Moral argumentation and prototypical themes of discussion in Facebook: A qualitative study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29105/gmjmx18.35-5Keywords:
cognition, social interactions, communication psychology, moral philosophy, social networks, InternetAbstract
This study aims to identify central issues of debate on Facebook, as well as the criteria for the moral evaluation of these issues. It looks at the links between the socio-cognitive mechanisms of moral evaluation and five philosophical types moral reasoning. This approach has not been directly addressed in the associated research. The study applies a qualitative phenomenological method. Group interviews were carried out for the data collection with a total of 32 Costa Rican university students (18-24 years old, 43% women). The results yielded four central issues around which the debate takes place within this social network. Within the lines of Facebook exchanges, there is a rigid cognitive scheme whose content relates to two of the five philosophical types of moral reasoning, namely, theologism and deontologism. The study alludes to the scope, limitations, and implications for the understanding of communicative exchanges in social networks that sheds light on the formation of a digital citizenship.
Downloads
References
Alberici, A. I., & Milesi, P. (2016). Online discussion, politicized identity, and collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(1), 43-59. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1368430215581430 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215581430
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313-7318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114
Brand, C. (2016). Dual-process theories in moral psychology. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12053-5
Cresswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage.
Crisp, R. (1998). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Mill on utilitarianism. Routledge.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199641321.001.0001
Gallardo Paúls, B., & Enguix Oliver, S. (2016). Pseudopolítica: el discurso político en las redes sociales. Universidad de Valencia.
Gooren, H. (2010). The Pentecostalization of religion and society in Latin America. Exchange, 39(4), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.1163/157254310X537025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157254310X537025
Johnen, M., Jungblut, M., & Ziegele, M. (2018). The digital outcry: What incites participation behavior in an online firestorm? New Media & Society, 20(9), 3140-3160. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444817741883 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817741883
Jost, J. T., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Langer, M., Metzger, M., Nagler, J., Sterling, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2018). How social media facilitates political protest: information, motivation, and social networks. Political Psychology, 39, 85-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12478 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12478
Kant, E. (1997 [1785]). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, tr. Mary J. Gregor (1928–1994), with an introduction by Christine Korsgaard (1952-). Cambridge Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809590
Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., Wollebæk, D., & Enjolras, B. (2017). Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication, 32(3), 257-273. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0267323117695734 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323117695734
Khan, S., Gagné, M., Yang, L., & Shapka, J. (2016). Exploring the relationship between adolescents' self-concept and their offline and online social worlds. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 940-945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.046 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.046
Korsgaard, C. (2000). Las fuentes de la normatividad. UNAM.
Kotras, B. (2018). Le tout plutôt que la partie: Big data et pluralité des mesures de l’opinion sur le web. Revue française de sociologie, 59(3), 451-474. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.593.0451 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.593.0451
Mazzuchino, M. G. (2017). Los otros y nosotros: configuración discursiva y retórica de los tuits de los presidentes Fernández de Kirchner y Peña Nieto. Tonos digital. Revista de estudios filológicos. (33). https://bit.ly/3yr6ayR
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. Von Kardoff, & I. Steinke, A companion qualitative research. (pp.266-269). Sage.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Harvard University.
Miller, J. L., Kay, C. S., & Sanburg, S. (2018). Diamonds in the rough: claims, evidence, and reasoning in Facebook Pollshare.com comments. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(3), 335-352. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002764218769532 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218769532
Parfit, D. (2011). Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press.
Pérez Sánchez, R. (2016). Adolescencia, socialización y TIC. In PROSIC. Informe Anual hacia la Sociedad de la Información y el Conocimiento 2016. Universidad de Costa Rica: PROSIC. https://bit.ly/3DYJU0p
Quinn, P. L. (2000). Divine command theory. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to ethical theory. Blackwell Publishing.
Quirós, A. (2016). Los adultos y las prácticas de las TIC. In PROSIC. informe Anual Hacia la Sociedad de la Información y el Conocimiento 2016. Universidad de Costa Rica: PROSIC. https://bit.ly/3DYJU0p
Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press.
Raz, J. (2013). From normativity to responsibility. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jrls/jlt034
Ruppel, E. K., Gross, C., Stoll, A., Peck, B. S., Allen, M., & Kim, S. (2016). Reflecting on connecting: Meta-analysis of differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12179 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12179
Sauer, H. (2017). Between facts and norms: Ethics and empirical moral psychology. In B. G. Voyer, & T. Tarantola (Eds.), Moral psychology: A multidisciplinary guide. (pp. 5-28). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61849-4_2
Scanlon, T. (2007). Contractualism and utilitarianism. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Ethical theory: an anthology. Blackwell Publishing.
Sloman, S. A., Fernbach, P. M., & Ewing, S. (2009). Causal models: The representational infrastructure for moral judgment. In D. M. Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 50. Moral judgment and decision making (pp. 1-26). Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00401-5
Slote, M. (2007). Agent-basedd Virtue Ethics. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Ethical theory: An anthology. Blackwell Publishing.
Tarantola, T. (2017). Cognitive and neural sciences: investigating the moral system. In B. G. Voyer, & T. Tarantola (Eds.), Moral psychology: A multidisciplinary guide. (pp. 59-79). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61849-4_5
Wright, S., Graham, T., & Jackson, D. (2016). Third space, social media and everyday political talk. In A. Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbø, A. O. Larsson, & C. Christensen (Eds.), The Routledge companion to social media and politics. (pp. 74-88). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716299-6
Yoon, C. (2011). Ethical decision-making in the Internet context: Development and test of an initial model based on moral philosophy. Computers in Human Behavior. 27(6), 2401-2409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.007
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Global Media Journal México, publicación semestral, editada por el Departamento de Psicología y Comunicación de Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas, Estados Unidos; y la Facultad de Ciencias de la Comunicación de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, México. Editores responsables: Dr. José Carlos Lozano y Dr. Francisco Javier Martínez Garza. Datos de contactos: jose.lozano@tamiu.edu, tel. (956) 326-3117 y francisco.martinezgz@uanl.edu.mx, teléfono (81) 83294000, Ext. 7710 y 7711. Reserva de derechos al uso exclusivo número 04 – 2017- 080814012900- 203, expedido por la Dirección de Reservas de Derechos del Instituto Nacional del Derecho de Autor. ISSN: 2007-2031. El editor no necesariamente comparte el contenido de los artículos, ya que son responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores. Se prohíbe la reproducción total o parcial del contenido, ilustraciones y textos publicados en este número sin la previa autorización que por escrito emita el editor.
