The political blogosphere is replete with uncivil discussions and is apt to examine the influence of incivility on news frames. The present study brings in literature from incivility and framing effects and uses two experiments to examine the influence of incivility on news frames for democratic outcomes such as willingness to participate, online participation, openmindedness, and attitude certainty. Primary findings indicate the detrimental effects of incivility causing less openmindedness and more attitude certainty. At the same time, incivility causes more willingness to participate and online participation. More importantly, the findings demonstrate how incivility interacts with news frames. Implications for news framing effects in the social media landscape are discussed.
AbdiH. (2003). Factor rotations in factor analyses. In Lewis-BeckM.BrymanA.FutingT. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social sciences research methods (pp. 1-8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AnsolabehereS.IyengarS. (1995). Going negative. How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York, NY: Free Press.
3.
Ball-RokeachS.LogesW. (1996). Making choices: Media roles in the construction of value choices. In SeligmanC.OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 277-298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BorahP. (2011a). Conceptual issues in framing: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61, 246-263.
5.
BorahP. (2011b). Seeking more information and conversations: Influence of competitive frames and motivated processing. Communication Research, 38, 303-325.
6.
BrewerP. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A framing-based account. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173-201.
7.
BrooksD.GeerJ. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1-16.
8.
CappellaJ.JamiesonK. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118.
10.
DahlbergL. (2001, October). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1).
11.
D’AngeloP. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870-888.
12.
De DreuC. K. W.van KnippenbergD. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345-357.
13.
de VreeseC. (2005). The spiral of cynicism reconsidered. European Journal of Communication, 20, 283-301.
14.
DruckmanJ. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
15.
DruckmanJ. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir) relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
16.
DruckmanJ.KamC. (2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the “narrow data base.” In DruckmanJ.GreenD.KuklinkskiJ.LupiaA. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
17.
EaglyA.ChaikenS. (1993). Psychology of attitudes. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
18.
EdwardsK.SmithE. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24.
19.
FinkelS. E.GeerJ. G. (1998). A spot check: Casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 573-595.
20.
ForgetteR.MorrisJ. S. (2006). High conflict television news and public opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 447-456.
21.
FraserB. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
22.
FridkinK. L.KenneyP. J. (2008). The dimensions of negative messages. American Politics Research, 36, 694-723.
23.
GennaroC.DuttonW. (2006). The Internet and the public: Online and offline political participation in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Affairs, 59, 299-313.
24.
GraberD.BimberB.BennettL.DavisR.NorrisP. (2004). The Internet and politics: Emerging perspectives. In NissenbaumH.PriceM. E. (Eds.), Academy & the Internet (p. 90-119). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
25.
HwangH.BorahP.KangN.VeenstraA. (2008a, May22-26). Does civility matter in the blogosphere? Examining the interaction effects of incivility and disagreement on citizen attitudes. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
26.
HwangH.PanZ.SunY. (2008b). Influence of hostile media perception on willingness to engage in discursive activities: An examination of mediating role in media indignation. Media Psychology, 11, 76-97.
27.
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
KimJ.WyattR.KatzE. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361-385.
29.
KinneyT. A.SegrinC. (1998). Cognitive moderators of negative reactions to verbal aggression. Communication studies, 49, 49-71.
30.
KundaZ. (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636-647.
31.
KundaZ. (1990). The case of motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
32.
LeeN.McLeodD.ShahD. (2008). Framing policy debates: Issue dualism, journalistic frames, and opinions on controversial policy issues. Communication Research, 35, 695-718.
33.
MutzD. C. (2007). Effects of in-your-face television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101, 621-635.
34.
MutzD.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1-15.
35.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A.OxleyZ. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583.
36.
NgE.DetenberB. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).
PapacharissiZ. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9-27.
39.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media and Society, 6, 259-283.
40.
PhillipsT.SmithP. (2004). Emotional and behavioural responses to everyday incivility: Challenging the fear/avoidance paradigm. Journal of Sociology, 40, 378.
41.
ScheufeleD. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.
42.
ShahD.DomkeD.WackmanD. (1996). “To thine own self be true”: Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509-560.
43.
SobeirajS.BerryJ. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19-41.
44.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2002). New voices in the political sphere: A comparative analysis of interpersonal and online political talk. Javnost/The Public, 9, 23-42.
45.
SundarS.NassC. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51(1), 52-72.
46.
ThorsonK.VragaE.EkdaleB. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 289-313.
47.
ValentinoN.BeckmannM.BuhrT. (2001) A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government. Political Communication, 18, 347-367.
48.
VerbaS.NieN. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
49.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK.BradyH. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
