Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Asynchronous, anonymous online debaters might be less likely than face-to-face debaters to value their public self-image (face), and thus disagree more freely. In this study, we examined whether polite disagreements (as opposed to rude ones) help online debaters win over audience members. An analysis of the most voted-on 100 political debates on Debate.org (200 debaters; 1,750 voters; 472,652 words) showed that debate initiators who used politer face-saving strategies to disagree (i.e., using expressions such as negatives with agree words rather than disagree or harsh rejection words) were more likely to receive more audience votes and win their debates. These results suggest that politeness tactics during online debates increase effectiveness, align with normative ideals, and yield pragmatic gain.

Keywords

argumentation strategies face-saving tactics online debates politeness theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asch

S. E.

(1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055756

Bejan

T. M.

(2017). Mere civility: Disagreement and the limits of toleration. Harvard University Press.

Benjamini

Krieger

A. M.

Yekutieli

(2006). Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/93.3.491

Brechwald

W. A.

Prinstein

M. J.

(2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x

Brown

Levinson

S. C.

(1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Bryk

A. S.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. SAGE.

Chen

Chiu

M. M.

Wang

(2012a). Predicting social cues during online discussions: Effects of evaluations and knowledge content. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1497–1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.017

Chen

Chiu

M. M.

Wang

(2012b). Social metacognition and the creation of correct, new ideas: A statistical discourse analysis of online mathematics discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 868–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.006

Chen

Chiu

M. M.

(2008). Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages’ evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages. Computers & Education, 50(3), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.007

10.

Chiu

M. M.

(2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during groups’ mathematics problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 415–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802224830

11.

Chiu

M. M.

Jeong

(2020). Gender, social distance, and justifications: Statistical discourse analysis of evidence and explanations in online debates. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1199–1224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09739-8

12.

Chiu

M. M.

Khoo

(2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving: Do they bias evaluations and reduce the likelihood of correct solutions? Journal of Education & Psychology, 95(3), 506–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.506

13.

Cionea

I. A.

Piercy

C. W.

Carpenter

C. J.

(2017). A profile of arguing behaviors on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.009

14.

Coe

Kenski

Rains

S. A.

(2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104

15.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Erlbaum.

16.

Dailey

W. O.

Hinck

E. A.

Hinck

S. S.

(2005). Audience perceptions of politeness and advocacy skills in the 2000 and 2004 presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41(4), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2005.11821630

17.

Debate.org . (n.d). About debate.org. https://www.debate.org/about/company/

18.

Fingerhut

(2016). In ‘political correctness’ debate, most Americans think too many people are easily offended. https://pewrsr.ch/2actfez

19.

Goldstein

(2011). Multilevel statistical models (4th ed.). Wiley.

20.

Hara

Bonk

C. J.

Angeli

(2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003764722829

21.

Harp

Tremayne

(2006). The gendered blogosphere: Examining inequality using network and feminist theory. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300202

22.

Jamieson

K. H.

Volinsky

Weitz

Kenski

(2017). The political uses and abuses of civility and incivility. In Jamieson

K. H.

Kenski

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication (pp. 205–217). Oxford University Press.

23.

Jones

E. E.

Rock

Shaver

K. G.

Goethals

G. R.

Ward

L. M.

(1968). Pattern of performance and ability attribution: An unexpected primacy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(4), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026818

24.

Just

Crigler

Wallach

(1990). Thirty seconds or thirty minutes: What viewers learn from spot advertisements and candidate debates. Journal of Communication, 40(3), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02274.x

25.

Kennedy

(2008). A guide to econometrics. Blackwell.

26.

Kenski

Coe

Rains

S. A.

(2020). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 47(6), 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933

27.

Krippendorff

(2012). Content analysis. SAGE.

28.

Leaper

Ayres

M. M.

(2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 328–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307302221

29.

Linebarger

M. C.

(1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 325–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00584131

30.

Loader

B. D.

Mercea

(2011). Networking democracy?: Social media innovations and participatory politics. Information Communication & Society, 14(6), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2011.592648

31.

Mitchell

Jurkowitz

Oliphant

J. B.

Sherarer

(2020). Americans who mainly get their news on social media are less engaged, less knowledgeable. Pew Research Center. https://www.journalism.org/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-are-less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/

32.

Padró

Collado

Reese

Lloberes

Castellón

(2016). Freeling 4.0. https://github.com/TALP-UPC/FreeLing/releases/tag/4.0

33.

Papacharissi

(2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244

34.

Papacharissi

(2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444

35.

Park

Yaden

D. B.

Schwartz

H. A.

Kern

M. L.

Eichstaedt

J. C.

Kosinski

Stillwell

Ungar

L. H.

Seligman

M. E.

(2016). Women are warmer but no less assertive than men: Gender and language on facebook. PLoS One, 11(5), e0155885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155885

36.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Boyd

R. L.

Jordan

Blackburn

(2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. https://liwc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LIWC2015_LanguageManual.pdf

37.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Francis

M. E.

Booth

R. J.

(2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2015. Erlbaum.

38.

Peugh

J. L.

Enders

C. K.

(2004). Missing data in educational research. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525–556. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004525

39.

Price

(2009). Citizens deliberating online: Theory and some evidence. In Davies

Gangadharan

S. P.

(Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 37–58). University of Chicago Press for The Center for the Study of Language and Information.

40.

Reinig

B. A.

Mejias

R. J.

(2004). The effects of national culture and anonymity on flaming and criticalness in GSS-supported discussions. Small Group Research, 35(6), 698–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404266773

41.

Rossini

(2020). Beyond incivility: Understanding patterns of uncivil and intolerant discourse in online political talk. Communication Research. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921314

42.

Salzman

C. D.

Fusi

(2010). Emotion, cognition, and mental state representation in amygdala and prefrontal cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33, 173–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135256

43.

Samra-Fredericks

(2010). Ethnomethodology and the moral accountability of interaction: Navigating the conceptual terrain of ‘face’ and face-work. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2147–2157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.019

44.

Toulmin

S. E.

(2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

45.

Tracy

(2008). “Reasonable hostility”: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research Language Behaviour Culture, 4(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2008.009

46.

Williams

Stevens

V. M.

(1972). Understanding paragraph structure. Journal of Reading, 15, 513–516.

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.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

Serving the Greater Social Good for Personal Gain: Effects of Polite Disagreements in Online Debates

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material