Misunderstanding Stance in Tweets
Saved in:
| Title: | Misunderstanding Stance in Tweets |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Rebecca S. Dolgin (ORCID |
| Source: | Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2025 62(6-7):520-545. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 26 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Social Media, Misconceptions, Attitudes, Telecommunications, Handheld Devices, Comprehension, Age Differences, Gender Differences, Knowledge Level, Predictor Variables, Court Litigation, Political Affiliation |
| DOI: | 10.1080/0163853X.2025.2516982 |
| ISSN: | 0163-853X 1532-6950 |
| Abstract: | How accurately do readers of tweets understand the stance that tweet authors intended to express? We solicited from six authors their intended stance in their May 2022 tweets about "Roe v. Wade" after the Supreme Court's draft opinion to strike down "Roe v. Wade" was disclosed: in support, opposed, no opinion, or something else. We then asked 101 online participants the stance they thought the author intended to express about "Roe v. Wade." Readers' alignment with authors' self-reported stance in each tweet ranged from as low as 33.7% to no higher than 89.1% of readers, and 25% of readers interpreted a stance opposite to the author's intention at least once, despite authors' high confidence that their tweets would be understood as intended. Younger and more liberal readers comprehended more accurately, but their Twitter use, gender, education, and knowledge of "Roe v. Wade" did not significantly predict alignment. In a follow-up study intended to rule out alternative explanations for these findings, 142 online participants also rated the stance they thought the author intended to express on the "Dobbs"' decision, and a highly similar pattern emerged. These findings provide evidence that undetected conceptual misalignment may be an underappreciated factor in social media. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Notes: | https://osf.io/ck9zh |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1502242 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1502242 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Misunderstanding Stance in Tweets – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rebecca+S%2E+Dolgin%22">Rebecca S. Dolgin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3280-8664">0009-0002-3280-8664</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simone+L%2E+Calbi%22">Simone L. Calbi</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7059-1026">0009-0004-7059-1026</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jeffrey+W%2E+Huang%22">Jeffrey W. Huang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0801-4565">0009-0002-0801-4565</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+F%2E+Schober%22">Michael F. Schober</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1531-6326">0000-0003-1531-6326</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Discourse+Processes%3A+A+Multidisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(6-7):520-545. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 26 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Media%22">Social Media</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Misconceptions%22">Misconceptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes%22">Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Telecommunications%22">Telecommunications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handheld+Devices%22">Handheld Devices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comprehension%22">Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Court+Litigation%22">Court Litigation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Affiliation%22">Political Affiliation</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/0163853X.2025.2516982 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0163-853X<br />1532-6950 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: How accurately do readers of tweets understand the stance that tweet authors intended to express? We solicited from six authors their intended stance in their May 2022 tweets about "Roe v. Wade" after the Supreme Court's draft opinion to strike down "Roe v. Wade" was disclosed: in support, opposed, no opinion, or something else. We then asked 101 online participants the stance they thought the author intended to express about "Roe v. Wade." Readers' alignment with authors' self-reported stance in each tweet ranged from as low as 33.7% to no higher than 89.1% of readers, and 25% of readers interpreted a stance opposite to the author's intention at least once, despite authors' high confidence that their tweets would be understood as intended. Younger and more liberal readers comprehended more accurately, but their Twitter use, gender, education, and knowledge of "Roe v. Wade" did not significantly predict alignment. In a follow-up study intended to rule out alternative explanations for these findings, 142 online participants also rated the stance they thought the author intended to express on the "Dobbs"' decision, and a highly similar pattern emerged. These findings provide evidence that undetected conceptual misalignment may be an underappreciated factor in social media. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: Note Label: Notes Group: Note Data: https://osf.io/ck9zh – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1502242 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1502242 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/0163853X.2025.2516982 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 26 StartPage: 520 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Social Media Type: general – SubjectFull: Misconceptions Type: general – SubjectFull: Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Telecommunications Type: general – SubjectFull: Handheld Devices Type: general – SubjectFull: Comprehension Type: general – SubjectFull: Age Differences Type: general – SubjectFull: Gender Differences Type: general – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level Type: general – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables Type: general – SubjectFull: Court Litigation Type: general – SubjectFull: Political Affiliation Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Misunderstanding Stance in Tweets Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Rebecca S. Dolgin – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Simone L. Calbi – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jeffrey W. Huang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Michael F. Schober IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0163-853X – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1532-6950 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 62 – Type: issue Value: 6-7 Titles: – TitleFull: Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
