Transfer and Return of Media Gatekeeping Power: A Study on the Factors Influencing Users’ Perception of Media Social Responsibility in Algorithmic Recommendations
Xue Ke1, Zhang Xinyuan2, Shao Peiren3
1.USC-SJTU Institute of Cultural and Creative Industry, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China 2.School of Media and Communication, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China 3.Institute of Communication Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
Abstract：The ever-growing influence of recommendation algorithms has positioned media platforms as potent guiders of information, raising pertinent discussions on the ethical dimensions of algorithmic recommendation technology. A pressing concern in contemporary academic research is aiding media corporations to uphold their social responsibility and scrutinize the new ethical dilemmas arising from emerging technologies. This study employs affordance theory and media social responsibility theory to examine the influence of affordance as the independent variables, perceived value as the mediating variable, and Chinese cultural perception as the moderating variable on users’ perception of media social responsibility when engaging with recommendation algorithms, based on a questionnaire survey and regression data analysis.The study reveals that under the mediating effect of perceived value, a higher users’ perception of content and algorithm affordance from algorithmic recommendations results in a more favorable perception of media’s fulfillment of social responsibility. The most significant affected aspect is brand image responsibility, followed by positive guidance and network environment responsibility. Content affordance impacts users’ perception of media social responsibility more profoundly than algorithm affordance. Among these, the integrity of content affordance and the accountability of algorithm affordance have the most significant impact, while the transparency of algorithm affordance plays a negligible role. Chinese cultural perception can effectively moderate users’ perception of media brand image and network environment responsibility, but it fails to simulate positive guidance responsibility directly.Firstly, this study introduces a technology-driven model for perceiving media social responsibility from the user’s perspective, anchored in affordance theory. In the era of algorithmic recommendations, media gatekeeping power, concealed by algorithms, strays and yet finds its way back to rationality. As developers and managers of algorithms, media entities must not only abide by traditional norms, including authenticity, integrity, and continuity, but they must also address new ethical issues arising from emerging technologies, such as novelty, diversity, fairness, and accountability. Considering the various dimensions of affordance can provide focused guidance for the implementation of media social responsibility.Secondly, algorithm affordance primarily impacts how users perceive media social responsibility in relation to accountability and fairness, rather than being influenced by the degree of transparency. Users are particularly concerned about the algorithm’s responsibility mechanisms, its ability to be held accountable for potential negative consequences of the technology, including the negative impact of pushed content and arising ethical issues. Accuracy and fairness also draw significant attention; users expect the algorithm to be unbiased, non-discriminatory, and precisely reasonable while arranging content. The issue of transparency, as perceived by users, can be redirected towards enhancing algorithmic logic. When users gain an understanding of how algorithmic recommendation systems operate, their demand for transparency tends to diminish.Thirdly, this paper uncovers a potential mechanism within Chinese culture that enhances users’ positive perception of media fulfilling its social responsibility. Instead of solely focusing on promoting Chinese culture for political obedience and public responsibility, media entities should recognize that Chinese culture provides an essential nourishment for constructing a robust brand image and fostering a positive and healthy online community. Media content management should transition from solely prioritizing commercial value and profits to actively recognizing the corporate utility and social value offered by Chinese culture, thus advocating a proactive approach towards change.Finally, the mechanisms by which content affordance and algorithm affordance impact users’ perception of media social responsibility differ. This paper addresses two key concerns. First, the media’s algorithmic logic should prioritize providing high-quality content to users rather than merely chasing traffic. Second, in an era of superficial reading, integrating the cultural superiority of past elite content production models and guiding users towards deeper cultural engagement pose a fresh challenge for the study of media social responsibility.
薛可, 张馨元, 邵培仁. 媒体把关权力的让渡与回归：算法推荐用户对媒体社会责任感知影响因素研究[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2023, 53(9): 29-44.
Xue Ke, Zhang Xinyuan, Shao Peiren. Transfer and Return of Media Gatekeeping Power: A Study on the Factors Influencing Users’ Perception of Media Social Responsibility in Algorithmic Recommendations. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2023, 53(9): 29-44.
1 Lee C. G.， Sung J. & Kim J. K. et al.， “Corporate social responsibility of the media： instrument development and validation，” Information Development， Vol. 32， No. 3 （2016）， pp. 554-565. 2 邵培仁： 《媒体的当下使命及社会责任》，《中国广播电视学刊》2006年第6期，第5页。 3 Liedekerke L.， “Media ethics： from corporate governance to governance， to corporate social responsibility，” The European Journal of Communication Research， Vol. 29， No. 1 （2004）， pp. 27-42. 4 Sen S. & Bhattacharya C. B.， “Does doing good always lead to doing better？ consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility，” Journal of Marketing Research， Vol. 38， No. 2 （2001）， pp. 225-243. 5 Virvilaite R. & Daubaraite U.， “Corporate social responsibility in forming corporate image，” Engineering Economics， Vol. 22， No. 5 （2011）， pp. 534-543. 6 Sánchez-Torné I.， Morán-álvarez J. C. & Pérez-López J. A.， “The importance of corporate social responsibility in achieving high corporate reputation，” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management， Vol. 27， No. 6 （2020）， pp. 2692-2700. 7 黄苏萍： 《企业社会责任对企业形象影响的实证研究——来自中国银行业的经验证据》，《经济与管理研究》2012年第7期，第121-128页。 8 邵培仁、陈兵： 《媒介管理学概论》，北京：高等教育出版社，2010年。 9 薛可、李亦飞： 《推荐算法的社会责任评价指标建构》，《现代传播（中国传媒大学学报）》2022年第1期，第146-152页。 10 周葆华、范佳秋、田宇： 《新媒体社会责任表现的实证研究——以腾讯网为个案的量化评估》，《新闻大学》2017年第6期，第73-88，124，153页。 11 美］新闻自由委员会： 《一个自由而负责的新闻界》，展江、王征、王涛译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2004年。 12 Bardoel J. & d’Haenens L.， “Media responsibility and accountability： new conceptualizations and practices，” Communications， Vol. 29， No. 1 （2004）， pp. 5-25. 13 钟瑛、李秋华： 《新媒体社会责任的行业践行与现状考察》，《新闻大学》2017年第1期，第62-70，77，148页。 14 Gaver W. W.， “Technology affordances，” https：//www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Gaver-CHI1991.pdf， 2023-07-04. 15 Gibson J. J.， The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception， New York： Psychology Press， 1979. 16 Volkoff O. & Strong D. M.， “Critical realism and affordances： theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes，” MIS Quarterly， Vol. 37， No. 3 （2013）， pp. 819-834. 17 Norman D. A.， The Psychology of Everyday Things， New York： Basic Books， 1988. 18 Sun Y.， Shao X. & Li X. et al.， “How live streaming influences purchase intentions in social commerce： an IT affordance perspective，” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications， Vol. 37 （2019）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100886. 19 Yan R. & Gong X.， “Peer-to-peer accommodation platform affordance： scale development and empirical investigation，” Journal of Business Research， Vol. 144 （2022）， pp. 922-938. 20 曾丽红： 《可供性视角下文博类电视节目的情感溢出功能》，《中国电视》2021年第11期，第53-57页。 21 Myin E.， “On the importance of correctly locating content： why and how REC can afford affordance perception，” Synthese， Vol. 198， No. 1 （2021）， pp. 25-39. 22 Shin D. & Park Y. J.， “Role of fairness， accountability， and transparency in algorithmic affordance，” Computers in Human Behavior， Vol. 98 （2019）， pp. 277-284. 23 Zeithaml V. A.， “Consumer perceptions of price， quality， and value： a means-end model and synthesis of evidence，” Journal of Marketing， Vol. 52， No. 3 （1988）， pp. 2-22. 24 Wang Q.， Yang M. & Zhang W.， “Accessing the influence of perceived value on social attachment： developing country perspective，” Frontiers in Psychology， Vol. 12 （2021）， pp. 760-774. 25 Lv Y.， Fang G. & Zhang X. et al.， “Influence of personality traits on online self-disclosure： considering perceived value and degree of authenticity separately as mediator and moderator，” Frontiers in Psychology， Vol. 13 （2022）， pp. 958-991. 26 Bucher T.， “The algorithmic imaginary： exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms，” Information， Communication & Society， Vol. 20， No. 1 （2017）， pp. 30-44. 27 Eslami M.， Rickman A. & Vaccaro K. et al.， “‘I always assumed that I wasn’t really that close to ［her］’： reasoning about invisible algorithms in the news feed，” https：//doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702556， 2023-07-04. 28 Kohring M. & Matthes J.， “Trust in news media： development and validation of a multidimensional scale，” Communication Research， Vol. 34， No. 2 （2007）， pp. 231-252. 29 Xue K.， Li Y. & Meng X.， “An evaluation model to assess the communication effects of intangible cultural heritage，” Journal of Cultural Heritage， Vol. 40 （2019）， pp. 124-132. 30 Tang M. C.， Chang M. M. & Lin S. C.， “The development and validation of ‘preference diversity’ and ‘openness to novelty’ scales for movie goers，” Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology， Vol. 55， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 486-493. 31 姜书浩、张立毅、张志鑫： 《基于个性化的多样性优化推荐算法》，《天津大学学报（自然科学与工程技术版）》2018年第10期，第1042-1049页。 32 张志安、黄桔琳： 《传播学视角下互联网平台可供性研究及启示》，《新闻与写作》2020年第10期，第87-95页。 33 Diakopoulos N. & Koliska M.， “Algorithmic transparency in the news media，” Digital Journalism， Vol. 5， No. 7 （2016）， pp. 809-828. 34 Lee M. K.， “Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions： fairness， trust， and emotion in response to algorithmic management，” Big Data & Society， Vol. 5， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 1-16. 35 Shin D.， Zhong B. & Biocca F. A.， “Beyond user experience： what constitutes algorithmic experiences？” International Journal of Information Management， Vol. 52 （2020）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102061. 36 Busuioc M.， “Accountable artificial intelligence： holding algorithms to account，” Public Administration Review， Vol. 81， No. 5 （2021）， pp. 825-836. 37 Lee M. R.， Yen D. C. & Hsiao C. Y.， “Understanding the perceived community value of Facebook users，” Computers in Human Behavior， Vol. 35 （2014）， pp. 350-358. 38 朱佳妮、张国良、姚君喜： 《感知价值对移动短视频依恋的影响研究——基于网络归属感和网络隐私关注的中介效应视角》，《新闻大学》2019年第7期，第68-82，123页。 39 Zhang M.， Xu P. & Ye Y.， “Trust in social media brands and perceived media values： a survey study in China，” Computers in Human Behavior， Vol. 127 （2022）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107024. 40 McQuail D.， “Accountability of media to society： principles and means，” European Journal of Communication， Vol. 12， No. 4 （1997）， pp. 511-529. 41 Belén del Río A.， Vázquez R. & Iglesias V.， “The effects of brand associations on consumer response，” Journal of Consumer Marketing， Vol. 18， No. 5 （2001）， pp. 410-425. 42 邵培仁、王昀： 《本土化方法革新：一种认知传播视角的回应》，《现代传播（中国传媒大学学报）》2016年第5期，第14-20页。 43 淦未宇： 《儒家文化对企业社会责任的影响：基于第十次全国私营企业抽样调查的实证检验》，《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2021年第1期，第115-132页。 44 Maffini C. S. & Wong Y. J.， “Feelings about culture scales： development， factor structure， reliability， and validity，” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology， Vol. 21， No. 2 （2015）， pp. 213-224. 45 Xu S.， “Cultivating national identity with traditional culture： China’s experiences and paradoxes，” Discourse： Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education， Vol. 39， No. 4 （2018）， pp. 615-628. 46 Le T. T.， Ngo H. Q. & Aureliano-Silva L.， “Contribution of corporate social responsibility on SMEs’ performance in an emerging market—the mediating roles of brand trust and brand loyalty，” https：//doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-12-2020-1516， 2023-07-04. 47 邵培仁、姚锦云： 《寻根主义：华人本土传播理论的建构》，《新疆师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2013年第4期，第28-41页。 48 金越： 《国家媒体要扛起强化民族文化基因的责任》，《世界教育信息》2014年第19期，第16页。 49 薛可、鲁晓天： 《传统戏剧类非遗短视频青少年观看意愿的影响因素——以皮影短视频为例》，《中南民族大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2020年第6期，第67-73页。 50 宁海林： 《“中华优秀传统文化+短视频”整合传播研究》，《现代传播（中国传媒大学学报）》2018年第6期，第135-138页。 51 陈圣来： 《后疫情时代中华文化的国际传播》，《现代传播（中国传媒大学学报）》2021年第10期，第11-16页。 52 González-Cutre D.， Sicilia á. & Sierra A. C. et al.， “Understanding the need for novelty from the perspective of self-determination theory，” Personality and Individual Differences， Vol. 102 （2016）， pp. 159-169. 53 Sweeney J. C. & Soutar G. N.， “Consumer perceived value： the development of a multiple item scale，” Journal of Retailing， Vol. 77， No. 2 （2001）， pp. 203-220. 54 张欣、郭继荣、车向前： 《吉尔吉斯斯坦国对中国文化的感知研究——基于WEKA平台对小样本问卷调查的分析》，《情报杂志》2021年第8期，第136-141，126页。 55 胡翼青、马新瑶： 《作为媒介性的可供性：基于媒介本体论的考察》，《新闻记者》2022年第1期，第66-76页。 56 Hutchby I.， “Technologies， texts and affordances，” Sociology， Vol. 35， No. 2 （2001）， pp. 441-456. 57 Beer D.， “The social power of algorithms，” Information， Communication & Society， Vol. 20， No. 1 （2017）， pp. 1-13. 58 Lee B. & Boynton L.， “Conceptualizing transparency： propositions for the integration of situational factors and stakeholders’ perspectives，” Public Relations Inquiry， Vol. 6， No. 3 （2017）， pp. 233-251. 59 周宇、徐永顺、沈祥胜： 《融入与传承：中华文化元素在动漫品牌中的运用》，《学习与实践》2019年第6期，第129-133页。
2023, Vol. 53 
