為了應對人們在政治上的分裂,各機構已投入相當多的精力設計能夠彌合不 同意識型態的群眾的線上審議工具。而其中一個前瞻的設計就是在一個資訊空間 中以雙欄的佈局呈現截然相反的觀點。本論文透過兩個實驗去了解,就立場表達 (顯性立場表達/非顯性立場表達)與立場呈現(雙欄式/單欄式)之審議介面 設計如何對線上團體審議中的社交互動與審議成果產生影響。

這兩個實驗具有不同的實驗設計,第一個實驗是一個完全在遠端的線上進行, 而第二個實驗則是在實驗室嚴謹的控制環境中進行更細微的觀測。在實驗一中, 我們發現雙欄式的介面使團體在立場上更不同。實驗二的結果則顯示,雙欄式的 介面能夠刺激團體成員間有更多的互動,包含了聆聽以及回應他人。另外,我們 也發現在同質性高的團體中,強迫顯性表達立場將造成團體在立場上更為極端。

In response to political fragmentation of people, many efforts have been put into designing online deliberation tools that can bridge people with different ideologies. One of the promising designs is presenting contrasting views side by side in the same informational space. We present studies looking at how different deliberation interface designs, in terms of stance display (single-threaded and side-by-side design), and stance expression (with-stance and without-stance), influence the social interaction in online group deliberation and outcomes of online group deliberation. The two studies differ in their experimental design in which study 1 was an online study while study 2 was conducted in lab for more subtle investigation. In study 1, we find that the side-by-side interface design makes people more heterogeneous in terms of stance after group deliberation. In study 2, the result shows that side-by-side may stimulate more interaction, including listening and responding to each other, between group members. We also suggest that forcing explicating stance may make groups more extreme in homogeneous groups.

[1] Adamic, L.A. and Glance, N. The political blogoshere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog. Proceedings of LinkKDD, 2005.
[2] Borge, M., Ganoe, C.H., Shih, S-I & Carroll, J.M. Patterns of team processes and breakdowns in information analysis tasks. Proceedings of CSCW, 2012.
[3] Chen, K. J., & Liu, S. H. Word identification for Mandarin Chinese sentences. Proceedings of COLING, 1992.
[4] Dijksterhuis, A., Nordgren, L. F. A Theory of Unconscious Thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2006, 1, 95-109.
[5] Dijksterhuis, A., and van Baaren, R. B. On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 2006, 311(5763), 1005-7.
[6] Faridani, S., Bitton, E., Ryokai, K., Goldberg, K. Opinion space: a scalable tool for browsing online comments. Proceedings of CHI, 2010.
[7] Fischer, P., Kastenmuller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, J., Frey, D. Threat and Selective Exposure: The Moderating Role of Threat and Decision Context on Confirmatory Information Search After Decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2011, General 140, 51-62.
[8] Gonzales, A. L., Hancock, J. T., and Pennebaker, J. W. Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research 31, 2010, 3-19.
[9] Huang, C. L., Chung, C. K., Hui, N., Lin, Y. C., Seih, Y. T., Chen, W. C., Lam, B., Bond. M., Pennebaker, J. W. The Development of the Chinese Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count Dictionary, Chinese Journal of Psychology, 2012, 54, 185-201.
[10] Jackson, J. W., and Smith, E. R. Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidence for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1999, 25(1), 120-135.
[11] Jurafsky, D., and Martin, J.H. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics and Speech Recognition. Prentice-Hall, 2000.
[12] Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., and Livi, S. The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, 83, 126-137.
[13] Kerschreiter, R., Schulz-Hardt, S., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D. Biased Information Search in Homogeneous Groups: Confidence as a Moderator for the Effect of Anticipated Task Requirements. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2008, 34(5), 679-91.
[14] Kriplean, T., Morgan, J., Freelon, D., Borning, A., Bennett, L. Supporting Reflective Public Thouht with ConsiderIt. Proceedings of CSCW, 2012.
[15] Liao, Q.V., and Fu, W. Can You Hear Me Now? Mitigating Echo Chamber Effect by Source Position Indicator. Proceedings of CSCW, 2014.
[16] Muhlberger, P. The Virtual Agora Project: A Research Design for Studying Democratic Deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2005, 1(5).
[17] Munson, S. and Resnick P. Presenting Diverse Political Opinions: How and How Much. Proceedings of CHI, 2010.
[18] Nemeth, C. J. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 1986, 93(1), 23-32.
[19] Park, S., Kang, S., Chung, S., Song, J. NewsCube: Delivering Multiple Aspects of News to Mitigate Media Bias. Proceedings of CHI, 2009.
[20] Pennebaker, J.W., Francis, M.E., and Booth, R.J. Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC2007). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers, 2007.
[21] Some Moral Dilemmas. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm
[22] Van Alstyne, M, and Brynjolfsson, E. Electronic communities: Global village or cyberbalkans?. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Systems, 1996.
[23] Valentino, N. A., Banks, A., Hutchings, V., Davis, A. Selective Exposure in the Internet Age: The Interaction between Anxiety and Information Utility. Political Psychology 30, 2006, 4, 591-613.