# data[].attributes.headline
"Är sociala medier ett hot mot demokratin?" - Svenska dagbladet, 2017-05-02

# data[].attributes.subject
"Är sociala medier ett hot mot demokratin?" - Svenska dagbladet, 2017-05-02

# data[].attributes.body
Kolla med bibblan för att få hela utskriven

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
- Vi delar sorgen, men inte lyckan. Så sammanfattade forskningsingenjören Irene Perini sin föreläsning "Hur fungerar en tonårings hjärna på nätet?" under årets populärvetenskapliga vecka.
Den 25-27 oktober öppnade Linköpings universitet dörrarna för den som ville höra framgångsrika forskare föreläsa populärvetenskapligt om sitt arbete och totalt 47 föreläsningar stod på programmet.

På torsdagsförmiddagen fylldes C-huset bland annat av lokala gymnasieelever, som kommit för att få en inblick i universitetsvärlden. Flera av dem gick på Irene Perinis föreläsning "Hur fungerar en tonårings hjärna på nätet?". Irene Perini är förste forskningsingenjör vid CSAN, Center for Social and Affective Neuroscience. När hon frågar publiken hur många som använder sociala medier som till exempel Facebook, Instagram eller Ask.fm är det många händer som sträcks i luften.

- Hur ofta kollar ni era sociala medier? undrar Irene Perini, som undersökt vad som händer i tonåringars hjärnor när de väntar på "likes" och får såväl positiv som negativ respons.
- 24/7, svarar en ung kille i publiken - som uppenbarligen är en flitig användare.
- Varje timme? kontrar forskaren och får svaret:
- Varje minut.

Irene Perini visar en egen profilbild som hon laddade upp när hon kommit till en avgörande punkt i sin akademiska karriär. Varje gillamarkering, komplimang och sarkasm kändes inom henne. På samma sätt har hennes forskning visat vilka lokala förändringar i hjärnans blodtillförsel som sker när tonåringar väntar på och får del av andra sociala medier-användares åsikter om dem själva.

Hon gör en liknelse om hur man kan använda fMRI, en typ av magnetkamerateknik, för att studera hjärnans anatomi och mäta känslor.
- Som en skiva bröd kan man välja vilken del av hjärnan man vill titta på, säger hon.

Då man väntar på respons på till exempel en ny profilbild aktiveras ett område i hjärnan som bestämmer vart de kognitiva resurserna riktas. Detta område, som kallas "the salience network", riktar uppmärksamheten mot det som är relevant för oss, till exempel ett rött trafikljus eller ett vattenglas om vi inte skulle ha druckit på länge.
- För om vi inte såg det, då skulle vi ju dö, förklarar Irene Perini.

Hennes forskning visar alltså att hjärnan prioriterar det som händer på sociala medier som något väldigt viktigt. Även om undersökningspersonerna ibland påstått annat om deras upplevelser, till exempel att det inte känts något speciellt, har det hänt mycket i deras hjärnor när de fått välja om de gillar eller ogillar olika personer på bild - och sedan fått veta vad andra i sin tur tyckt om dem själva.

När man får veta att man fått en "dislike" av någon och alltså blivit avvisad, aktiveras det forskarna definierar som "default mode network" i hjärnan. Irene Perini ger exempel:
- Vi minns personliga händelser från vårt liv, som när någon mobbade eller dumpade mig.

När man blir gillad, å andra sidan, aktiveras både "the salience network" och belöningssystemet, som också aktiveras när vi äter choklad eller får pengar.

När någon annan blir ogillad aktiveras hjärnan på samma sätt som om man själv skulle ha blivit ogillad, vilket enligt Irene Perini kan tyda på en aspekt av empati. När någon annan får "likes" har hjärnan dock hittills visat sig vara helt tyst. Irene Perini sammanfattar:
- Vi delar sorgen, men inte lyckan!

Mer från Populärvetenskapliga veckan på Instagram

Text och foto: Melinda Reyes Hiltunen, studentreporter (genrebild underst Pixabay)

2016-10-31

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vi delar sorgen, men inte lyckan. Så sammanfattade forskningsingenjören Irene Perini sin föreläsning "Hur fungerar en tonårings hjärna på nätet?" under årets populärvetenskapliga vecka. Den 25-27 oktober öppnade Linköpings universitet dörrarna för den som ville höra framgångsrika forskare föreläsa populärvetenskapligt om sitt arbete och totalt 47 föreläsningar stod på programmet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sociala mediers påverkan på demokratin - Vetandets värld

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Utvecklingen av sociala medier har gått oerhört snabbt och har förändrat dagens medielandskap i grunden. Men gynnar det sociala nätverkandet på nätet vårt ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The idea that entertainment has an effect on our politics might seem ludicrous to some. Many would scoff at the notion that the Star Wars saga might have influenced the political socialisation of Generation X. Or that the music that the baby boomers listened to played a supporting role in the development of that generation's politics.

And perhaps, most ridiculous of all, is the idea that J K Rowling's immensely popular tale of the boy-who-lived could have played a role in the political development of that generation, the Millenials. Let alone an election result. But this is exactly what some recent research of mine indicates.

I found empirical support for the idea that the Harry Potter series influenced the political values and perspectives of the generation that came of age with these books. Reading the books correlated with greater levels of acceptance for out-groups, higher political tolerance, less predisposition to authoritarianism, greater support for equality, and greater opposition to the use of violence and torture. As Harry Potter fans will have noted, these are major themes repeated throughout the series. These correlations remained significant even when applying more sophisticated statistical analyses - when controlling for, among other things, parental influence.

I'm not saying, Rita Skeeter like, that "Harry Potter helped Obama get elected" or that "Harry Potter books brainwashed millennials", as much of the coverage of my research indicated. It's of course much more nuanced than this. And in a world where consumption of entertainment media is escalating, allowing many to avoid news coverage altogether in favour of fun, thinking about this is more important than ever.

Who is rational?

Scepticism of the notion that our entertainment consumption shapes our political perspectives only has traction if you think that we arrive at our political views rationally. And there's a long record of research in multiple disciplines (psychology, sociology, and political science to name a few) that thoroughly debunks the notion that we acquire political values and attitudes through a rational process.

And research into how we immerse ourselves in stories has demonstrated that we do not process ideas in entertainment the same way we process information - we react on a more emotional level, at a distance from real world facts.

The next scornful retort is that people's choice of entertainment will reflect their pre-existing political views. But the argument of selective exposure - that we only consume media that is congruent with our existing beliefs - is less applicable to entertainment than it is to overly political media.

We're often drawn to stories for reasons that may have nothing to do with our views. This may be its popularity, attention given to it in the media, critical reviews, special effects, advertising, boredom, inadvertent exposure when we have little choice - the reasons go on. And once we're immersed in the book, TV programme, film or whatever, once we've come to identify with certain characters we are, as communications scholars have demonstrated, likely to internalise the lessons of the narrative, and emulate the qualities of those with whom we identify.

Selective exposure is also complicated by the fact that the politically relevant lessons of a narrative or the qualities of fictional characters are not always evident early on in the story. And they may evolve throughout it. Take that of Darth Vader, a cultural icon of evil, for example - he turns out to still have some good in him at the end. Or there's the Cylons of the recent reimagining of Battlestar Galactica, who evolve from genocidal robots to a form of intelligent life deserving acceptance and tolerance.

When we're consuming entertainment stories it's likely that we're more susceptible to politically relevant messages - we're relaxing, having fun, our political "guard" is down. Indeed, most people are largely unaware of the politically relevant content of that which they watch or read because they are not looking for it. And certain politically relevant messages are so ubiquitous throughout our culture that they become invisible to us. Take the overwhelmingly positive portray of guns in US media - it's incredibly rare to see a hero without a gun.

Selective exposure is also less likely to occur among younger media consumers who have yet to fully form their political views. This is a point especially applicable to the media teenagers consume, like the Harry Potter series.

A great volume of research has been devoted to the effects of entertainment on social phenomena such as violence, sex, smoking and drinking. In this light, perhaps it doesn't seem so ridiculous to give some attention to how entertainment shapes our politics. There have been a handful of published pieces that demonstrate the role of entertainment media, but more empirical research is needed.

In addition to Harry Potter, I also have preliminary results from two other recent studies. One, an experiment that found that exposure to different types of science fiction and fantasy villains affected attitudes about criminal justice. And another that found that exposure to Game of Thrones and House of Cards reduced the tendency to believe in a just world.

There are certainly methodological issues with teasing out entertainment media effects, but those difficulties have not stopped researchers on other similarly sticky subjects. We need to consider the role of entertainment media in the development of political perspectives, in how citizens see their governments, leaders, and policies. This is something that is ever more important in our era of unlimited media choice.

Anthony Gierzynski does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Magic effect: how Harry Potter has influenced the political values of the Millennial generation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The idea that entertainment has an effect on our politics might seem ludicrous to some. Many would scoff at the notion that the Star Wars saga might have influenced the political socialisation of Generation X. Or that the music that the baby boomers listened to played a supporting role in the development of that generation's politics.