Cross-cutting Discussion Research Articles

Where do cross-cutting discussions happen?: Identifying cross-cutting comments on YouTube videos of political vloggers and mainstream news outlets.

Since the conception of social media, research on political communication has pointed toward the risk that the social media environment can foster political echo chambers. However, this has recently been contradicted by some studies demonstrating "cross-cutting discussions" on social media. The current study extends this literature by particularly focusing on communication on political vlogger videos and having mainstream news outlet videos as a reference point. Specifically, this study addresses five points: (1) to what extent cross-partisan comments occupy conservative and liberal vloggers' comment threads and if there is a significant difference between the two, (2) the possibility that comments from vlogger videos can be utilized to predict the political leanings of comments on mainstream news outlet videos, (3) if the proportion of cross-cutting discussions on mainstream news outlet videos significantly varies by the news outlet's political leaning, (4) if a neutral news outlet channel can work as a venue for cross-cutting discussions, and (5) if the proportion of cross-cutting comments in mainstream news outlet comment threads is significantly different from that in vlogger comment threads. Both manual and computational analyses were employed; the political leanings of vlogger comments were analyzed by manual content analysis, and based on the results, the political leanings of mainstream news outlet comments were analyzed by NLP classifiers using three different algorithms-logistic regression, SVM, and random forest. As a result, we found that the proportion of cross-cutting discussions significantly varies by both the channel's political leaning and media type. In addition, our results suggest the possibility of neutral news outlets as a place for cross-cutting discussions.

Social media news use and polarized partisan perceptions: mediating roles of like-minded and cross-cutting discussion

ABSTRACT Drawing on the revised communication mediation model and the relative hostile media framework, this study examines the roles of political discussions in the relationship between social media news use and polarized partisan perceptions. Findings from a two-wave national survey conducted during the 2020 U.S. election cycle support our proposed model: political discussion and relative hostile media perception sequentially mediate the link between social media news use and affective polarization. Specifically, social media news consumption is associated with higher levels of both like-minded political discussion and cross-cutting political discussion. Like-minded discussion widens, while cross-cutting discussion narrows, the perceived hostility gap between counter-attitudinal and pro-attitudinal media outlets. Relative hostile media perception in turn predicts affective polarization among partisans. This study underscores the impacts of interpersonal discussion and media perception on democracy in the contemporary media and political landscape.

The effects of disagreement and unfriending on political polarization: a moderated-mediation model of cross-cutting discussion on affective polarization via unfriending contingent upon exposure to incivility

Abstract Cross-cutting discussion is the foundation of deliberative democracy. However, previous research has reported inconsistent results regarding the effects of exposure to dissimilar perspectives on political polarization. This study aims to extend the literature by exploring how cross-cutting discussion influences affective polarization through unfriending and how this indirect effect is contingent upon exposure to incivility. The study analyzes panel data from a two-wave online survey conducted in South Korea (N = 890). The results show a significantly positive indirect effect of unfriending, suggesting that cross-cutting discussion further reinforces affective polarization via unfriending. Furthermore, the study identifies the boundary conditions for this mediating mechanism, showing that the mediated relationship of cross-cutting discussion on affective polarization via unfriending is stronger for those who are more exposed to incivility on social media.

Engender tolerance and participation in polarized gender issues: the mediating role of discussion in cross-cutting exposure

ABSTRACT This study revisited the deliberation-participation paradox by analyzing the relationship between exposure and both deliberative tolerance and civic participation in the context of gender equality among women and men. Survey data collected from Chinese adults revealed no significant direct effects from cross-cutting exposure to either deliberative tolerance or civic participation. However, a negative mediating effect through perceived polarization and a positive mediating effect through cross-cutting discussion were observed. Additionally, the results confirmed that perceived incivility plays a moderating role, attenuating the beneficial effects of cross-cutting exposure and strengthening the negative indirect effects. These findings suggest differential effects between cross-cutting exposure and cross-cutting discussion. The results also underscore the importance of building a civil and depolarized communication environment to encourage deliberation and participation in China.

Diverse exposure and deliberative practices revisited: proposing three motivations for disagreement processing

ABSTRACT Individuals are normatively expected to consume diverse viewpoints to become good citizens capable of deliberation although empirical evidence does not necessarily support this norm. To explain this inconsistency, this study proposes three motivations for disagreement processing – defensive dismissal, defensive deliberation, and balanced deliberation – by drawing from theory of motivated reasoning and the Heuristic-Systematic Model. Analyses of a two-wave survey conducted in the U.S. highlight the importance of motivations behind diverse exposure – rather than mere exposure – in facilitating deliberative practices. Specifically, balanced deliberation motivations can promote cross-cutting discussion through diverse exposure whereas defensive motivations facilitate diverse news sharing on social media.

A Review of Empirical Studies on Intercultural Communication in China

This study reviews empirical research papers on intercultural communication in China from 2012 to 2022 and provides insights and implications derived from these papers. Although the number of empirical studies has increased, most studies have a single analytical approach, less cross-cutting discussions, weak theoretical foundations, insufficient theoretical analyses, and a lack of comprehensive questionnaire content. This study recommends enriching the methodology of empirical research on intercultural communication, increasing longitudinal studies, emphasizing the development of intercultural communication competence or intercultural sensitivity scales for Chinese learners, and expanding empirical research on different ethnic groups and mother tongues in the context of intercultural communication in China. Finally, this study provides pedagogical insights.

Learning from disagreement on social media: The mediating role of like-minded and cross-cutting discussion and the moderating role of fact-checking

Social networking sites (SNSs) have the potential to be effective in facilitating exposure to disagreement. However, whether exposure to disagreement leads to fostering democratic deliberation has received little attention. Drawing on a national panel survey, this study explores the cognitive processes by which social media news users learn new perspectives from disagreement via the mediating role of interpersonal discussion and the moderating role of fact-checking. The results reveal that social media news use is positively associated with learning from disagreement, and this relationship is mediated by like-minded and cross-cutting discussions. Specifically, while cross-cutting discussions facilitate individuals' understanding and learning of opposing viewpoints, like-minded discussions hinder this process. Furthermore, fact-checking has the potential to reinforce not only tolerant attitudes toward opposing viewpoints but also individuals’ pre-existing beliefs and impede learning from disagreement. The mixed effect of fact-checking depends on the type of interpersonal discussion taking place. In light of these findings, we discuss the contributions and shortcomings of SNSs and fact-checking behavior in terms of the ideals of deliberative democracy.

A cognitive mechanism for democratic norms: testing a hypothesized model of news literacy, cross-cutting discussion, and elaboration

ABSTRACT The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the cognitive process by which individuals who critically and mindfully evaluate news stories and who elaborate more on cross-cutting views will be more likely to have enhanced democratic norms. This study employs a national survey collected by the media institute of the Korean Broadcasting System in 2021. The findings of structural equation modeling (SEM) shed light on how individuals engage in cognitive mechanisms for democratic norms, indicating that those who often use news and evaluate it in a critical and mindful manner are more likely to endorse democratic norms as they often talk with cross-cutting networks and elaborate different thoughts of other discussants.

Cross-Cutting Discussion on Social Media and Online Political Participation: A Cross-National Examination of Information Seeking and Social Accountability Explanations

The question of whether cross-cutting discussion engenders or depresses political participation has offered mixed findings in the literature. Following recommendations from a meta-analysis, this study tests two competing arguments: the information seeking explanation for engendering participation and the social accountability explanation for attenuating participation. Probability surveys were conducted among young adults in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China, and analyses examined the relationship between cross-cutting discussion on social media and online political participation. For the Taiwan and Hong Kong samples, political information seeking positively mediated the relationship, but desire to avoid social conflict also attenuated the relationship. Neither mechanism was significant for the China sample. The findings suggest that the competing explanations are not mutually exclusive, and they highlight the importance of examining the variety of contingent conditions that influence the relationship between cross-cutting discussion and political participation in different national contexts.

Cross-cutting and Like-minded Discussion on Social Media: The Moderating Role of Issue Importance in the (De)mobilizing Effect of Political Discussion on Political Participation

ABSTRACT Using a student survey with multistage probability sampling in Taiwan, we revisited the deliberation-participation paradox by examining the relationship between cross-cutting/like-minded discussion and online political participation, emphasizing the moderating role of issue importance and focusing particularly on the social media context and two political issues in Taiwan. We found that political ambivalence, which has been proposed as the underlying mechanism between cross-cutting exposure and participation, plays a significant mediating role. Cross-cutting discussion demobilizes participation indirectly through increasing political ambivalence, while like-minded discussion mobilizes participation indirectly through decreasing political ambivalence. More importantly, the two indirect effects are conditioned upon the level of issue importance in that the demobilizing effect of cross-cutting discussion was weakened while the mobilizing effect of like-minded discussion was strengthened when the level of issue importance increased.

Do cross-cutting discussions enhance pro-environmental attitudes? Testing green deliberative theory in practice

ABSTRACT A central notion among green political theorists is that deliberative engagement enhances environmental values. Despite the centrality of this claim within green political theory, there is a lack of empirical research evaluating its promise outside formal deliberative forums. Here, an empirical large-N study is provided that tests whether everyday political discussion between individuals of different political orientations is positively associated with stronger pro-environmental attitudes in the US. The main finding is that individuals who engaged in this type of cross-cutting discussion reported significantly stronger pro-environmental attitudes compared to individuals who did not engage in this type of discussion. Moreover, the association remained positive for different clusters of individuals regardless of political engagement, party affiliation, or socio-demographics.

Now We’re Talking? Understanding the Interplay Between Online Selective and Incidental Exposure and Their Influence on Online Cross-Cutting Political Discussion

This study examines how two distinct patterns of online political information exposure—pro-attitudinal selective exposure and counter-attitudinal incidental exposure—can work together to influence engagement in online cross-cutting political discussion. Using panel data from a two-wave national survey conducted in 2012, we test two competing theoretical accounts. Findings suggest that incidental exposure affects selective exposure’s contribution to cross-cutting discussion in a curvilinear way. Incidental exposure strengthens the impact of selective exposure on cross-cutting discussion up until a certain point, after which it begins to attenuate its impact. Results emphasize the need to account for the multiple ways people encounter political information online.

Determinants of cross-cutting discussion on Facebook: Political interest, news consumption, and strong-tie heterogeneity

Scholarly debate persists as to whether the use of social networking sites (SNSs) encourages or discourages political discussion with people holding different opinions. Drawing on a national survey, this study focuses on Facebook and explores the predictors of cross-cutting discussion on this platform. The results reveal that political interest is positively associated with cross-cutting discussion and this relationship is mediated by the frequency of news consumption on Facebook, suggesting that Facebook use has the potential of exposing the politically attentive to dissonant views. Furthermore, the level of heterogeneity of a person’s strong-tie network is found to accentuate the mediating effect of Facebook news consumption. Implications are discussed for the impacts of Facebook use on deliberative democracy.

From Persuasion to Deliberation: Do Experiences of Online Political Persuasion Facilitate Dialogic Openness?

Research has long considered the role interpersonal persuasion plays in shaping how citizens form their political opinions and cast their votes. Yet few studies have examined how experiences with online persuasion might influence broader deliberative orientations. We propose the “Persuasion-Openness” model, in which both attempting and being the target of online political persuasion encourage individuals to engage in online cross-cutting discussion with those who hold differing political views. These more deliberative exchanges are in turn associated with increased “dialogic openness”—a broader orientation toward political dialog. We test this model using original panel survey data collected during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Findings show that both types of persuasion experiences can indirectly lead to dialogic openness, by stimulating online cross-cutting discussion. However, the mediated pathway for those targeted for online persuasion is only significant in online environments with low levels of attitude-challenging information.

From Online Disagreement to Offline Action: How Diverse Motivations for Using Social Media Can Increase Political Information Sharing and Catalyze Offline Political Participation

Amid growing concerns over the contentious tenor of online political discourse, scholars have begun to recognize that the social contexts and affordances provided by social media may present indirect pathways from online political discussion to offline political participation. Less work has addressed how users’ motivations for using social media might influence such dynamics. In this study, we use two-wave panel survey data collected in the United States to test the possibility that online cross-cutting discussion involving political disagreement can encourage users to share political information on social media, which in turn can increase their offline political engagement. We also test how specific motivations for using social media (i.e., political engagement, relationship maintenance, and self-promotion) moderate the amount users share political information on social media when engaged in conversations involving political disagreement. Our results find that increased online cross-cutting political discussion indirectly affects offline political participation through the influence of social media political information sharing. We also observe that this indirect effect is stronger for users who are motivated to use social media for either political engagement or relationship maintenance (but not self-promotion) purposes. Our findings advance one route from online political disagreement to offline political action, which can impact both politically and nonpolitically motivated social media users.

Bitcoin’s potential for going mainstream

This paper reviews the possibility of bringing Bitcoin into the mainstream. In so doing, it elaborates the potential and obstacles to the Bitcoin system and what it would take for it to go mainstream. A cross-cutting discussion provides a helicopter view and encompasses the technical, economic, and social, as well as legal, issues at play. The paper focuses particularly on payment systems, and in reviewing the possibility of bringing Bitcoin into the mainstream it takes into consideration lessons that can be learned from existing payment systems.

Mobile communication and cross-cutting discussion: A cross-national study of South Korea and the US

This study aims to examine how distinct uses of mobile telephony are associated with one of the key elements in deliberative democracy from a cross-national and cross-cultural perspective. Specifically, we investigate the process in which the dynamic interplay between mobile phone uses for social relations and information is linked to an individual’s engagement in open dialogue with non-likeminded people (i.e., cross-cutting discussion). In addition, we assess the extent to which cultures shape the implications of mobile communication for deliberative democracy while drawing on two independent surveys of adults in the US and South Korea. In brief, we show that the proper recipe of mobile phone use is linked to an enhanced deliberative democracy with a noteworthy qualification that the role of mobile communication may depend on unique cultural characteristics.

Persuasion within Small Deliberative Groups: A Randomized Field Experiment on Fiscal Policy Discussion

We evaluate the dynamics of persuasion within small groups using a large scale randomized deliberative experiment. In particular, we examine whether persuasion in this context is driven by the composition of small groups to which participants were randomly assigned. In these discussions focusing on U.S. fiscal policy, ideological persuasion occurs but does not tend to be polarizing, a result that is consistent with normative deliberative goals of cross-cutting discussion and inconsistent with the 'law' of polarization identified in small group research. In addition, the results demonstrate the presence of persuasion that is outside of ideological constraints, a form of persuasion that participants themselves tend to associate with informed discussion. The results show that small group dynamics depend heavily on the context in which discussion occurs and that deliberative institutions can ameliorate many of the pathologies that are often attributed to small group discussion.

Hearing the Other Side Revisited: The Joint Workings of Cross-Cutting Discussion and Strong Tie Homogeneity in Facilitating Deliberative and Participatory Democracy

This study seeks to shed light on the highly publicized democracy dilemma signaling that encountering disagreement tends to promote deliberative democracy, while the same experience can dampen a citizen’s motivation to participate. By assessing the processes wherein the joint workings of cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity are simultaneously associated with the outcomes of deliberative and participatory democracy, we provide a number of key insights into the puzzling quandary. First, our results indicate that cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity interact with each other to predict increased political participation. Second, the relationship between cross-cutting discussion and preference for open dialogue is stronger for those who belong to a congenial primary network. Third, efficacious individuals seem more capable of translating the benefits of an ongoing deliberative orientation into meaningful political behavior. The current research suggests that deliberation and participation can go hand in hand under a particular network context.

Political Theology Ten Years After 9/11

"Political Theology Ten Years After 9/11" examines the nature of the discourse of political theology before 9/11, and discusses its tendencies to parochialism and denominationalism. In the post-9/11 context, new more inclusive, cross-cutting discussions are required by those who work in the field, which move beyond any hard and fast delineation between theology and religious studies, in order to foster the necessary multidisciplinary and interreligious engagement that can take the discipline forward.