Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-2
When Disagreement Becomes Uncivil on Social Media: The Role of Passive Receiving and Active Expression of Incivility in Influencing Political Polarization
Exposure to cross-cutting viewpoints may not always play the deliberative role it is supposed to. This study uses both panel survey and social media data to examine how disagreement can trigger incivility, including exposure to and expression of incivility, and further elicit emotions and influence polarization. Results from the two-wave panel survey indicate that cross-cutting exposure has a polarizing effect first through promoting exposure to uncivil messages and expression of uncivil opinions, then through negative emotions. Notably, cross-cutting exposure can indirectly reduce polarization by first encouraging expression of uncivil opinions and then eliciting positive emotions, highlighting the importance of active expression. Analysis of data from the Hong Kong-based discussion forum HKDisc demonstrates that cross-cutting exposure is positively related to exposure to uncivil messages, and exposure to and expression of incivility predict polarization regardless of whether positive or negative emotions are detected in the uncivil content. This study provides empirical evidence of the effects of cross-cutting exposure and incivility on polarization at the individual and collective levels.
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.
AynaudT.FleuryE.GuillaumeJ. L.WangQ. (2013). Communities in evolving networks: definitions, detection, and analysis techniques. In Dynamics on and of complex networks, volume 2: applications to time-varying dynamical systems (pp. 159–200). Birkhäuser. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6729-8_9
3.
BailC. A.ArgyleL. P.BrownT. W.BumpusJ. P.ChenH.HunzakerM. B. F.LeeJ.MannM.MerhoutF.VolfovskyA. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
4.
BakshyE.MessingS.AdamicL. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
5.
BarnidgeM. (2017). Exposure to political disagreement in social media versus face-to-face and anonymous online settings. Political Communication, 34(2), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1235639
6.
BarnidgeM. (2020). Testing the inadvertency hypothesis: Incidental news exposure and political disagreement across media platforms. Journalism, 21(8), 1099–1118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915373
7.
BeamM. A.HutchensM. J.HmielowskiJ. D. (2018). Facebook news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 940–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783
8.
BerryJ. M.SobierajS. (2014). The outrage industry: Political opinion media and the new incivility. Oxford University Press.
9.
BleiD. M.NgA. Y.JordanM. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2, 993–1022. https://doi.org/10.7766/orbit.v1.2.44
10.
BrooksD. J.GeerJ. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x
11.
ChanM.ChenH.-T.LeeF. L. F. (2017). Examining the roles of mobile and social media in political participation: A cross-national analysis of three Asian societies using a communication mediation approach. New Media & Society, 19(12), 2003–2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816653190
12.
ChanM.ChenH.-T.LeeF. L. F. (2021). Cross-cutting discussion on social media and online political participation: A cross-national examination of information seeking and social accountability explanations. Social Media & Society, 7(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211035697
13.
ChenG. M. (2017). Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk. Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
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
15.
ChenH.-T.KimY.ChanM. (2022). Just a glance, or more? Pathways from counter-attitudinal incidental exposure to attitude (de)polarization through response behaviors and cognitive elaboration. Journal of Communication, 72(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab046
16.
ChenH.-T.LinJ.-S. (2021) Cross-cutting and like-minded discussion on social media: The moderating role of issue importance in the (de)mobilizing effect of political discussion on political participation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 65(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2021.1897822
17.
ChenW.PachecoD.YangK. C.MenczerF. (2021). Neutral bots probe political bias on social media. Nature Communication, 12(1), Article 5580. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25738-6
18.
DaltonR. J. (1987). Generational change in elite political beliefs: The growth of ideological polarization. The Journal of Politics, 49(4), 976–997. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130780
19.
De Francisci MoralesG.MontiC.StarniniM. (2021). No echo in the chambers of political interactions on Reddit. Scientific Reports, 11, Article 2818. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81531-x
20.
Delli CarpiniM. X.CookF. L.JacobsL. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
21.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2007). Self-report measures of discrete emotions. In ReynoldsR. A.WoodsR.BakerJ. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on electronic surveys and measurement (pp. 330–333). Idea Group Inc.
22.
DiMaggioP.EvansJ.BrysonB. (1996). Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized?American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690–755. https://doi.org/10.1086/230995
23.
FestingerL. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
24.
FredricksonB. L.BraniganC. (2001). Positive emotions. In MayneT. J.BonnanoG. A. (Eds.), Emotion: Current issues and future directions (pp. 123–151). Guilford Press.
25.
GervaisB. T. (2014). Following the news? Reception of uncivil partisan media and the use of incivility in political expression. Political Communication, 31(4), 564–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.852640
26.
GildeZúñigaH.MolyneuxL.ZhengP. (2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 612–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103
27.
GuoJ.ChenH.-T. (2022). How Does Multi-Platform Social Media Use Lead to Biased News Engagement? Examining the Role of Counter-Attitudinal Incidental Exposure, Cognitive Elaboration, and Network Homogeneity. Social Media + Society, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221129140
28.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (1998). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press.
29.
HartP. S.ChinnS.SorokaS. (2020). Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science communication, 42(5), 679-697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020950735
30.
HmielowskiJ. D.HutchensM. J.CicchirilloV. J. (2014). Living in an age of online incivility: Examining the conditional indirect effects of online discussion on political flaming. Information, Communication & Society, 17(10), 1196–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.899609
31.
HmielowskiJ. D.NisbetE. C. (2016). “Maybe yes, maybe no?”: Testing the indirect relationship of news use through ambivalence and strength of policy position on public engagement with climate change. Mass Communication and Society, 19(5), 650–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1183029
32.
HoppT.VargoC. J. (2017). Does negative campaign advertising stimulate uncivil communication on social media? Measuring audience response using big data. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.034
33.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
34.
IsenA. (1990). The influence of positive and negative affect on cognitive organization: Some implications for development. In SteinN.LeventhalB.TrabassoT. (Eds.), Psychological and biological approaches to emotion (pp. 75–94). Erlbaum.
35.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
36.
KimY.KimY. (2019). Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: The mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.022
37.
KosmidisS.TheocharisY. (2020). Can social media incivility induce enthusiasm? Evidence from survey experiments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(Suppl. 1), 284–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa014
38.
KubinE.SikorskiC. v. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070
39.
LeeF. L. F.LiangH.TangG. K. Y. (2019). Online incivility, cyberbalkanization, and the dynamics of opinion polarization during and after a mass protest event. International Journal of Communication, 13, 4940–4959.
40.
LeeH.KwakN. (2014). The affect effect of political satire: Sarcastic humor, negative emotions, and political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891133
41.
LiangH.NgY. M. M. (2023). The expression effects of uncivil disagreement: The mechanisms of cognitive dissonance and self-perception. Human Communication Research, 49(3), 483–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac032
42.
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
43.
LinH.WangY.LeeJ.KimY. (2023). The effects of disagreement and unfriending on political polarization: A moderated-mediation model of cross-cutting discussion on affective polarization via unfriending contingent upon exposure to incivility. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(4), Article zmad022. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad022
44.
MarcusG. E.NeumanW. R.MacKuenM. B. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
45.
MasonL. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089
46.
McLaughlinB.HollandD.ThompsonB. A.KoenigA. (2020). Emotions and affective polarization: How enthusiasm and anxiety about presidential candidates affect interparty attitudes. American Politics Research, 48(2), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X19891423
47.
MuddimanA. (2017). Personal and public levels of political incivility. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3182–3202.
48.
MutzD. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264
49.
MutzD. C. (2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton University Press.
50.
NewmanM. E.GirvanM. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69(2), Article 026113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113
51.
NewmanM. E.StrogatzS. H.WattsD. J. (2001). Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. Physical Review E, 64(2), Article 026118 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.026118
52.
OmdahlB. L. (2014). Cognitive appraisal, emotion, and empathy. Psychology Press.
53.
OvergaardC. S. B.LukitoJ.SoorholtzK. (2024, May). The Manifestation of Affective Polarization on Social Media: A Cross-Platform Supervised Machine Learning Approach. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 18, pp. 1160–1173). https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31380
54.
OzM.ZhengP.ChenG. M. (2018). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3400–3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516
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
57.
PekrunR. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology, 41(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00712.x
58.
PhillipsT.SmithP. (2004). Emotional and behavioural responses to everyday incivility: Challenging the fear/avoidance paradigm. Journal of Sociology, 40(4), 378–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783304048382
59.
PingreeR. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17(4), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x
60.
RainsS. A.KenskiK.CoeK.HarwoodJ. (2017). Incivility and political identity on the internet: Intergroup factors as predictors of incivility in discussions of news online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(4), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12191
61.
RobertsM. E.StewartB. M.TingleyD.LucasC.Leder-LuisJ.GadarianS. K.AlbertsonB.RandD. G. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1064–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12103
SongW.FoxJ. (2016). Playing for love in a romantic video game: Avatar identification, parasocial relationships, and Chinese women’s romantic beliefs. Mass Communication and Society, 19(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1077972
64.
SongY.LinQ.KwonH.ChoyC. H. Y.XuR. (2022). Contagion of offensive speech online: An interactional analysis of political swearing. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, Article 107046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107046
StroudN. J. (2017). Helping newsrooms work toward their democratic and business objectives. In BoczkowskiP. J.AndersonC. W. (Eds.), Remaking the news: Essays on the future of journalism scholarship in the digital age (pp. 157–176). MIT Press.
67.
SunQ.WojcieszakM.DavidsonS. (2021). Over-time trends in incivility on social media: Evidence from political, non-political, and mixed sub-Reddits over eleven years. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, Article 741605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.741605
TheocharisY.BarberáP.FazekasZ.PopaS. A.ParnetO. (2016). A bad workman blames his tweets: The consequences of citizens’ uncivil Twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 1007–1031. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12259
70.
ValentinoN. A.BraderT.GroenendykE. W.GregorowiczK.HutchingsV. L. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000939
71.
WangJ.SundarS. S. (2022). Liking versus commenting on online news: Effects of expression affordances on political attitudes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(6), Article zmac018. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac018
72.
WangM. Y.SilvaD. E. (2018). A slap or a jab: An experiment on viewing uncivil political discussions on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.041
73.
WojcieszakM.GarrettR. K. (2018). Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: How priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Human Communication Research, 44(3), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx010
74.
WojcieszakM.PriceV. (2009). What underlies the false consensus effect? How personal opinion and disagreement affect perception of public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edp001
75.
WojcieszakM.PriceV. (2010). Bridging the divide or intensifying the conflict? How disagreement affects strong predilections about sexual minorities. Political Psychology, 31(3), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00753.x
76.
YarchiM.BadenC.Kligler-VilenchikN. (2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1–2), 98–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067
77.
ZhaoN.JiaoD.BaiS.ZhuT. (2016). Evaluating the validity of simplified Chinese version of LIWC in detecting psychological expressions in short texts on social network services. PLOS ONE, 11(6), Article e0157947. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157947
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.
