Conversation argument theory is used to analyze seven online discussions of colorism, a form of skin tone prejudice. Discussants’ comments (N = 587) expressed ad hominem acts (17%), reasoning activities (59%) and delimitors (e.g., addressed objections, 37%). Unlike general forums confrontation-initiated forums had more ad hominem acts. Posts with compared to posts without ad hominem acts had fewer reasoning activities and delimitors. General colorism forums were the most civil and developed, findings that have implications for designing online forums.
AdamsE. A.Kurtz-CostesB. E.HoffmanA. J. (2016). Skin tone bias among African Americans: Antecedents and consequences across the life span. Developmental Review, 40, 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.03.002
2.
BohmanJ. (2000). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. MIT Press.
3.
CanaryD. J.SeiboldD. R. (2010). Origins and development of the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme. Communication Methods and Measures, 4(1–2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312451003680459
4.
CioneaI. A.PiercyC. W.CarpenterC. 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
5.
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
6.
DavisK. B.DanielsM.Lee SeeL. A. (1998). The psychological effects of skin color on African Americans’ self-esteem. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 1(2–3), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/j137v01n02_05
7.
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, 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
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
10.
GilesH.HansenK.AngusD.GalloisC. (2021). Prologue: History, themes, analysis, and rationale. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20978440
11.
HalpernD.GibbsJ. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008
12.
HowardJ. (2018). That’s not something we have to discuss: Interrupting silences about multiracial students in teacher work. The Urban Review, 50, 693–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-018-0462-0
13.
HunterM. (2013). The consequences of colorism. In HallR. E. (Ed.), The melanin millennium: Skin color as 21st century international discourse (pp. 247–256). Springer.
14.
HunterM. L. (2005). Race, gender, and the politics of skin tone. Routledge.
15.
JamiesonK. H.VolinskyA.WeitzI.KenskiK. (2017). The political uses and abuses of civility and incivility. In KenskiK.JamiesonK. H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication (pp. 205–218). Oxford University Press.
16.
KauffeldF. J. (1998). Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12, 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007704116379
17.
KenskiK.CoeK.RainsS. A. (2017). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 47(6), 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933
18.
LemusD. R.SeiboldD. R.FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2004). Argument and decision making in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Communication, 54(2), 302–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02630.x
19.
MacGeorgeE. L.GuntzvillerL. M.BranchS. E.YakovaL. (2016). Paths of resistance: An interpretive analysis of trajectories in less satisfying advice interactions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(5), 548–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15611920
20.
MeyersR. A.BrashersD. (2010). Extending the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme: Argument categories, units, and coding procedures. Communication Methods and Measures, 4(1–2), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312451003680467
21.
MeyersR. A.BrashersD. E.HannerJ. (2000). Majority-minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02861.x
22.
MeyersR. A.SeiboldD. R. (2012). Coding group interaction. In HollingsheadA. B.PooleM. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 329–357). Routledge.
23.
MonkE. P. (2021). The unceasing significance of colorism: Skin tone stratification in the United States. Daedalus, 150(2), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01847
NorwoodK. J. (Ed.) (2014). Color matters: Skin tone bias and the myth of a postracial america. Routledge.
26.
OhH.LincolnK.WaldmanK. (2021). Perceived colorism and lifetime psychiatric disorders among Black American adults: Findings from the National Survey of American Life. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 5(8), 1509–1512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02102-z
27.
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
28.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
29.
PopanJ. R.CourseyL.AcostaJ.KenworthyJ. (2019). Testing the effects of incivility during internet political discussion on perceptions of rational argument and evaluations of a political outgroup. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.017
30.
RietveldT.van HoutR. (1993). Statistical techniques for the study of language and language behaviour. De Gruyter.
31.
RossiniP.MaiaR. C. M. (2021). Characterizing disagreement in online political talk: Examining incivility and opinion expression on news websites and Facebook in Brazil. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 17(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.16997/10.16997/jdd.967
32.
RoweI. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2014.940365
33.
SeiboldD. R.LemusD. R.KangP. (2010). Extending the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme in studies of argument quality in group deliberations. Communication Methods and Measures, 4(1–2), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312451003680525
34.
StrekalovaY. A.KriegerJ. L.NeilJ.CaughlinJ. P.KleinhekselA. J.KotranzaA. (2017). I understand how you feel: The language of empathy in virtual clinical training. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16663255
35.
StroudN. J.ScaccoJ. M.MuddimanA.CurryA. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104
36.
SueD. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley & Sons.
37.
SunsteinC. R. (2003). The law of group polarization. In FishkinJ. S.LaslettP. (Eds.), Debating deliberative democracy (pp. 80–101). Blackwell Publishing.
38.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Foris Publications.
39.
van EemerenF. H.MeuffelsB.VerburgM. (2000). The (un)reasonableness of ad hominem fallacies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19(4), 416–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X00019004002
40.
WojcieszakM. E.MutzD. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication, 59(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x
