Online comments can affect news receivers’ news perceptions. But the role of individual online comment sources is still poorly understood. Using Sundar’s TIME (Theory of Interactive Media Effects) theory, this experiment examined the effects of commenter sex cues and news receiver sex on commenter credibility. Commenters with female (vs. male) names were rated higher in source credibility, and female news receivers were generally more likely to rate commenters higher on source credibility. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
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, 373–387.
2.
AndersonA. A.YeoS. K.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A. (2018). Toxic talk: how online incivility can undermine perceptions of media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(1), 156–168.
3.
ArmstrongC. L.McAdamsM. J. (2009). Blogs of information: How gender cues and individual motivations influence perceptions of credibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 435–456.
4.
AshleyS.MakslA.CraftS. (2013). Developing a News Media Literacy Scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 68(1), 7–21.
5.
BaezS.FlichtentreiD.PratsM.MastanduenoR.GarcíaA. M.CetkovichM.IbáñezA. (2017). Men, women . . . who cares? A population-based study on sex differences and gender roles in empathy and moral cognition. PLOS ONE, 12(6), Article e0179336.
6.
BhandariM. (2018). Social media cues and news site name: What do they mean for online news perception? Newspaper Research Journal, 39(2), 169–179.
7.
BochnerS. (1994). The effectiveness of same-sex versus opposite-sex role models in advertisements to reduce alcohol consumption in teenagers. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 69–82.
8.
BrownlowS.ZebrowitzL. A. (1990). Facial appearance, gender, and credibility in television commercials. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14(1), 51–60.
ButlerJ. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–531.
11.
CanliT.DesmondJ. E.ZhaoZ.GabrieliJ. D. E. (2002). Sex differences in the neural basis of emotional memories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(16), 10789–10795.
12.
ChenG. M.PainP.ChenV.MekelburgM.SpringerN.TrogerF. (2020). “You really have to have a thick sin”: A cross-cultural perspective on how online harassment influences female journalists. Journalism, 21(7), 877–895.
13.
Christov-MooreL.SimpsonE. A.CoudéG.GrigaityteK.IacoboniM.FerrariP. F. (2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 46(4), 604–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001
14.
DavisM. H.FranzoiS. L. (1991). Stability and change in adolescent self-consciousness and empathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(1), 70–87.
15.
DerntlB.FinkelmeyerA.EickhoffS.KellermannT.FalkenbergD. I.SchneiderF.HabelU. (2010). Multidimensional assessment of empathic abilities: Neural correlates and gender differences. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(1), 67–82.
16.
EisenbergN.LennonR. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychology Bulletin, 94(1), 100–131.
17.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2003). The perceived credibility of personal Web page information as influenced by the sex of the source. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 683–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00021-9
18.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319–342.
19.
FoggB. J. (2003). Motivating, influencing, and persuading users. In SearsA.JackoJ. A. (Eds.), The human-computer interaction hand-book: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (pp. 358–370). CRC Press.
GardinerB. (2018). “It’s a terrible way to go to work”: What 70 million readers’ comments on the Guardian revealed about hostility to women and minorities online. Feminist Media Studies, 18, 592–608.
GrabeM. E.KamhawiR. (2006). Hard wired for negative news? Gender differences in processing broadcast news. Communication Research, 33(5), 346–369.
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
25.
LammC.DecetyJ.SingerT. (2011). Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. NeuroImage, 54(3), 2492–2502.
26.
LeeE. J. (2012). That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 32–45.
27.
LeeE. J.JangY. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37(6), 825–846.
28.
LeshnerG. (2012). The basics of experimental research in media studies. In ValdiviaA. N. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media studies (pp. 236–254). Wiley-Blackwell.
29.
NilizadehS.GroggelA.ListaP.DasS.AhnY.KapadiaA.RojasF. (2021). Twitter’s glass ceiling: The effect of perceived gender on online visibility. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 10(1), 289–298. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14711
30.
NoelR. C.AllenM. J. (1976). Sex and ethnic bias in the evaluation of student editorials. Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 53–58.
31.
Oeldorf-HirschA.SundarS. S. (2012, August). Engagement with news content in online social networks [Paper presentation]. The 95th annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL, United States.
32.
O’KeefeD. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251–274.
33.
PainP.ChenV. (2019). This reporter is so ugly, how can she appear on TV?Journalism Practice, 13(2), 140–158.
34.
PearsonJ. C. (1982). The role of gender in source credibility [Paper presentation]. The Women’s Caucus, Speech Communication Association Convention, Louisville, KY, United States.
PiersonE. (2015). Outnumbered but well-spoken: Female commenters in the New York Times. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1201–1213). https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675134.
37.
PilcherJ. (2017). Names and “doing gender”: How forenames and surnames contribute to gender identities, difference, and inequalities. Sex Roles, 77(11–12), 812–822.
38.
ProchazkaF.WeberP.SchweigerW. (2018). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies, 19(1), 62–78.
39.
SampJ. A.WittenbergE. M.GillettD. L. (2003). Presenting and monitoring a gender-defined self on the Internet. Communication Research Reports, 20(1), 1–12.
40.
SearlesK.SpencerS.DuruA. (2020). Don’t read the comments: The effects of abusive comments on perceptions of women authors’ credibility. Information, Communication, & Society, 23(7), 947–962.
41.
ShiR.MessarisP.CappellaJ. N. (2014). Effects of online comments on smokers’ perception of antismoking public service announcements. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 975–990.
SternadoriM. M.WiseK. (2010). Men and women read news differently. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(1), 14–25.
44.
SundarS. (2008). The MAIN model A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). MIT Press.
45.
SundarS.JiaH.WaddelT. F.HuangY. (2015). Toward a theory of interactive media effects: TIME. In SundarS.JiaW.WaddelT. F.HuangY. (Eds.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 47–86). Wiley-Blackwell.
46.
SwasyA.TandocE.BhandariM.DavisR. (2015). Traditional reporting more credible than citizen news. Newspaper Research Journal, 36(2), 225–236.
47.
ThorsonE.WicksR.LeshnerG. (2012). Experimental methodology in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 112–124.
48.
UdryJ. R. (2000). Biological limits of gender construction. American Sociological Review, 65, 443–457.
49.
WaltherJ. B.DeAndreaD.KimJ.AnthonyJ. C. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 469–492.
50.
WhiteH. A.AndsagerJ. L. (1991). Newspaper column readers’ gender bias: Perceived interest and credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 709–718.
51.
WienclawR. A. (2011). Gender differences: Biology and culture. In The Editors of Salem Press (Eds.), Sociology Reference Guide: Gender roles & equality (pp. 15–23). Salem Press.
52.
WinterS.BrücknerC.KrämerN. C. (2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(8), 431–436.
53.
WolfgangJ. D.BhandariM. (2020). Commenter and news source credibility: Roles of news media literacy, comment argument strength, and civility. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 36(1), 29–49.
