–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, A., & Vu, H. T. (2019). Testing popular news discourse on the “echo chamber” effect: Does political polarisation occur among those relying on social media as their primary politics news source? First Monday, 24(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i6.9632.Google Scholar
Paluck, E., Green, S., & Green, D. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://www.doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. B. (2015). Evolutionary political psychology. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.) The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1084–1102). Wiley.Google Scholar
Shore, J., Baek, J., & Dellarocas, C. (2018). Network structure and patterns of information diversity. MIS Quarterly, 42(3), 849–872. https://www.doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2018/14558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in mind: Coalitional psychology and the roots of war and morality. In Høgh-Olesen, H. (Ed.), Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives (pp. 191–234). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar