Website Redesign

Redesign is a necessary part of having a news website. The process can be lengthy and costly and there's always some risk involved – will the audience engage with and like the redesigned look? The Center for Media Engagement wanted to test whether online experiments could help news organizations learn more about what their audience wants when going through a redesign.The results show that an online experiment can pick up on many of the same signals as a full deployment of a site redesign. To the extent that these findings continue to replicate, doing an online experiment would provide news organizations with a relatively inexpensive way to test out redesigns before embarking on a full launch

We Should Not Get Rid of Incivility Online

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.Incivility and toxicity have become concepts du jour in research about social media. The clear normative implication in much of this research is that incivility is bad and should be eliminated. Extensive research—including some that we’ve authored—has been dedicated to finding ways to reduce or eliminate incivility from online discussion spaces. In our work as part of the Civic Signals Initiative, we’ve been thinking carefully about what metrics should be adopted by social media platforms eager to create better spaces for their users. When we tell people about this project, removing incivility from the platforms frequently comes up as a suggested metric. In thinking about incivility, however, we’ve become less convinced that it is desirable, or even possible, for social media platforms to remove all uncivil content. In this short essay, we discuss research on incivility, our rationale for a more complicated normative stance regarding incivility, and what other orientations may be more useful. We conclude with a post mortem arguing that we should not abandon research on incivility altogether, but we should recognize the limitations of a concept that is difficult to universalize

Addressing Risks of Lead in Water and Soil: Using Citizen Science and a Unique Partnership with Faith Organizations

One of the most widespread environmental health hazards in the United States remains exposure to the harmful neurotoxin lead. So much lead remains in the urban environment that it is not unusual to find neighborhoods where more than 10% of children exhibit harmful levels of lead, compared to the national average of about 1%. To overcome this challenge, a partnership between IUPUI researchers and faith organizations in Indianapolis is taking aim at the risk of household lead contamination by providing residents the tools they need to protect against it. The community-driven science aspect of this project is intentional—not only will the individuals who participate benefit directly, but the resulting data will also play a role in keeping communities safer more broadly

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

Selective exposure to partisan information

In contrast to early studies of voting behavior, where selective exposure was proposed as an explanation for limited media effects, this dissertation contends that selective exposure is a cause of potentially significant media effects. This study documents the extent of exposure to politically congenial outlets and identifies some of its key causes and consequences. Data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey are used to examine the contours of partisan media use, supplemented by an experiment investigating whether the media environment\u27s structure influences partisan selective exposure. The results offer strong evidence that people choose political media in accordance with their political predispositions, and that political interest and knowledge are prerequisites for selective exposure. Media offerings appear to matter: findings suggest that when people have more media options from which to choose, their long-term exposure decisions are more apt to be biased toward congenial media. Overtime survey analyses suggest that salient political media events may encourage selective exposure. Turning to the consequences, analyses provide support for the view that partisan selective exposure contributes to political participation, limited evidence that it leads people to settle on their vote choice earlier in the campaign, and strong evidence that it leads to higher levels of political polarization. Partisan media use also appears to contribute to differentiated patterns of agenda setting, such that audience members adopt different issue priorities depending on their news exposure. Limited evidence supports the idea that partisan media use primes the use of different issues in judging the president\u27s performance. Results are discussed in light of two contrasting views of partisan media use in writings on communication and democracy. On one hand, partisan selective exposure inspires citizen participation and facilitates a partisan schema for making sense of the political world. On the other hand, it polarizes opinions and fragments the public. This dissertation proposes that, to the extent that the partisan media use is counterbalanced by forces that unite people into a public, it can serve a democratically beneficial role. The explosion of partisan outlets today and the decline of news outlets garnering diverse national audiences, however, warrant critical attention

Selective exposure to partisan information

In contrast to early studies of voting behavior, where selective exposure was proposed as an explanation for limited media effects, this dissertation contends that selective exposure is a cause of potentially significant media effects. This study documents the extent of exposure to politically congenial outlets and identifies some of its key causes and consequences. Data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey are used to examine the contours of partisan media use, supplemented by an experiment investigating whether the media environment\u27s structure influences partisan selective exposure. The results offer strong evidence that people choose political media in accordance with their political predispositions, and that political interest and knowledge are prerequisites for selective exposure. Media offerings appear to matter: findings suggest that when people have more media options from which to choose, their long-term exposure decisions are more apt to be biased toward congenial media. Overtime survey analyses suggest that salient political media events may encourage selective exposure. Turning to the consequences, analyses provide support for the view that partisan selective exposure contributes to political participation, limited evidence that it leads people to settle on their vote choice earlier in the campaign, and strong evidence that it leads to higher levels of political polarization. Partisan media use also appears to contribute to differentiated patterns of agenda setting, such that audience members adopt different issue priorities depending on their news exposure. Limited evidence supports the idea that partisan media use primes the use of different issues in judging the president\u27s performance. Results are discussed in light of two contrasting views of partisan media use in writings on communication and democracy. On one hand, partisan selective exposure inspires citizen participation and facilitates a partisan schema for making sense of the political world. On the other hand, it polarizes opinions and fragments the public. This dissertation proposes that, to the extent that the partisan media use is counterbalanced by forces that unite people into a public, it can serve a democratically beneficial role. The explosion of partisan outlets today and the decline of news outlets garnering diverse national audiences, however, warrant critical attention

Psychology of Agenda-Setting Effects. Mapping the Paths of Information Processing

The concept of Need for Orientation introduced in the early years of agenda-setting research provided a psychological explanation for why agenda-setting effects occur in terms of what individuals bring to the media experience that determines the strength of these effects. Until recently, there had been no significant additions to our knowledge about the psychology of agenda-setting effects. However, the concept of Need for Orientation is only one part of the answer to the question about why agenda setting occurs. Recent research outlines a second way to answer the why question by describing the psychological process through which these effects occur. In this review, we integrate four contemporary studies that explicate dual psychological paths that lead to agenda-setting effects at the first and second levels. We then examine how information preferences and selective exposure can be profitably included in the agenda-setting framework. Complementing these new models of information processing and varying attention to media content and presentation cues, an expanded concept of psychological relevance, motivated reasoning goals (accuracy versus directional goals), and issue publics are discussed

Public Perceptions of Who Counts as a Scientist for Controversial Science

In an era where expertise is increasingly critiqued, this study draws from the research on expertise and scientist stereotyping to explore who the public considers to be a scientist in the context of media coverage about climate change and genetically modified organisms. Using survey data from the United States, we find that political ideology and science knowledge affect who the US public believes is a scientist in these domains. Our results suggest important differences in the role of science media attention and science media selection in the publics scientist labeling. In addition, we replicate previous work and find that compared to other people who work in science, those with PhDs in Biology and Chemistry are most commonly seen as scientists

Like, Recommend, or Respect? Altering Political Behavior in News Comment Sections

Drawing from the stereotype content model, we examine how people respond to likeminded and counter-attitudinal political comments appearing after a news article. We experimentally test how citizens behave when they are able to click on one of three different buttons posted next to others’ comments—“Like,” “Recommend,” or “Respect.” In the experiment, political attitudes predicted button clicking, but the button label affected the strength of the relationship. In some instances, people clicked on fewer buttons associated with likeminded comments and more buttons associated with counter-attitudinal comments when the button was labeled with “Respect” as opposed to “Like” or “Recommend.” The pattern of results for the “Recommend” button differed across two issues. The results suggest that political comments can trigger stereotypical reactions. Although the “Like” button is well known, news organizations interested in promoting less partisan behaviors should consider using a “Respect” button rather than the “Like” or “Recommend” button in comment sections