How digital media markets amplify news sentiment

Last registered on October 18, 2024

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
How digital media markets amplify news sentiment
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0014049
Initial registration date
October 10, 2024

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
October 18, 2024, 4:48 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Cologne

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-10-11
End date
2024-11-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
Media content is often distorted towards sensensationalist content (as compared to reality) and a growing body of evidence suggests that an important reason for this is the demand side. Digitalization enables journalists to learn about the reading preferences of their audiences in detail and rewards respecting reader preferences in content production much stronger than traditional news settings. Could the shift in incentives thus amplify certain the sensationalst bias in the media? And if so, what would be the consequences for consumers?

To tackle these questions, this study builds on results from the project "Does Digitalization Enhance (Negativity) Bias of the News Media? Investigating Journalistic Decision Making Under Different Incentive Schemes", which was pre-registered under the RCT ID AEARCTR-0008658. In two (partially connected) experiments I investigate journaistic content choices and the reactions of readers to them. For the first experiment, journalists are recruited as participants and randomly allocated to different incentive schemes. The journalists make content choices, which are in the second experiment randomly shown to a group of readers. The second experiment serves to analyze the effects of jounalistic content choices on readers emotions, beliefs and attitudes.

Registration Citation

Citation
Berger, Lara Marie. 2024. "How digital media markets amplify news sentiment." AEA RCT Registry. October 18. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14049-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Journalist experiment: The randomization occurs on the incentives. There are three groups:
1. control group: receives a flat payment for the participation
2. pay per click group: receives a payment relative to the clicks the selected headlines generate.
3. pay per abo group: receives a payment relative to the newsletter abonnements the selected headlines receive.


Readers experiment: The randomization occurs on the level of the headlines which readers are exposed to. There are four main groups:
1. neutral headlines without competition: subjects see one neutral headline per topic and can select to click on it or not
2. neutral headlines with competition: subjects see two neutral headlines per topic and can select to click on one or both or none
3. emotional headlines without competition: subjects see one emotional headline per topic and can select to click on it or not
4. emotional headlines with competition: subjects see one emotional and one neutral headline per topic and can select to click on one or both or none
In the treatments with emotional headlines half of the participants are exposed to positive headlines and the other half to negative headlines.
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2024-10-11
Intervention End Date
2024-11-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Journalist experiment: emotionality and sentiment of headline suggestions, emotionality and sentiment of headline choices out of two menus of three headlines each
Readers experiment: reading duration, factual knowledge, polarization of opinions, post-feelings
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Journalist experiment:
- Journalists will be asked to suggest headlines for three (randomly drawn) articles. The sentiment and emotionality of these headlines will be classified by a machiene learning algorithm and validated by human classifications.
- Jounalists will have to select a headline out of a menu of three real headlines for a given article. The menu consists of a positive, a neutral and a negative headline.
- Jounalists will have to select a headline out of a menu of three headlines which were written by ChatGPT for a given article. The menu consists of a positive, a neutral and a negative headline.

Readers experiment:
- Reading duration for each article is the time spend on an article page in seconds. These 6 measures per person will be added up to obtain the total time a participant spent reading.
- Factual knowledge is measured as the absolute distance to the correct values of the estimation questions and then converted into standard deviatons. To aggregate the 6 measures, the absolute distance (expressed in standard deviations) will be computed. Before the conversion into standard deviations, each measure will be winsorized at the 5th and 95th percentile to minimize the influence if outliers.
- Opinions are measured as agreement to polarizing statements on a scale from -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree). To obtain a measure for opinion polarization the absolute value of the stated opinion will be computed. Additionally, the six measures of opinion polarization will be aggregated into the average opinion polarization.
- Post-feelings are measured on a scale from 0 (feeling very bad) to 100 (feeling very good).

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Journalist experiment: qualitative answers to questions on headlines choices, order of topics and assessment of topical emotionality
Readers experiment: click rates, newsletter subscriptions
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Journalist experiment:
- Journalists are asked to explain the influences on their content choices outside of the experimental context in a drop-down menu and in a free text form.
- Journalists are given a list of six topics and have to say in which order they would select those topics and additionally estimate how emotional readers would react to those topics.

Readers experiment:
- Click rates are dummy variables equal to one if a person has clicked on a specific article and 0 otherwise. Additionally, the sum of the clicked articles will be computed.
- Newsletter subscriptions are dummy variables equal to one if a person has decided to subscribe to a newsletter on a specific topic and 0 otherwise. Additionally, the sum of the subscriptions will be computed.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In the journalist experiment, there will be three experimental groups who each have to complete six headline choices for two articles. The groups only differ in the way they are compensated. While the "flat pay" group is receiving a fixed amount for their participation, the remuneration of the "pay-per-click" group depends on how well the headlines they select perform with a sample of readers (=how many clicks they generate). The compensation of the "subscription pay" group in turn depends on how many readers are willing to subscribe to a newsletter to receive more information on a topic after being exposed to a headline. Fist, the journalists are asked to write a headline for a given article in a free text form themselves. Afterwards, they can two times per article decide by a menu of suggestions that differ in sentiment. In the last part of the experiment I will elicit demographic data of the journalists.

The following control variables will be used in the main regressions of the journalist experiment: age, gender, east/west, job type, political orientation, education.


Paticipants for the readers experiment are recruited via the market research company bilendi and representative for the German population in terms of age, gender and state of residence. They will be randomly exposed to the pool of headlines and articles from the journalists' experiment.

The following control variables will be used in the main regressions of the readers experiment: age, gender, federal state, income, job, political orientation, education, ex-ante knowledge on the six topics, feeling before the intervention, news consumption habits

In the readers experiment it is planned to analyze the heterogeneity of the effects for the following sub-groups:
- Age
- Ex-ante feeling
- Ex-ante opinion polarization / knowledge
- News consumption habits


Hypotheses:

Journalist experiment:
1. Journalists in the pay-per-click group select more emotional headlines than those in the control group. (between-subject)
2. Journalists in the pay-per-abo group select more emotional headlines than those in the control group. (between-subject)
3. Journalists choose more often emotional headlines if the decisions involve competitin on the headline level. (within-subject)

Readers experiment:
1. Those who read positive headlines feel better than those who read neutral or negative headlines.
2. Those who read emotional headlines spend more time reading articles than those who read neutral headlines.
3. Those who read emotional headlines have higher opinion polarization than those who read neutral headlines.
4. Those who read emotional headlines have lower factual knowledge than those who read neutral headlines.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
computer
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N.A.
Sample size: planned number of observations
Planned sample size for the journalist experiment: 400. Data collection will be stopped either after 400 responses have been recorded or when the 30th of November 2024 has passed. Planned sample size for the readers experiment: 1600. Data collection will occur between 11th of October 2024 and 25th of October 2024.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Journalist experiment: 1/3 of participants in each treatment group.
Readers experiment: 400 participants per treatment group.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Research Ethics Review; Faculty of Management, Economics, and Social Sciences; University of Cologne
IRB Approval Date
2024-04-16
IRB Approval Number
240019LB

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials