research-article

Audience and Expert Perspectives on Second Screen Engagement with Political Debates

Authors:

Katerina Gorkovenko,

Nick TaylorAuthors Info & Claims

TVX '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video

Pages 70 - 82

https://doi.org/10.1145/3317697.3323352

Published: 04 June 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Televised debates remain a key point in elections, during which there are vast amounts of online activity, much of it conducted through personal devices or second screens. Amidst growing recognition of the influence of online political discourse, we explore the issues and opportunities arising at this specific point in election cycles, using a design-led multi-stakeholder approach to understand both the audience and expert perspectives. Workshops with debate viewers highlighted six key issues and possible solutions, which were encapsulated in four speculative design concepts. These were used to prompt further discussion with political and media experts, who were able to identify the implications and challenges of addressing the opportunities identified by the participants. Together, these perspectives allow us to unravel some of the complexities of designing for this multifaceted problem.

References

[1]

Hana Al-Deen and John Hendricks. 2012. Social Media: Usage and Impact. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, USA.

Digital Library

[2]

Nick Anstead and Ben O’Loughlin. 2011. The emerging viewertariat and BBC Question Time: Television debate and real-time commenting online. International Journal of Press/Politics 16, 4 (2011), 440–462.

[3]

Julian Ausserhofer and Axel Maireder. 2013. National politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society 16, 3 (2013), 291–314.

[4]

Tom Bakker. 2013. Citizens as Political Participants: The Myth of the Active Online Audience?Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Amsterdam. https://doi.org/11245/1.384371

[5]

BBC News. 2017. How Russian bots appear in your timeline. Retrieved August 06, 2018 from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41982569

[6]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.

[7]

Phil Brooker, John Vines, Selina Sutton, Julie Barnett, Tom Feltwell, and Shaun Lawson. 2015. Debating poverty porn on Twitter: social media as a place for everyday socio-political talk. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3177–3186.

Digital Library

[8]

Alex Bruns and Jean Burgess. 2011. #Ausvotes: How twitter covered the 2010 Australian federal election. Communication, Politics & Culture 44 (2011), 37–56. Issue 2. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=627330171744964;res=IELHSS

[9]

Julia Cambre, Scott R. Klemmer, and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2017. Escaping the Echo Chamber: Ideologically and Geographically Diverse Discussions About Politics. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2423–2428.

Digital Library

[10]

Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Anyone can become a troll: Causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(CSCW ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1217–1230.

Digital Library

[11]

Cédric Courtois and Evelien D’heer. 2012. Second Screen Applications and Tablet Users: Constellation, Awareness, Experience, and Interest. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video(EuroITV ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 153–156.

Digital Library

[12]

Anna De Liddo, Brian Plüss, and Paul Wilson. 2017. A novel method to gauge audience engagement with televised election debates through instant, nuanced feedback elicitation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies(C&T ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 68–77.

Digital Library

[13]

Abraham Doris-Down, Husayn Versee, and Eric Gilbert. 2013. Political Blend: An application designed to bring people together based on political differences. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies(C&T ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 120–130.

Digital Library

[14]

Mark Doughty, Duncan Rowland, and Shaun Lawson. 2012. Who is on Your Sofa?: TV Audience Communities and Second Screening Social Networks. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video(EuroITV ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 79–86.

Digital Library

[15]

Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction and Social Dreaming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Digital Library

[16]

Tom Feltwell, Gavin Wood, Kiel Long, Phillip Brooker, Tom Schofield, Ioannis Petridis, Julie Barnett, John Vines, and Shaun Lawson. 2017. “I’ve been manipulated!”: Designing second screen experiences for critical viewing of reality TV. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2252–2263.

Digital Library

[17]

Adam Fourney, Miklos Z. Racz, Gireeja Ranade, Markus Mobius, and Eric Horvitz. 2017. Geographic and temporal trends in fake news consumption during the 2016 US Presidential Election. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management(CIKM ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2071–2074.

Digital Library

[18]

Homero Gil de Zúñiga, Victor Garcia-Perdomo, and Shannon Mcgregor. 2015. What Is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and Its Effect on Online Political Participation. Journal of Communication (07 2015).

[19]

Eric Gilbert, Tony Bergstrom, and Karrie Karahalios. 2009. Blogs are echo chambers: Blogs are echo chambers. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE.

Digital Library

[20]

Katerina Gorkovenko and Nick Taylor. 2016. Politics at home: Second screen behaviours and motivations during TV debates. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(NordiCHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 22, 10 pages.

Digital Library

[21]

Katerina Gorkovenko and Nick Taylor. 2017. Understanding how people use Twitter during election debates. In Proceedings of the 31st International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference(BritishHCI ’17). BCS, Swindon, UK.

Digital Library

[22]

Katerina Gorkovenko and Nick Taylor. 2019. Audience and Expert Perspectives on Second Screens (Transcripts of Co-Design Workshop and Expert Interviews).

[23]

Katerina Gorkovenko, Nick Taylor, and Jon Rogers. 2017. Social Printers: A physical social network for political debates. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2269–2281.

Digital Library

[24]

Andrew Guess, Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. 2018. Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Retrieved August 07, 2018 from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf

[25]

Sue Halpern. 2018. Cambridge Analytica and the perils of psychographics. Retrieved August 07, 2018 from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/cambridge-analytica-and-the-perils-of-psychographics

[26]

Susan Herring, Kirk Job-Sluder, Rebecca Scheckler, and Sasha Barab. 2002. Searching for safety online: Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society 18, 5 (2002), 371–384.

[27]

Matthew Hindman. 2009. The Myth of the Digital Democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.

[28]

Philip N. Howard, Samuel Woolley, and Ryan Calo. 2018. Algorithms, bots, and political communication in the US 2016 election: The challenge of automated political communication for election law and administration. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 15, 2 (2018), 81–93.

[29]

Jan H. Kietzmann, Kristopher Hermkens, Ian P. McCarthy, and Bruno S. Silvestre. 2011. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons 54, 3 (2011), 241–251.

[30]

Travis Kriplean, Jonathan Morgan, Deen Freelon, Alan Borning, and Lance Bennett. 2012. Supporting reflective public thought with ConsiderIt. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work(CSCW ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 265–274.

Digital Library

[31]

Joseph Lindley and Paul Coulton. 2015. Back to the future: 10 years of design fiction. In Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference(British HCI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 210–211.

Digital Library

[32]

Jamie Mahoney, Tom Feltwell, Obinna Ajuruchi, and Shaun Lawson. 2016. Constructing the visual online political self: An analysis of Instagram use by the Scottish electorate. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3339–3351.

Digital Library

[33]

Misa Maruyama, Scott P. Robertson, Sara Douglas, Roxanne Raine, and Bryan Semaan. 2017. Social watching a civic broadcast: Understanding the effects of positive feedback and other users’ opinions. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(CSCW ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 794–807.

Digital Library

[34]

Misa T. Maruyama, Scott P. Robertson, Sara K. Douglas, Bryan C. Semaan, and Heather A. Faucett. 2014. Hybrid media consumption: How tweeting during a televised political debate influences the vote decision. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(CSCW ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1422–1432.

Digital Library

[35]

Diana C. Mutz. 2013. Reflections on hearing the other side, in theory and in practice. Critical Review 25, 2 (2013), 260–276.

[36]

Abhishek Nandakumar and Janet Murray. 2014. Companion apps for long arc TV series: Supporting new viewers in complex storyworlds with tightly synchronized context-sensitive annotations. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video(TVX ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3–10.

Digital Library

[37]

Brian Plüss and Anna De Liddo. 2015. Engaging citizens with televised election debates through online interactive replays. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video(TVX ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 179–184.

Digital Library

[38]

Mike Proulx and Stacey Shepatin. 2012. Social TV: How Markets Can Reach and Engage Audiences by Connecting Television to the Web, Social Media and Mobile. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.

[39]

Steven Schirra, Huan Sun, and Frank Bentley. 2014. Together alone: Motivations for live-tweeting a television series. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2441–2450.

Digital Library

[40]

Bryan Semaan, Heather Faucett, Scott Robertson, Misa Maruyama, and Sara Douglas. 2015. Navigating imagined audiences: Motivations for participating in the online public sphere. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(CSCW ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1158–1169.

Digital Library

[41]

Bryan Semaan, Heather Faucett, Scott P. Robertson, Misa Maruyama, and Sara Douglas. 2015. Designing political deliberation environments to support interactions in the public sphere. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3167–3176.

Digital Library

[42]

Mike Shephard, Stephen Quinlan, Stephen Tagg, and Linsday Paterson. 2014. Twittish tweets? Twitter’s ability to be deliberative?. In Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association(APSA ’14). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2452646

[43]

Dominic Spohr. 2017. Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review 34, 3 (2017), 150–160.

[44]

Lee Taber and Steve Whittaker. 2018. Personality depends on the medium: Differences in self-perception on Snapchat, Facebook and offline. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 607, 13 pages.

Digital Library

[45]

Magdalena E. Wojcieszak and Diana C. Mutz. 2009. Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication 59, 1 (2009), 40–56.

[46]

Richmond Y. Wong, Ellen Van Wyk, and James Pierce. 2017. Real–fictional entanglements: Using science fiction and design fiction to interrogate sensing technologies. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(DIS ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 567–579.

Digital Library

[47]

John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 493–502.

Digital Library

Cited By

Alonso del Barrio DTiel MGatica-Perez D(2024)Human Interest or Conflict? Leveraging LLMs for Automated Framing Analysis in TV ShowsProceedings of the 2024 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences10.1145/3639701.3656308(157-167)Online publication date: 7-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639701.3656308

Recommendations

Politics at Home: Second Screen Behaviours and Motivations During TV Debates
NordiCHI '16: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

The use of peripheral devices or second screens to access social media and other content is now a common activity during televised political debates. Based on a study conducted during the 2015 UK General Election debates, this paper explores attitudes ...
Social Printers: A Physical Social Network for Political Debates
CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Social Printers are physical devices that create a pseudonymous social network between households during televised political debates. Through studies conducted around the Scottish Parliamentary Election and EU Referendum in 2016, we aimed to understand ...
Understanding Behaviors, Experiences and Perspectives of Government Social Media Users
ICEGOV '18: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

Social media is being adopted at a rapid pace by governments around world and across different levels of government. In Canada, federal, provincial and municipal governments created social media accounts in 2000s and are now using them to interact with ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

TVX '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video

June 2019

299 pages

ISBN:9781450360173

DOI:10.1145/3317697

Copyright � 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 June 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Conference

TVX '19

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

TVX '19: ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video

June 5 - 7, 2019

Salford (Manchester), United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 245 submissions, 28%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
154
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)24
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 21 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Alonso del Barrio DTiel MGatica-Perez D(2024)Human Interest or Conflict? Leveraging LLMs for Automated Framing Analysis in TV ShowsProceedings of the 2024 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences10.1145/3639701.3656308(157-167)Online publication date: 7-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639701.3656308

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents