Whether on a news or a social networking site, comments following news stories are often beset with incivility. Assailed as diminishing constructive dialogue in a digital public sphere, uncivil comments nevertheless require deeper scrutiny to better understand their pervasiveness and, among some, popularity. This article uses a Uses and Gratifications framework to understand why certain people are more drawn to uncivil comments than civil ones. Using eye-tracking technology, this research compares the attention a reader gives to uncivil comments and compares it against certain personality characteristics. Findings suggest that certain readers spend more time reading uncivil comments than civil ones.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.Dietram 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.
2.
BagdasarovZ.GreeneK.BanerjeeS. C.KrcmarM.YanovitzkyI.RuginyteD. (2010). I am what I watch: Voyeurism, sensation seeking, and television viewing patterns. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(2), 299–315.
3.
BarnesR.MaharD.WongI.RuneK. (2017). A neurotic extrovert who is open to new experiences? Understanding how personality traits may impact the commenting behaviors of online news readers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(3), 557–573.
4.
BarnidgeM.KimB.SherrillL. A.LuknarŽ.ZhangJ. (2019). Perceived exposure to and avoidance of hate speech in various communication settings. Telematics and Informatics, 44, 1–13.
5.
BaruhL. (2009). Publicized intimacies on reality television: An analysis of voyeuristic content and its contribution to the appeal of reality programming. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 190–210.
6.
BaruhL. (2010). Mediated voyeurism and the guilty pleasure of consuming reality television. Media Psychology, 13, 201–221.
7.
BaruhL.CemalcilarZ. (2015). Rubbernecking effect of intimate information on Twitter: When getting attention works against interpersonal attraction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(9), 506–513.
8.
BlazerS. M. (2006). Rear window ethics: Domestic privacy versus public responsibility in the evolution of voyeurism. Midwest Quarterly, 47(4), 379–392.
9.
BlomR.CarpenterS.BoweB. J.LangeR. (2014). Frequent contributors within US newspaper comment forums: An examination of their civility and information value. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 1314–1328.
10.
BorahP. (2014). Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research, 41(6), 809–827.
11.
boydd. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.) MacArthur Foundation Series on digital learning: Youth, identity, and digital media. (pp. 119–142). MIT Press.
12.
BrooksD.GeerJ. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1–16.
13.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.FeinsteinJ. A.JarvisW. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.
14.
CalvertC. (2000). Voyeur nation: Media, privacy, and peering in modern culture. Westview Press.
15.
ChenG. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratified a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 755–762.
16.
ChenG. M. (2016). Third-person perception of online comments: Civil ones persuade you more than me. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 736–742.
17.
ChenG. M. (2017). Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of uncivil disagreement in news website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(1), 108–125.
18.
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, 6(1), 108–125.
19.
ChenG. M.MuddimanA.WilnerT.PariserE.StroudN. J. (2019). We should not get rid of incivility online. Social Media & Society, 5(3), 1–5.
20.
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64, 658–679.
21.
ConlinL.RobertsC. (2016). Presence of online reader comments lowers news site credibility. Newspaper Research Journal, 37(4), 365–376.
DavieW.LeeJ.-S. (1995). Sex, violence, and consonance/differentiation: An analysis of local TV news values. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(1), 128–138.
24.
DavisR. (1999). Web of Politics: The internet’s impact on the American political system. Oxford University Press.
25.
DiddiA.LaRoseR. (2010). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 193–210.
26.
DillonK. P.NeoR. L.SeelyN. (2015, October). Civil keystrokes: Examining anonymity, politeness, and civility in online newspaper forums. Proceeding from the 16th Annual Meeting of the Association of Internet Researchers, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
27.
DonohewL.FinnS.ChristW. (1988). “The nature of news” revisited: The roles of affect, schemes, and cognition. In DonohewL.SypherH. E.HigginsT. (Eds.), Communication, social cognition and affect (pp. 195–218). Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
DonohewL.LorchE. P.PalmgreenP. (1998). Applications of a theoretic model of information exposure to health interventions. Human Communication Research, 24(3), 454–468.
29.
DonohewL.PalmgreenP.DuncanJ. (1980). An activation model of information exposure. Communication Monographs, 47(4), 295–303.
30.
DruckmanJ. N.GubitzS. R.LloydA. M.LevenduskyM. S. (2019). How incivility on partisan media (de)polarizes the electorate. The Journal of Politics, 811, 291–295.
31.
ElliotW. R.RosenbergW. L. (1987). The 1985 Philadelphia newspaper strike: A uses and gratification study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 64, 679–687.
32.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27, 153–181.
33.
FrischlichL.Schatto-EckrodtT.BobergS.WintterlinF. (2021). Roots of incivility: How personality, media use, and online experiences shape uncivil participation. Media and Communication9(1), 195–208.
34.
GarramoneG. M.HarrisA. C.AndersonR. (1986). Uses of political computer bulletin boards. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 325–339.
35.
GervaisB. T. (2015). Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12, 167–185.
36.
GoldsmithR. E.HorowitzD. (2006). Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6, 2–14.
37.
GrabeM. E.LangA.ZhouS.BollsP. D. (2000). Cognitive access to negatively arousing news. Communication Research, 27(1), 3–26.
38.
GrafJ.ErbaJ.HarnR.-W. (2017). The role of civility and anonymity on perceptions of online comments. Mass Communications and Society, 20(4), 526–549.
39.
GrafJ. (2021, March). The prevalence of comment sections in U.S. daily newspapers [Paper presentation]. The AEJMC Southeast Colloquium 2021 Conference, Elon University, NC, United States.
40.
GreeneK.KrcmarM. (2005). Predicting exposure to and liking of media violence: A uses and gratifications approach. Communication Studies, 56, 171–193.
41.
KurekA.JoseP. E.StuartJ. (2019). “I did it for the LULZ”: How the dark personality predicts online disinhibition and aggressive online behavior in adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 31–40.
42.
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.
43.
HoyleR. H.StephensonM. T.PalmgreenP.LorchE. P.DonohewL. (2002). Reliability and validity of scores on a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3), 401–414.
44.
HsuehM.YogeeswaranK.MalinenS. (2015). “Leave your comments below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors?Human Communication Research, 41(4), 557–576.
45.
HwangH.PanZ.SunY. (2008). Influence of hostile media perception on willingness to engage in discursive activities: An examination of mediating role in media indignation. Media Psychology, 11, 76–97.
46.
HwangH.KimY.KimY. (2018). Influence of discussion incivility on dileberation: An examination of the mediating role of moral indignation. Communication Research, 45(2), 213–240.
47.
JensenJ. D.WeaverA. J.IvicR.ImbodenK. (2011). Developing a brief sensation seeking scale for children: Establishing concurrent validity with video game use and rule breaking behavior. Media Psychology, 14, 71–95.
48.
KareklasI.MuehlingD. D.WeberT. J. (2015). Reexamining health messages in the digital age: A fresh look at source credibility effects. Journal of Advertising, 44, 88–104.
49.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In BlumlerJ. G.KatzE. (Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratification research (pp. 19–32). SAGE.
50.
KayeB. K. (1998). Uses and gratifications of the World Wide Web: From couch potato to web potato. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 6, 21–40.
51.
KenskiK.CoeK.RainsS. A. (2020). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 47(6), 795–814.
52.
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.
53.
KinneyT. A.SegrinC. (1998). Cognitive moderators of negative reactions to verbal aggression. Communication Studies, 49, 49–71.
54.
KlapperJ. T. (1963). Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 515–527.
55.
KrishnanA.AtkinD. (2014). Individual differences in social networking site uses: The interplay between antecedents and consequential effect on level of activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 111–118.
56.
KsiazekT. B.PeerL.ZivicA. (2014). Discussing the news: Civility and hostility in user comments. Digital Journalism, 3(6), 850–870.
57.
LampeC.ZubeP.LeeJ.ParkC. H.JohnstonE. (2014). Crowdsourcing civility: A natural experiment examining the effects of distributed moderation in online forums. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 317–326.
58.
LangA.DhillonK.DongO. (1995). The effects of emotional arousal and valence on television viewers’ cognitive capacity and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39(3), 313–327.
59.
LangA.ChungY.LeeS.SchwartzN.ShinM. (2005). It’s an arousing, fast-paced kind of world: The effects of age and sensation seeking on the information processing of substance abuse PSAs. Media Psychology, 7, 421–454.
60.
LangA.NewhagenJ.ReevesB. (1996). Negative video as structure: Emotion, attention, capacity, and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 460–477.
61.
LaRoseR.MaestroD. A.EastinM. S. (2001). Understanding Internet usage: A social cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 395–413.
62.
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(1), 32–45.
63.
LinR.LevordashkaA.UtzS. (2016). Ambient intimacy on Twitter. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(1).
64.
LisleD. (2004). Gazing at ground zero: Tourism, voyeurism and spectacle. Journal for Cultural Research, 8(1), 3–21.
65.
MaguireB.SandageD.WeatherbyG. A. (1999). Crime stories as television news: A content analysis of national, big city and small-town newscasts. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 7(1), 1–14.
66.
MinichA. L.MendozaA. T. O.BrownE. C. (2018). Effect of incivility on attitudes and information seeking. North American Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 195–210.
67.
NabiR. L.BielyE.MorganS.StittC. (2003). Reality-based television programming and the psychology of its appeal. Media Psychology, 5(4), 303–330.
68.
NewhagenJ. E. (1998). TV news images that induce anger, fear and disgust: Effects on approach-avoidance and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(2), 265–276.
69.
NewhagenJ. E.ReevesB. (1992). The evening’s bad news: Effects of compelling negative television news images on memory. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 25–41.
70.
NgE.DetenberB. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).
71.
NisbettR. E.RossL. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice Hall.
72.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.
73.
PapacharissiZ.RubinA. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175–196.
74.
PapacharissiZ.MendelsonA. (2007). An exploratory study of reality appeal: Uses and gratifications of reality TV shows. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(2), 355–370.
75.
PfefferJ.ZorbachT.CarleyK. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1–2), 117–128.
76.
PhillipsT.SmithP. (2004). Emotional and behavioural responses to everyday incivility challenging the fear/avoidance paradigm. Journal of Sociology, 40, 378–399.
77.
ProchazkaF.WeberP.SchweigerW. (2018). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies, 19(1), 62–78.
78.
RosnerL.WinterS.KramerN. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461–470.
79.
RubinA. M. (1993). Audience activity and media use. Communication Monographs, 60, 98–105.
80.
RuggieroT. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 3–37.
81.
SantanaA. D. (2011). Online readers’ comments represent new opinion pipeline. Newspaper Research Journal, 32(3), 66–81.
82.
SantanaA. D. (2013). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33.
83.
SantanaA. D. (2015). Incivility dominates online comments on immigration. Newspaper Research Journal, 36(1), 92–107.
84.
SantanaA. D. (2019). Toward quality discourse: Measuring the effect of user identity in commenting forums. Newspaper Research Journal, 40(4), 467–486.
ShoemakerP. J. (1996). Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural evolution to explain the surveillance function. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 32–47.
87.
SobierajS.BerryJ. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41.
88.
SpringerN.EngelmannI.PfaffingerC. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 798–815.
89.
SteinfieldC.EllisonN. B.LampeC. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 434–445.
SuY.-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.
92.
SundarS. S.LimperosA. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 504–525.
93.
SuranM.KilgoD. (2017). Freedom from the press? How anonymous gatekeepers on Reddit covered the Bostion Marathon bombing. Journalism Studies, 18(8), 1035–1051.
94.
HuurneE. T.GuttelingJ. (2008). Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking. Journal of Risk Research, 11(7), 847–862.
95.
ThorsonK.VragaE.EkdaleB. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication & Society, 13(3), 289–313.
96.
TokunagaR. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 705–713.
97.
TrusslerM.SorokaS. (2014). Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3), 360–379.
98.
TsangA. S. L.ZhouN. (2005). Newsgroup participants as opinion leaders and seekers in online and offline communication environments. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1186–1193.
99.
VettehenP. H.NuijtenK.PeetersA. (2008). Explaining effects of sensationalism on liking of television news stories. Communication Research, 35(3), 319–338.
100.
VincentR. C.BasilM. D. (1997). College students’ news gratification, media use and current events knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 380–392.
101.
WeberP. (2013). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16(6), 941–957.
102.
YooC. Y. (2011). Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification-seeking process in online newspapers. Communication Theory, 21, 67–89.
103.
ZiegeleM.JostP.BormannM.HeinbachD. (2018). Journalistic counter-voices in comment sections: Patterns, determinants, and potential consequences of interactive moderation of uncivil user comments. Studies in Communication and Media, 7(4), 525–554.
104.
ZuckermanM. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Lawrence Erlbaum.
105.
ZuckermanM. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge University Press.
106.
ZuckermanM. (1996). Sensation seeking and the taste for vicarious horror. In WeaverJ. B.TamboriniR. (Eds.), Horror films: Current research on audience preferences and reactions (pp. 147–160). Lawrence Erlbaum.
