Emotion Shapes the Diffusion of Moralized Content in Social Networks

Title
Your name
Subject and Section
Professor’s name
Date
The article, “Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks”, by William J. Brady, Julian A. Wills, John T. Jost, Joshua A. Tucker, and Jay J. Van Bavel is a qualitative study that looks into the role of moral feelings in the transfer of morality across social media. The researchers gathered tweets from various people regarding specific issues and then analyzed them. The findings highlight the importance of feelings in the social transmission of moral ideas, as well as the convenience of social network methods in the study of morality. These findings illuminate how people are exposed to moral and political ideas through social networks, potentially expanding models of social influence and group divisiveness as people become more engrossed in social media networks.
The article has demonstrated strengths. Brady et al. (2017) have used a purposeful sampling method in this study. This was used by the researchers to identify and select knowledge-rich cases related to their topic of interest. The researchers segregated the tweets according to three issues, gun control, same-sex marriage, and climate change. This was regarded as a good move since the researchers focus on a specific phenomenon. Hence, this is the most appropriate sampling method to use. The researchers have also shed light on the phenomenon of moral emotion expression which is critical to the spread of moral and political ideas in online social networks, a process known as moral contagion. Overall, the context of the article can contribute to the other relevant subjects or future research.
The article, on the other hand, has flaws and weaknesses. One flaw is found in the researchers’ participants and the data gathered. Informed consent allows potential research participants to freely volunteer their participation without fear of repercussions or undue pressure. The potential participant is also given information that an individual would want to know before participating, allowing them to make an informed decision about whether or not to participate. However, despite the prevalent norm among researchers that Twitter is public, a user's consent for the public to view their tweets may not imply consent for researchers to collect and analyze them. People's perceptions of the public also differ. Some people have no objections to having their tweets included in the research, while others have reservations.
The researchers used the t...