Kluck, Jan Philipp; Krämer, Nicole:
Appraising Uncivil Comments in Online Political Discussions : How Do Preceding Incivility and Senders’ Stance Affect the Processing of an Uncivil Comment?
In: Communication Research, Vol. 50 (2023), No. 4, pp. 453 - 479
2023article/chapter in journalOA Hybrid
PsychologyFaculty of Engineering » Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science » Angewandte Kognitions- und Medienwissenschaft » Social Psychology - Media and Communication
Related: 1 publication(s)
Title in English:
Appraising Uncivil Comments in Online Political Discussions : How Do Preceding Incivility and Senders’ Stance Affect the Processing of an Uncivil Comment?
Author:
Kluck, Jan PhilippUDE
GND
1257729950
LSF ID
59582
ORCID
0000-0001-8432-8705ORCID iD
Other
connected with university
corresponding author
;
Krämer, NicoleUDE
GND
123292786
LSF ID
47899
ORCID
0000-0001-7535-870XORCID iD
Other
connected with university
Year of publication:
2023
Open Access?:
OA Hybrid
Scopus ID
Language of text:
English
Keyword, Topic:
incivility ; online discussions ; social norms ; user comments

Abstract in English:

Although the appraisal of online incivility highly depends on the social context in which it occurs, little research has focused on this aspect. Drawing on the general aggression model, we assumed that the appraisal of and the reaction to an uncivil discussion comment is affected by the represented stance and the appearance of accompanying comments. To examine these assumptions, we conducted an online experiment (N = 611) with a three (uncivil vs. civil vs. no preceding comments as a control) × two (opposing vs. conforming recipient’s views) between-subjects design. Data revealed that the influence of preceding comments is limited. However, people were more likely to attribute aggressive motives to senders of incivility when they opposed their opinion. In turn, these attributions increased individuals’ anger, anxiety, hostile cognitions, but also enthusiasm. Furthermore, aggressive motive attributions, participants’ emotions, and hostile cognitions guided participants’ intentions to answer in a discussion-centered and/or aggressive way.