Social media firestorms pose a significant challenge for firms in the digital age. Tackling firestorms is difficult because the judgments and responses from social media users are influenced by not only the nature of the transgressions but also by the reactions and opinions of other social media users. Drawing on the heuristic-systematic information processing model, we propose a research model to explain the effects of social impact (the heuristic mode) and argument quality and moral intensity (the systematic mode) on perceptions of firm wrongness (the judgment outcome) as well as the effects of perceptions of firm wrongness on vindictive complaining and patronage reduction. We adopted a mixed methods approach in our investigation, including a survey, an experiment, and a focus group study. Our findings show that the heuristic and systematic modes of information processing exert both direct and interaction effects on individuals’ judgment. Specifically, the heuristic mode of information processing dominates overall and also biases the systematic mode. Our study advances the literature by offering an alternative explanation for the emergence of social media firestorms and identifying a novel context in which the heuristic mode dominates in dual information processing. It also sheds light on the formulation of response strategies to mitigate the adverse impacts resulting from social media firestorms. We conclude our paper with limitations and future research directions.
DOCUMENT
In this chapter we discuss the implications of our research in the wider context of current models of brain function, endeavoring to understand the consequences of score-dependence and improvisation in terms of the ‘predicting brain’, the dual-stream model of perception and action, the procedural-declarative model of learning and memory, ideomotor learning and sensorimotor mapping, and the implicit acquisition of hierarchical music syntax.
DOCUMENT
Background: Children with difficulties in listening and understanding speech despite normal peripheral hearing, can be diagnosed with the diagnosis Auditory Processing Disorder (A). However, there are doubts about the validity of this diagnosis. The aim of this study was to examine the relation between the listening difficulties of children between 8 and 12 years with suspected A and the attention, working memory, nonverbal intelligence and communication abilities of these children.Material and methods: In this case-control study we examined 10 children who reported listening difficulties in spite of normal peripheral hearing (3 referred by speech-language pathologist in the Northern Netherlands, 6 by an audiological center in the Southern Netherlands and one by parental concern) and 21 typically developing children (recruitment through word of mouth and by the website Taalexpert.nl), ages 8;0 to 12;0 years. The parents of all children completed three questionnaires about history, behavioral symptoms of ADHD, and communication skills (Children’s Communication Checklist). Teachers of the children completed the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale (CHAPPS). Children were assessed for auditory processing abilities (speech-in-noise, filtered speech, binaural fusion, dichotic listening), nonverbal intelligence (Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices), and working memory (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals). Auditory and visual attention was studied with four behavioral tests of the WAFF battery of the Vienna Test System (Schuhfried).Results: Preliminary analysis shows no differences between groups on the auditory processing tests and nonverbal intelligence quotient. Children in the experimental group have poorer communication performance (parent report), poorer listening skills (teacher report), and poorer working memory and attention skills (behavioral tests).Conclusions: The results of this study showed that there is a difference between children with listening complaints and typically developing children, but that the problems are not specific to the auditory modality. There seems to be no evidence for the validity of an auditory deficit.
DOCUMENT