Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:56:30.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Debating restrictions on embryonic stem cell research: An experimental study of online deliberation and political emotion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Colleen McClain
Colleen McClain*
Affiliation:
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 camcclai@umich.edu
Get access

Abstract

This study investigates the emotional and behavioral effects of interpersonal online communication, focusing on the controversy surrounding the loosening of restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. The issue, central to national and statewide elections in 2008, generated heated debate among candidates and voters and evoked strong emotional sentiments among partisans. Using the theory of affective intelligence, this study proposes a predictive model connecting levels of enthusiasm and anxiety with behavioral and information-seeking outcomes. Cognitive appraisal theory is also employed to provide a role for political emotion in accounting for interactive media effects. To investigate the ways that online deliberation may influence discussions surrounding stem cell research, a between-subjects experimental study was conducted that systematically varied the tone of feedback received (reinforcing or challenging) and type of interaction (synchronous or asynchronous) experienced by users. Results indicate that emotional responses play a significant role in predicting behavioral intentions arising from the user-to-user interactive experience.

Keywords

online deliberationaffective intelligencehuman embryonic stem cell researchpolitical emotioncognitive appraisal theory
Type
Research Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , September 2009 , pp. 48 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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

1.Burgin, Eileen, “Deciding on human embryonic stem cell research: Evidence from Congress's first showdown with President George W. Bush,” Politics and the Life Sciences 2009, 28(1): 12–25.Google Scholar
2.Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures, 2006, http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-policy.htmlGoogle Scholar
3.Davis, Tracy, “Proposal 2: Limits slow science at the University of Michigan,” The Ann Arbor News October 5, 2008.Google Scholar
4.Obama, Barack, “Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery Signing of Stem Cell Executive Order and Scientific Integrity Presidential Memorandum,” March 9, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-the-president-as-prepared-for-delivery-signing-of-stem-cell-executive-order-and-scientific-integrity-presidential-memorandumGoogle Scholar
5.Nelson, Bryn, “Stem cell research: After Obama's executive order,” Nature Reports: Stem Cells March 19, 2009, http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2009/0903/090319/full/stemcells.2009.43.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.“A proposal to amend the State Constitution to address human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research in Michigan, July 7, 2008, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/ED-20_11-08_Props_Poster2_251561_7.pdfGoogle Scholar
7.Satyanarayana, Megha, “Heated stem-cell battle ends as Prop 2 passes: Voters approve fewer limits on using embryos for research,” The Detroit Free Press November 5, 2008, p. 1A.Google Scholar
8.Tedesco, John C., “Web interactivity and young adult political efficacy,” in The Internet election: Perspectives on the Web in campaign 2004, Williams, A. P. and Tedesco, J. C., eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), pp. 187–202.Google Scholar
9.Ng, Elaine W. J. and Detenber, Benjamin H., “The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2005, 10(3), article 4.Google Scholar
10.Bucy, Erik P., “The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but confused,” in Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use, Bucy, E. P. and Newhagen, J. E., eds. (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004), pp. 47–72.Google Scholar
11.Stromer-Galley, Jennifer, “On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it,” Journal of Communication 2000, 50(4): 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Rafaeli, Sheizaf and Sudweeks, Fay, “Networked interactivity,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1997, 2(4), article 11: paragraph 4.Google Scholar
13.Rafaeli, and Sudweeks, .Google Scholar
14.Price, Vincent and Cappella, Joseph N., “Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000,” IT & Society 2002, 1(1): 303–329.Google Scholar
15.Price, Vincent, Nir, Lilach, and Cappella, Joseph N., “Normative and informational influences in online political discussions,” Communication Theory 2006, 16(1): 47–74.Google Scholar
16.Price, , Nir, , and Cappella, , p. 48.Google Scholar
17.Price, and Cappella, .Google Scholar
18.Price, , Nir, , and Cappella, .Google Scholar
19.Ng, and Detenber, , paragraph 3.Google Scholar
20.Ng, and Detenber, , paragraph 9.Google Scholar
21.Burgoon, Judee K. and Saine, Thomas P., The Unspoken Dialogue: An Introduction to Nonverbal Communication (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978).Google Scholar
22.Walther, Joseph B., “Time effects in computer-mediated groups: Past, present, and future,” in Distributed Work, Hinds, P. and Kiesler, S., eds. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002), pp. 235–257.Google Scholar
23.Walther, , p. 252.Google Scholar
24.Walther, , p. 250.Google Scholar
25.Ng, and Detenber, .Google Scholar
26.Joyce, Elisabeth and Kraut, Robert E., “Predicting continued participation in newsgroups,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2006, 11(3), article 3: paragraph 3.Google Scholar
27.Marcus, George E. and MacKuen, Michael B., “Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns,” American Political Science Review 1993, 87(3): 672–685.Google Scholar
28.Brader, Ted, Campaigning for Hearts and Minds (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), p. 51.Google Scholar
29.Marcus, and MacKuen, , p. 680Google Scholar
30.Hutchinson, David and Bradley, Samuel D., “Memory for images intense enough to draw an administration's attention: Television and the ‘war on terror,”’ Politics and the Life Sciences, 2009, 28(1): 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Marcus, George E., Russell Neuman, W., and MacKuen, Michael, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).Google Scholar
32.Marcus, , Neuman, , and MacKuen, , p. 39.Google Scholar
33.Marcus, , Neuman, , and MacKuen, , p. 10.Google Scholar
34.Marcus, , Neuman, , and MacKuen, .Google Scholar
35.Marcus, , Neuman, , and MacKuen, , p. 57.Google Scholar
36.Marcus, , Neuman, , and MacKuen, , p. 90.Google Scholar
37.Brader, , p. 61.Google Scholar
38.Brader, .Google Scholar
39.Bucy, Erik P. and Gregson, Kimberly S., “Media participation: A legitimizing mechanism of mass democracy,” New Media Society 2001, 3(3): 357–380.Google Scholar
40.Lerner, Jennifer S. and Keltner, Dacher, “Fear, anger, and risk,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001, 81(1): 146–159.Google Scholar
41.Newhagen, John E., “TV news images that induce anger, fear, and disgust: Effects on approach-avoidance and memory,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(2): 265–276.Google Scholar
42.Lazarus, Richard S., Emotion and Adaptation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 39.Google Scholar
43.Lazarus, .Google Scholar
44.Scherer, Klaus R., Dan, Elise S., and Flykt, Anders, “What determines a feeling's position in affective space? A case for appraisal,” Cognition and Emotion 2006, 20(1): 92–113.Google Scholar
45.Lazarus, , p. 218.Google Scholar
46.Valentino, Nicholas A., Hutchings, Vincent L., Gregorowicz, Krysha, Groenendyk, Eric W., and Brader, Ted, “Election night's all right for fighting: The role of anger versus anxiety in political participation,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, 2006.Google Scholar
47.Averill, James R., Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Valentino, et al., p. 25.Google Scholar
49.Marcus, , Neuman, , and MacKuen, .Google Scholar
50.Abelson, Robert P., “The secret existence of expressive behavior,” in The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered, Friedman, Jeffrey, ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
51.Sullivan, Denis G. and Masters, Roger D., “Happy warriors: Leaders' facial displays, viewers emotions, and political support,” American Journal of Political Science, 1988, 32(2): 345–368.Google Scholar
52.Brader, .Google Scholar
53.Sears, David O., “College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 51(3): 515–530.Google Scholar
54.Smith, Aaron and Rainie, Lee, The Internet and the 2008 election (Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project, June 15, 2008). Online, http://www.pewinternet.orgGoogle Scholar
55.Satyanarayana, .Google Scholar
56.Lazarus, .Google Scholar
57.Sears, .Google Scholar
58.Shah, Dhavan V., Kwak, Nojin, and Lance Holbert, R., “‘Connecting’ and ‘Disconnecting’ with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital,” Political Communication 2001, 18(2): 141–162.Google Scholar