Comunicar en positivo o negativo en el activismo social

Positive or negative communication in social activism

 Daniel Pinazo-Calatayud, Castellón (España)

 Eloisa Nos-Aldas, Castellón (España)

 Sonia Agut-Nieto, Castellón (España)

https://doi.org/10.3916/C62-2020-06

Palabras clave

Comunicación, activismo, compromiso, cambio social, eficacia, persuasión, motivación social, recepción

Resumen

Esta investigación analiza el papel de la comunicación en el activismo social desde modelos que superen la mera reacción emocional, el refuerzo de creencias previas o la identificación con la marca. Este estudio pone a prueba la hipótesis de que un mensaje que centre la atención en la causa (en sus resultados) motivará a una audiencia previamente sensibilizada en favor de dicha causa cuando interactúe con la favorabilidad de la fuente. Se ha diseñado un estudio experimental bifactorial 2 resultado de la acción (fracaso versus éxito) x 2 valencia (fuente favorable versus fuente desfavorable) con la participación de 297 personas pro-evitación de desahucios. Los resultados permiten deducir que los mensajes emitidos por fuentes hostiles para la causa que informen de resultados negativos tienen el potencial de motivar afectiva y conductualmente a los activistas en mayor medida que mensajes con resultados más positivos en fuentes favorables. Las conclusiones finales señalan al diálogo entre marcos discursivos de injusticia social y emociones de acción pro-causa como vía para incrementar la movilización social. Se discuten las implicaciones teórico-prácticas de estos resultados en el contexto actual de predominio de redes sociales.

Referencias

Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2015). How does media choice affect hostile media perceptions? Evidence from participant preference experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(1), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.10

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Cryderman, J. (2013). Communication, persuasion, and the conditioning value of selective exposure: Like minds may unite and divide but they mostly tune out. Political Communication, 30(2), 2013-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737424

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bakker, T.P., & de-Vreese, C.H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use, and political participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210381738

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A., & Hill, R.P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Boulianne, S. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600902854363

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Brady, W.J., Wills, J.A., Burkart, D., Jost, J.T., & Van-Bavel, J.J. (2018). An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 49(2), 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000532

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Briñol, P., & Petty, R.E. (2015). Elaboration and validation processes: Implications form media attitudes change. Media Psychology, 18(3), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1008103

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Briñol, P., Petty, R.E., & Tormala, Z.L. (2004). Self-validation of cognitive responses to advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 559-573. https://doi.org/10.1086/380289

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Chaffee, S., & Miyo, Y. (1983). Selective exposure and the reinforcement hypothesis: An intergenerational panel study of the 1980 presidential campaign. Communication Research, 10(1), 3-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365083010001001

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

De-Andrés, S., Nos-Aldás, E., & García-Matilla, A. (2016). The transformative image: The power of a photograph for social change: The death of Aylan. [La imagen transformadora. El poder de cambio social de una fotografía: la muerte de Aylan]. Comunicar, 24, 29-37. https://doi.org/10.3916/C47-2016-03

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Dimitrova, D.V., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Nord, L.W. (2014). The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research, 41(1), 95-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211426004

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Ehrenberg, A.S. (2000). Repetitive advertising and the consumer. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(6), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.2501/jar-40-6-39-48

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fatkin, J.M., & Lansdown, T.C. (2015). Prosocial media in action. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 581-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.060

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Freedman, J.L., & Sears, D.O. (1965). Selective exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 57-97). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60103-3

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Haidt, T.J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Haidt, T.J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R.J. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852-870). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://bit.ly/2GYT7LH

Link Google Scholar

Haidt, T.J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hansen, L.K., Arvidsson, A., Nielsen, F.Å., Colleoni, E., & Etter, M. (2011). Good friends, bad news-affect and virality in Twitter. In J.J. Park, L.T. Yang, & C. Lee (Eds.), Future information technology. Communications in computer and information science (pp. 34-43). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22309-9_5

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A.H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M.J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555-588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015701

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hayes, A.F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Kirk, M. (2012). Beyond charity: Helping NGOs lead a transformative new public discourse on global poverty and social justice. Ethics & International Affairs, 26(2), 245-263. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0892679412000317

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Lambert, A.J., Eadeh, F.R., Peak, S.A., Scherer, L.D., Schott, J P., & Slochower, J.M. (2014). Toward a greater understanding of the emotional dynamics of the mortality salience manipulation: Revisiting the ‘affect-free’ claim of terror management research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(5), 655. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036353

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Nisbet, E.C., Hart, P.S., Myers, T., & Ellithorpe, M. (2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 766-785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12040

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139164887

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Nos-Aldás, E., & Pinazo, D. (2013). Communication and engagement for social justice. Peace Review, 25(3), 343-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2013.816552

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Obregón, R., & Tufte, T. (2017). Communication, social movements, and collective action: Toward a new research agenda in communication for development and social change. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 635-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12332

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Oskamp, S. (1991). Attitudes and opinions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall.

Link Google Scholar

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9-27. https:// doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244

Link Google Scholar

Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pinazo, D., & Nos-Aldás, E. (2016). Developing moral sensitivity through protest scenarios in International NGDO’s communication. Communication Research, 43(1) 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213490721

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pinazo, D., Barros?Loscertales, A., Peris, R., Ventura?Campos, N., & Avila, C. (2012). The role of protest scenario in the neural response to the supportive communication. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(3), 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1428

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pinazo, D., Peris, R., Ramos, A., & Brotons, J. (2013). Motivational effects of the perceived image of non?governmental organisations. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(5), 420-434. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2140

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Reysen, S., & Hackett, J. (2017). Activism as a pathway to global citizenship. The Social Science Journal, 54(2), 132-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2016.09.003

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858-870. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Sampedro, V., & Martinez-Avidad, M. (2018). The digital public sphere: An alternative and counterhegemonic space? The case of Spain. International Journal of Communication, 12, 23-44. https://bit.ly/2VU3xl8

Link Google Scholar

Seguí-Cosme, S., & Nos-Aldás, E. (2017). Bases epistemológicas y metodológicas para definir indicadores de eficacia cultural en la comunicación del cambio social. Commons, 6(2), 10-33. https://doi.org/10.25267/commons.2017.v6.i2.02

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Stroud, N.J. (2007). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., & Ullman, J.B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson. https://bit.ly/2GVGdOH

Link Google Scholar

Waisbord, S. (2015). Three challenges for communication and global social change. Communication Theory, 25, 144-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12068

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Webster, J.G., & Ksiazek, T.B. (2012). The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fundref

Este trabajo está avalado por el Proyecto I+D «Educación social digital» (PGC2018-095123-B-I00), del Ministerio Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades de España (2019-2021) y FEM2015-65834-C2-2-P (2016-2019).

Crossmark

Ficha técnica

Recibido: 27-05-2019

Revisado: 08-07-2019

Aceptado: 31-07-2019

First Online: 15-11-2019

Fecha publicación: 01-01-2020

Tiempo de revisión del artículo : 42 días | Media tiempo revisión número 62: 40 días

Tiempo de aceptación del artículo: 65 días | Media tiempo aceptación número 62: 72 días

Tiempo de edición del preprint: 174 días | Media tiempo edición número preprint 62: 176 días

Tiempo de edición del artículo: 219 días | Media tiempo edición número 62: 221 días

Métricas

Métricas de este artículo

Vistas: 15130

Lectura del abstract: 13840

Descargas del PDF: 1290

Métricas completas de Comunicar 62

Vistas: 157949

Lectura del abstract: 135384

Descargas del PDF: 22565

Citado por