IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267048.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How the term “white privilege” affects participation, polarization, and content in online communication

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher L Quarles
  • Lia Bozarth

Abstract

The language used in online discussions affects who participates in them and how they respond, which can influence perceptions of public opinion. This study examines how the term white privilege affects these dimensions of online communication. In two lab experiments, US residents were given a chance to respond to a post asking their opinions about renaming college buildings. Using the term white privilege in the question decreased the percentage of whites who supported renaming. In addition, those whites who remained supportive when white privilege was mentioned were less likely to create an online post, while opposing whites and non-whites showed no significant difference. The term also led to more low-quality posts among both whites and non-whites. The relationship between question language and the way participants framed their responses was mediated by their support or opposition for renaming buildings. This suggests that the effects of the term white privilege on the content of people’s responses is primarily affective. Overall, mention of white privilege seems to create internet discussions that are less constructive, more polarized, and less supportive of racially progressive policies. The findings have the potential to support meaningful online conversation and reduce online polarization.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher L Quarles & Lia Bozarth, 2022. "How the term “white privilege” affects participation, polarization, and content in online communication," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267048
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267048
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267048&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Coppock, Alexander, 2019. "Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 613-628, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lamberova, Natalia, 2021. "The puzzling politics of R&D: Signaling competence through risky projects," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 801-818.
    2. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    3. Laura D. Scherer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2020. "Eliciting Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences with a Single Question: Development and Validation of the MM1," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 545-550, May.
    4. Jacobson, Sophie, 2024. "Policies Can Still Create New Politics: Contemporary Causal Evidence from New York Preschool Parents," OSF Preprints 9nfg7, Center for Open Science.
    5. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    6. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Beata Woźniak-Jęchorek, 2023. "Experiments in Modern Economics – Expansion and Technological and Institutional Innovations in the U.S," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 78-101.
    8. FabianG. Neuner, 2020. "Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private EnvironmentalGovernance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 60-81, February.
    9. Andreas Fügener & Jörn Grahl & Alok Gupta & Wolfgang Ketter, 2022. "Cognitive Challenges in Human–Artificial Intelligence Collaboration: Investigating the Path Toward Productive Delegation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 678-696, June.
    10. repec:osf:metaar:a9vhr_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Jerrod M. Penn & Daniel R. Petrolia & J. Matthew Fannin, 2023. "Hypothetical bias mitigation in representative and convenience samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 721-743, June.
    12. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2022. "Insurance demand experiments: Comparing crowdworking to the lab," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1077-1107, December.
    13. Ritwik Banerjee & Priyama Majumdar, 2023. "Exponential growth bias in the prediction of COVID‐19 spread and economic expectation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(358), pages 653-689, April.
    14. Sean F. Ellis & Olesya M. Savchenko & Kent D. Messer, 2022. "Mitigating stigma associated with recycled water," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(3), pages 1077-1099, May.
    15. Accominotti, Fabien & Tadmon, Daniel, 2020. "How the reification of merit breeds inequality: theory and experimental evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103865, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Chinchanachokchai, Sydney & de Gregorio, Federico, 2020. "A consumer socialization approach to understanding advertising avoidance on social media," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 474-483.
    17. Daniel L. Carlson & Richard J. Petts, 2022. "US Parents’ Domestic Labor During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(6), pages 2393-2418, December.
    18. Mariken van der Velden & Felicia Loecherbach, 2021. "Epistemic Overconfidence in Algorithmic News Selection," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 182-197.
    19. Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    20. repec:osf:socarx:xatcn_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Kroll, Alexander & Vogel, Dominik, 2021. "Why Public Employees Manipulate Performance Data: Prosocial Impact, Job Stress, and Red Tape," SocArXiv eyjh3, Center for Open Science.
    22. repec:osf:osfxxx:9nfg7_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Mariken van der Velden & Felicia Loecherbach, 2021. "Epistemic Overconfidence in Algorithmic News Selection," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 182-197.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267048. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.