Cited By
View all- Mungall LPruysers SBlais J(2024)Online and Unkind: Examining the Personality Correlates of Online Political IncivilitySocial Science Computer Review10.1177/08944393241249725Online publication date: 30-Apr-2024
It's the aggression, stupid!: An examination of commenters’ motives for using incivility in online political discussions.
Pages 164 - 173
Abstract
Incivility in online political discussions is an urgent problem for society as it can have detrimental effects on democratic discourse. However, knowledge about people's inherent motives for behaving in an uncivil way is scarce. To close this gap, this online study employed a mixed-methods approach and surveyed 115 discussion commenters to explore their motives for communicating in an uncivil manner. Qualitative analyses revealed that in individual cases, people's motives for uncivil commenting can be very complex, and differ between distinct forms of incivility. Participants also indicated that they often try to counteract other comments. In contrast, quantitative data revealed that motives related to aggression were the key drivers for frequent uncivil commenting behavior among different forms of incivility. In sum, the study demonstrated that although aggressive motives are not the only predictors of uncivil commenting, they still seem to be a key factor for an individual's tendency to write uncivil comments.
References
[1]
Ashley A. Anderson, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, Michael A. Xenos, and Peter Ladwig. 2014. The “Nasty Effect:” Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, 3 (Apr. 2014), 373–387.
[2]
Ashley A. Anderson and Heidi E. Huntington. 2017. Social Media, Science, and Attack Discourse: How Twitter Discussions of Climate Change Use Sarcasm and Incivility. Science Communication 39, 5 (Oct. 2017), 598–620.
[3]
Porismita Borah. 2014. Does It Matter Where You Read the News Story? Interaction of Incivility and News Frames in the Political Blogosphere. Communication Research 41, 6 (Aug. 2014), 809–827.
[4]
Gina Masullo Chen, Ashley Muddiman, Tamar Wilner, Eli Pariser, and Natalie J. Stroud. 2019. We Should Not Get Rid of Incivility Online. Social Media + Society 5, 3 (Jul. 2019), 5 pages.
[5]
Elizabeth M. Clancy, Bianca Klettke, and David J. Hallford. 2019. The dark side of sexting – Factors predicting the dissemination of sexts. Computers in Human Behavior 92 (Mar. 2019), 266–272.
[6]
Kevin Coe, Kate Kenski, and Stephen A. Rains. 2014. Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments. Journal of Communication 64, 4 (Aug. 2014), 658–679.
[7]
Naomi Craker and Evita March. 2016. The dark side of Facebook: The Dark Tetrad, negative social potency, and trolling behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences 102 (Nov. 2016), 79–84.
[8]
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 2000. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11, 4 (Oct. 2000), 227–268.
[9]
Nicholas Diakopoulos and Mor Naaman. 2011. Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’11), March 19–23, 2011, Hangzhou, China. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 133–142.
[10]
Lucy Foulkes, Essi Viding, Eamon McCrory, and Craig S. Neumann. 2014. Social Reward Questionnaire (SRQ): Development and validation. Frontiers in Psychology 5 (Mar. 2014), 8 pages.
[11]
Bryan T. Gervais. 2017. More than Mimicry? The Role of Anger in Uncivil Reactions to Elite Political Incivility. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29, 3 (Apr. 2017), 384–405.
[12]
Soo-Hye Han and LeAnn M. Brazeal. 2015. Playing Nice: Modeling Civility in Online Political Discussions. Communication Research Reports 32, 1 (Jan. 2015), 20–28.
[13]
Ariel Hasell and Brian E. Weeks. 2016. Partisan Provocation: The Role of Partisan News Use and Emotional Responses in Political Information Sharing in Social Media. Human Communication Research 42, 4 (Oct. 2016), 641–661.
[14]
John L. Horn. 1965. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30 (Jun. 1965), 179–185.
[15]
Li-Tze Hu and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6, 1 (Jan. 1999), 1–55.
[16]
Andreas König, Mario Gollwitzer, and Georges Steffgen. 2010. Cyberbullying as an Act of Revenge? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20, 2 (Dec. 2010), 210–224.
[17]
Marta Malesza, Pawel Ostaszewski, Susanne Büchner, and Magdalena C. Kaczmarek. 2017. The Adaptation of the Short Dark Triad Personality Measure – Psychometric Properties of a German Sample. Current Psychology. (Aug. 2017),10 pages.
[18]
Lily Moor and Joel R. Anderson. 2019. A systematic literature review of the relationship between dark personality traits and antisocial online behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences 144 (Jul. 2019), 40–55.
[19]
Peter J. Moor, Ard Heuvelman, and Ria Verleur. 2010. Flaming on YouTube. Computers in Human Behavior 26, 6 (Nov. 2010), 1536–1546.
[20]
Ioan M. Ohlsson and Jane L. Ireland. 2011. Aggression and offence motivation in prisoners: Exploring the components of motivation in an adult male sample. Aggressive Behavior 37, 3 (Jan. 2011), 278–288.
[21]
Zizi Papacharissi. 2004. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media and Society 6, 2 (Apr. 2004), 259–283.
[22]
Laura Parks, and Russell P. Guay. 2009. Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and Individual Differences 47, 7 (Nov. 2009), 675–684.
[23]
Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams. 2002. The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality 36, 6 (Dec. 2002), 556–563.
[24]
Leonie Rösner and Nicole C. Krämer. 2016. Verbal Venting in the Social Web: Effects of Anonymity and Group Norms on Aggressive Language Use in Online Comments. Social Media + Society 2, 3 (Sep. 2016), 13 pages.
[25]
Thomas E. Ruggiero. 2000. Mass communication and society uses and gratifications theory in the 21st Century. Mass communication & society 3, 1 (Nov. 2000), 3–37.
[26]
Athur D. Santana. 2014. Virtuous or Vitriolic - The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice 8, 1 (Jan. 2014), 18–33.
[27]
Pnina Shachaf, and Noriko Hara. 2010. Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science 36, 3 (Apr. 2010), 357–370.
[28]
Nina Springer, Ines Engelmann, and Christian Pfaffinger. 2015. User comments: motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society 18, 7 (Jul. 2015), 798–815.
[29]
Natalie J. Stroud, Ashley Muddiman, and Joshua M. Scacco. 2015. Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations’ Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20, 2 (Mar. 2015), 188–203.
[30]
Robin Stryker, Bethany A. Conway, and J. Taylor Danielson. 2016. What is political incivility? Communication Monographs 83, 4 (Oct. 2016), 535–556.
[31]
Na Sun, Patrick P. Rau, and Liang Ma. 2014. Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior 38 (Sep. 2014), 110–117.
[32]
David R. Thomas. 2006. A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation 27, 2 (Jun. 2006), 237–246.
Recommendations
Gender-Related Differences in Online Comment Sections: Findings From a Large-Scale Content Analysis of Commenting Behavior
Comment sections below news articles are public fora in which potentially everyone can engage in equal and fair discussions on political and social issues. Yet, empirical studies have reported that many comment sections are spaces of selective ...
Nasty online comments anger you more than me, but nice ones make me as happy as you
Using online comments posted on news stories as the context, this research used two experiments to assess the influence of online comments on people's emotions as well as on their perceptions of others' emotions. Study 1 (N=301) showed that people ...
Does sentiment help requirement engineering: exploring sentiments in user comments to discover informative comments
AbstractUser comments are valuable resources for software improvement; however, owing to excessive volume, informative comments need to be selectively analyzed. We attempt to address this problem by sentiment analysis and expect sentiment can be a useful ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2020
317 pages
ISBN:9781450376884
DOI:10.1145/3400806
Copyright © 2020 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 the author(s) 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].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 22 July 2020
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
SMSociety'20
SMSociety'20: International Conference on Social Media and Society
July 22 - 24, 2020
ON, Toronto, Canada
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 78 of 189 submissions, 41%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 230Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)28
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Mungall LPruysers SBlais J(2024)Online and Unkind: Examining the Personality Correlates of Online Political IncivilitySocial Science Computer Review10.1177/08944393241249725Online publication date: 30-Apr-2024
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format