Reports of sexual assault have been found to elicit online discourse incivility. The present study employs a computerized coding tool to examine linguistic characteristics of news media that are likely to influence discourse incivility—specifically, negative emotion, disagreement, and discussion about power relations. Additionally, machine learning was harnessed to measure the levels of comment toxicity, insult, profanity, threat, and identity attack in Reddit and Twitter posts sharing news reports of sexual assault. Findings reveal that linguistic features of news articles interact with platform community norms to predict rape culture as expressed within online responses to reports of sexual assault.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KosloskiAE, Diamond-WelchBK, MannO. The presence of rape myths in the virtual world: a qualitative textual analysis of the Steubenville sexual assault case. Violence Gender, 2018; 5:166–173.
2.
HortonA. (2019) Roll Red Roll: behind the chilling documentary on high school rape. The Guardian. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/09/roll-red-roll-behind-the-chilling-documentary-on-high-school&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1622426264132000&usg=AOvVaw1pZQZisaKQ9-Q3CO2ZWjsK (accessed May31, 2021).
3.
LevyA. (2013) Trial byTwitter. New Yorker (New YorkNY: 1925). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/05/trial-by-twitter (accessed May31, 2021).
4.
PennyL. (2019) Laurie Penny on Steubenville: this is rape culture's AbuGhraib moment. https://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/2013/03/steubenville-rape-cultures-abu-ghraib-moment (accessed May31, 2021).
5.
HenryN, PowellA. Embodied harms: gender, shame, and technology-facilitated sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 2015; 21:758–779.
6.
GrubbA, HarrowerJ. Attribution of blame in cases of rape: an analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2008; 13:396–405.
7.
ZaleskiKL, GundersenKK, BaesJ, et al.Exploring rape culture in social media forums. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 63:922–927.
8.
BarberBR, MattsonK, PetersonJ. (1997) The state of electronically enhanced democracy: a survey of the internet. New Brunswick, NJ: Walt Whitman Center for Culture and Politics of Democracy.
9.
FritzJH. (2009) Rudeness and incivility in the workplace. In WrightSL, ed. Friends and enemies in organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 168–194.
10.
MuddimanA, StroudNJ. News values, cognitive biases, and partisan incivility in comment sections: uncivil comments. The Journal of communication, 2017; 67:586–609.
11.
MutzDC, ReevesB. The new videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust. The American Political Science Review, 2005; 99:1–15.
12.
PapacharissiZ. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 2004; 6:259–283.
13.
LernerMJ, MillerDT. Just world research and the attribution process: looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 1978; 85:1030–1051.
14.
BatsonCD, KennedyCL, NordL-A, et al.Anger at unfairness: is it moral outrage?. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2007; 37:1272–1285.
15.
Chory-AssadRM, PaulselML. Classroom justice: student aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education, 2004; 53:253–273.
16.
EelmaaS, Murumaa-MengelM. (2021) Who is worthy of help? Constructing the stereotype of the “ideal victim” of child sexual abuse. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Advance.
17.
ChristieN. (1986) The ideal victim. In FattahEA, ed. From crime policy to victim policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 17–30.
18.
Siefkes-AndrewAJ, AlexopoulosC. Framing blame in sexual assault: an analysis of attribution in news stories about sexual assault on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 2019; 25:743–762.
19.
TaylorLD, AlexopoulosC, GhaznaviJ. Touchy subjects: sex in the workplace on broadcast, cable, and internet television. Sex Roles, 2016; 75:476–489.
20.
HindesS, FilebornB. Girl power gone wrong: #MeToo, Aziz Ansari, and media reporting of (grey area) sexual violence. Feminist Media Studies, 2020; 20:639–656.
21.
SmithLR, PegoraroA. Media framing of Larry Nassar and the USA gymnastics child sex abuse scandal. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2020; 29:373–392.
22.
YuW. News portrayals of child sexual abuse in China: changes from 2010 to 2019. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2021; [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1080/10538712.2021.1897916.
23.
AdolfssonK.Blaming victims of rape: studies on rape myths and beliefs about rape. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Gothenburg, 2018.
24.
ManoussakiK, VeitchF. Ambivalent sexism, right wing authoritarianism and rape myth acceptance in Scotland. International Journal of Gender and Womens' Studies, 2015; 88–100.
25.
AndersonI, DohertyK. (2007) Accounting for rape. psychology, feminism and discourse analysis in the study of sexual violence. London and New York: Routledge.
26.
SunC, BridgesA, JohnsonJA, et al.Pornography and the male sexual script: an analysis of consumption and sexual relations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2016; 45:983–994.
27.
ChaikenS, TropeY. (1999) Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
28.
TodorovA, ChaikenS, HendersonMD. (2002) The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In The persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., pp. 195–212.
BurgerJM. Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: a meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 1981; 90:496–512.
31.
GyekyeSA, SalminenS. The self-defensive attribution hypothesis in the work environment: co-workers' perspectives. Safety Science, 2006; 44:157–168.
32.
KorostelinaK. Intergroup identity insults: a social identity theory perspective. Identity (Mahwah, N.J.), 2014; 14:214–229.
33.
FestingerL. A theory of cognitive dissonance. The American Journal of Psychology, 1957; 1–297.
34.
WardSJA. (2020) Truth and objectivity. In WilkinsL, ChristiansCG, eds. The routledge handbook of mass media ethics. Oxfordshire: Routledge, pp. 101–114.
35.
AndersonAA, HuntingtonHE. Social media, science, and attack discourse: how Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 2017; 39:598–620.
36.
LernerMJ, SimmonsCH. Observer's reaction to the “innocent victim”: compassion or rejection?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966; 203–210.
37.
LandströmS, StrömwallLA, AlfredssonH. Blame attributions in sexual crimes: effects of belief in a just world and victim behavior. Nordic Psychology, 2016; 68:2–11.
38.
LuginbuhlJ, MullinC. Rape and responsibility: how and how much is the victim blamed?. Sex Roles, 1981; 7:547–559.
39.
StrömwallLA, AlfredssonH, LandströmS. Blame attributions and rape: effects of belief in a just world and relationship level: blame attributions and relationship level. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2013; 18:254–261.
40.
VaishA, GrossmannT, WoodwardA. Not all emotions are created equal: the negativity bias in social-emotional development. Psychological Bulletin, 2008; 134:383–403.
41.
MeffertMF, ChungS, JoinerAJ, et al.The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. The Journal of Communication, 2006; 56:27–51.
42.
TrusslerM, SorokaS. Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 2014; 19:360–379.
43.
SchilpzandP, De PaterIE, ErezA. Workplace incivility: a review of the literature and agenda for future research: WORKPLACE INCIVILITY. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2016; 37:S57–S88.
44.
WalshBM, MagleyVJ, ReevesDW, et al.Assessing workgroup norms for civility: the development of the civility norms questionnaire-brief. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2012; 27:407–420.
45.
JhaverS, BirmanI, GilbertE, et al.Human-machine collaboration for content regulation: the case of reddit automoderator. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction: A Publication of the Association for Computing Machinery, 2019; 26:1–35.
46.
Twitter Help Center. (2021) Twitter's policy on hateful conduct. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy (accessed May31, 2021).
47.
BorahP. Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research, 2014; 41:809–827.
48.
HutchensMJ, CicchirilloVJ, HmielowskiJD. How could you think that? Understanding intentions to engage in political flaming. New Media & Society, 2015; 17:1201–1219.
49.
SantanaAD. Virtuous or Vitriolic: the effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 2014; 8:18–33.
50.
KleinO, SpearsR, ReicherS. Social identity performance: extending the strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 2007; 11:28–45.
51.
ChoV, JimersonJB. Managing digital identity on Twitter: the case of school administrators. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 2017; 45:884–900.
52.
WeningerT, ZhuXA, HanJ. (2013) An exploration of discussion threads in social news sites: a case study of the Reddit community. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, ASONAM 2013. Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 579–583.
53.
KwakH, LeeC, ParkH, et al. (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web—WWW’10. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 591–600.
HugginsJ. The selenium browser automation project. https://www.selenium.dev/documentation/en (accessed May31, 2021).
56.
StevensHR, OhYJ, TaylorLR. Desensitization to fear-inducing COVID-19 health news on Twitter: observational Study. JMIR Infodemiology, 2021; [Epub ahead of print]; https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/26876.
57.
AndersonAA, YeoSK, BrossardD, et al.Toxic talk: how online incivility can undermine perceptions of media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2018; 30:156–168.
58.
Anon. Google PerspectiveAPI. https://support.perspectiveapi.com/s/about-the-api-attributes-and-languages (accessed May31, 2021).
59.
PennebakerJW, BoydRL, JordanK. (2015) The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/31333/LIWC2015_LanguageManual.pdf
60.
MauchlyJW. Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1940; 11:204–209.
61.
GreenhouseSW, GeisserS. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 1959; 24:95–112.
62.
CrosbieV. (2006) Time to get tough: managing anonymous reader comments. http://www.ojr.org/060126crosbie/ (accessed June25, 2021).
63.
RiederR. No comment: it's time for news sites to stop allowing anonymous online comments. American Journalism Review, 2010; 32:2–3.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
