While most research has examined incivility in political contexts, few studies have explored the role of online incivility in contexts where partisan cues are lacking. Integrating insights from selective exposure, media salience, and serial position effects, we proposed the concept of “incivility salience” and examined how its two manifestations—position and proportion of uncivil messages in a comment thread—affected news engagement behavior. Through two conjoint experiments in the United States, we found that people avoided engaging with comment threads starting with uncivil content and the ones with a higher proportion of uncivil content. Furthermore, we identified that the salience of uncivil content could influence the extent to which people perceive such content as uncivil, which in turn impacts engagement behavior. Overall, this study offers a novel framework that considers incivility salience as a core element for understanding the perceptual and behavioral effects of online incivility.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.LadwigP. (2014). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009
2.
AugoustinosM.WalkerI.DonaghueN. (2014). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. SAGE.
3.
BiswasD.BiswasA.ChatterjeeS. (2009). Making judgments in a two-sequence cue environment: The effects of differential cue strengths, order sequence, and distraction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(1), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.12.011
4.
BorahP. (2013). Interactions of news frames and incivility in the political blogosphere: Examining perceptual outcomes. Political Communication, 30(3), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737426
5.
ChenG. M. (2017). Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk. Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
ChenG. M.LuS. (2017). Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in news website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922
7.
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. 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
8.
de BruinK.de HaanY.VliegenthartR.KruikemeierS.BoukesM. (2021). News avoidance during the COVID-19 crisis: Understanding information overload. Digital Journalism, 9(9), 1286–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1957967
9.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1984). Social cognition. Addison-Wesley.
GervaisB. T. (2015). Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.997416
12.
GonçalvesJ.PereiraS.Torres da SilvaM. (2022). How to report on elections? The effects of game, issue and negative coverage on reader engagement and incivility. Journalism: Theory, Practice, and Criticism, 23(2), 1266–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920958367
13.
GoyanesM.BorahP.de ZúñigaH. G. (2021). Social media filtering and democracy: Effects of social media news use and uncivil political discussions on social media unfriending. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106759
14.
GreenP. E.SrinivasanV. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251756
15.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112(8), 2395–2400. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.141658711
16.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
17.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
18.
HerbstS. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Temple University Press.
19.
HovlandC. I. (Ed.). (1957). The order of presentation in persuasion. Yale University Press.
20.
ImaiK.KeeleL.YamamotoT. (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25, 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS321
21.
JohannessonM. P.KnudsenE. (2021). Disentangling the influence of recommender attributes and news-story attributes: A conjoint experiment on exposure and sharing decisions on social networking sites. Digital Journalism, 9(8), 1141–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1805780
22.
KanouseD. E.Reid HansonL. (1987). Negativity in evaluation. In JonesE. E.KanouseD. E.KelleyH. H.NisbettR. E.ValinesS.WeinerB. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 47–62). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
23.
KenskiK.CoeK.RainsS. 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
24.
KimJ. (2018). Online incivility in comment boards: Partisanship matters-But what I think matters more. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.015
25.
KiousisS. (2004). Explicating media salience: A factor analysis of New York Times issue coverage during the 2000 US presidential election. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02614.x
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MothesC.PolavinN. (2020). Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information. Communication Research, 47(1), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217719596
28.
KnudsenE.JohannessonM. P. (2019). Beyond the limits of survey experiments: How conjoint designs advance causal inference in political communication research. Political Communication, 36(2), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1493009
29.
LauR. R. (1985). Two explanations for negative effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111215
30.
LiS.FengB.ChenM.BellR. A. (2015). Physician review websites: Effects of the proportion and position of negative reviews on readers’ willingness to choose the doctor. Journal of Health Communication, 20(4), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.977467
31.
LiangH.ZhangX. (2021). Partisan bias of perceived incivility and its political consequences: Evidence from survey experiments in Hong Kong. Journal of Communication, 71(3), 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab008
32.
LimJ. (2010). Convergence of attention and prominence dimensions of salience among major online newspapers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(2), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01521.x
33.
LuS.LiangH.MasulloG. (In Press). User comments as news quality: Examining incivility in comments on perceptions of news quality. In NapoliP.LawrenceR. (eds.) News Quality in the Digital Age. Routledge. https://osf.io/zmy4h/
34.
MasulloG. M.LuS.FadnisD. (2021). Does online incivility cancel out the spiral of silence? A moderated mediation model of willingness to speak out. New Media & Society, 23(11), 3391–3414.https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820954194
McArthurL. Z. (1981). What grabs you? The role of attention in impression formation and causal attribution. In HigginsE. T.HermanC. P.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 201–246). Erlbaum.
37.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
38.
MeffertM. F.ChungS.JoinerA. J.WaksL.GarstJ. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00003.x
39.
MuddimanA. (2017). Personal and public levels of political incivility. International Journal of Communication, 11, 21.
40.
MuddimanA.Pond-CobbJ.MatsonJ. E. (2020). Negativity bias or backlash: Interaction with civil and uncivil online political news content. Communication Research, 47(6), 815–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216685625
41.
MukerjeeS.YangT. (2021). Choosing to avoid? A conjoint experimental study to understand selective exposure and avoidance on social media. Political Communication, 38(3), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1763531
42.
MundorfN.DrewD.ZillmannD.WeaverJ. (1990). Effects of disturbing news on recall of subsequently presented news. Communication Research, 17(5), 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365090017005002
43.
MurphyJ.HofackerC.MizerskiR. (2006). Primacy and recency effects on clicking behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 522–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00025.x
44.
MutzD. C. (2016). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton University Press.
45.
OttoL. P.LechelerS.SchuckA. R. (2020). Is context the key? The (non-) differential effects of mediated incivility in three European countries. Political Communication, 37(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1663324
46.
PalanS.SchitterC. (2018). Prolific. Ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
47.
PapacharissiZ. (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
PlutchikR. (1980). A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In PlutchikR.KellermanH. (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience: Vol. 1. Theories of emotion (pp. 3–33). Academic Press.
50.
RösnerL.WinterS.KrämerN. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.022
51.
RozinP.RoyzmanE. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
52.
SchmidH. J. (2007). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In GeeraertsD.CuyckensH. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–138). De Gruyter.
53.
ShoemakerP. (1996). Hard wired for news: Using biological and cultural evolution to explain the surveillance function. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01487.x
54.
SkovsgaardM.AndersenK. (2020). Conceptualizing news avoidance: Towards a shared understanding of different causes and potential solutions. Journalism Studies, 21(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1686410
55.
SobierajS.BerryJ. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360
56.
StevensD. (2009). Elements of negativity: Volume and proportion in exposure to negative advertising. Political Behavior, 31(3), 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9082-9
SuL. Y. F.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM. A. (2021). Political and personality predispositions and topical contexts matter: Effects of uncivil comments on science news engagement intentions. New Media & Society, 23(5), 894–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820904365
60.
SullinsE. S. (1989). Perceptual salience as a function of nonverbal expressiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 584–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154011
WojcieszakM.de LeeuwS.Menchen-TrevinoE.LeeS.Huang-IsherwoodK. M.WeeksB. (2021). No polarization from partisan news: Over-time evidence from trace data. The International Journal of Press/Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161221104719
63.
ZillmannD. (2000). Mood management in the context of selective exposure theory. Annals of the International Communication Association, 23(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2000.11678971
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.
