Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Sarcastic content is prevalent in online social media, although little research has explored its effects. In this study, we examine how exposure to one-sided versus two-sided sarcastic perspectives on climate change shapes beliefs about climate change. We find that exposure to one-sided messages that use irony to deride those who believe that climate change is a hoax (presented in The Onion) raises belief certainty in and perceived risk of climate change for those who do not already believe climate change is an important issue (N = 141). The two-sided message (presented by The Weather Channel) does not show any effects.

Keywords

sarcasm satire climate change social media

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adamic

L. A.

Glance

(2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery (pp. 36-43). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277

Anderson

A. A.

Huntington

H. E.

(2017). Social media, science, and attack discourse: How Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 39, 598-620. doi:10.1177/1075547017735113

Baum

M. A.

(2003). Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy in the new media age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Borah

(2011). Seeking more information and conversations: Influence of competitive frames and motivated processing. Communication Research, 38, 303-325. doi:10.1177/0093650210376190

Boykoff

M. T.

(2011). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Boykoff

M. T.

Boykoff

J. M.

(2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the U.S. prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001

Boykoff

M. T.

Boykoff

J. M.

(2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of U.S. mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38, 1190-1204. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008

Brewer

P. R.

McKnight

(2015). Climate as comedy: The effects of satirical television news on climate change perceptions. Science Communication, 37, 635-657. doi:10.1177/1075547015597911

Brewer

P. R.

McKnight

(2017). “A statistically representative climate change debate”: Satirical television news, scientific consensus, and public perceptions of global warming. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 25, 166-180. doi:10.1080/15456870.2017.1324453

10.

Brossard

(2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14096-14101. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110

11.

Chong

Druckman

J. N.

(2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99-118. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x

12.

Cohen

(2017, December 18). CDC word ban? The fight over seven health-related words in the president’s next budget. Science. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/fight-over-seven-health-related-words-president-s-next-budget

13.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Ding

Maibach

E. W.

Zhao

Roser-Renouf

Leiserowitz

(2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1, 462-466. doi:10.1038/nclimate1295

15.

Feldman

(2017). Assumptions about science in satirical news and late-night comedy. In Jamieson

K. H.

Kahan

Scheufele

D. A.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 321-332). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

16.

Feldman

Leiserowitz

Maibach

(2011). The science of satire: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as sources of public attention to science and the environment. In The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real impacts of fake news (pp. 25–46). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

17.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. C.

(2011). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646

18.

Hiles

S. S.

Hinnant

(2014). Climate change in the newsroom journalists’ evolving standards of objectivity when covering global warming. Science Communication, 36, 428-453. doi:10.1177/1075547014534077

19.

Kreuz

R. J.

Roberts

R. M.

(1993). On satire and parody: The importance of being ironic. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 8, 97-109.

20.

Messing

Westwood

S. J.

(2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41, 1042-1063. doi:10.1177/0093650212466406

21.

Nisbet

E. C.

Hart

P. S.

Myers

Ellithorpe

(2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63, 766-785. doi:10.1111/jcom.12040

22.

Papacharissi

(2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259-283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444

23.

Pew Research Center. (2018). Social media fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/

24.

Polk

Young

D. G.

Holbert

R. L.

(2009). Humor complexity and political influence: An elaboration likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17, 202-219. doi:10.1080/15456870903210055

25.

Rowe

(2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 121-138. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365

26.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040-14047. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110

27.

Skurka

Niederdeppe

Romero-Canyas

Acup

(2018). Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: Benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions. Journal of Communication, 68, 169-193.

28.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

29.

van der Linden

S. L.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

Feinberg

G. D.

Maibach

E. W

. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS One, 10(2), e0118489. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118489

30.

Weingart

Engels

Pansegrau

(2000). Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 261-284.

31.

Whalen

J. M.

Pexman

P. M.

Gill

A. J.

(2009). “Should be fun—not!” Incidence and marking of nonliteral language in e-mail. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28, 263-280. doi:10.1177/0261927X09335253

32.

Williams

H. T. P.

McMurray

J. R.

Kurz

Hugo Lambert

(2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126-138. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006

33.

Wyer

R. S.

Jr. Collins

J. E.

II . (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review, 99, 663-688.

34.

Young

D. G.

(2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor’s role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11, 119-142. doi:10.1080/15213260701837073

35.

Ziegele

Jost

P. B.

(2016). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650216671854

Not Just Funny After All: Sarcasm as a Catalyst for Public Engagement With Climate Change

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References