Women are less likely than men to discuss or engage in politics. This study extends research on the gender gap in politics to an online context by exploring whether women are less likely to engage in political discussion online, whether this follows socialization theories of a private versus public sphere distinction, and whether perceptions of incivility help to explain these gender differences. Through a survey of commenters and comment readers based on a probability sample in the United States (n = 965) and a survey of actual commenters and comment readers across 20 news sites (n = 12,110), we find that women are less likely than men to comment online, particularly on state, national, or international topics. However, women are more likely than men to comment on local news. We also find that perceptions of incivility are related to commenting, although they do little to explain gender differences in commenting. Our results suggest that the gender gap in online political discussion is the product of women’s political socialization more so than the civility of the site.
BennettS. E.FlickingerR. S.RhineS. (2000). Political talk over here, over there, over time. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 99–119. doi:10.1017/s0007123400000053
6.
BodeL. (2017). Closing the gap: Gender parity in political engagement on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 587–603. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1202302
7.
BurnsN.SchlozmanK. L. & VerbaS. (2001). The private roots of public action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ChenG. M. (2017). Nasty talk: Online incivility and public debate. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64, 658–679. doi:10.1111/jcom.12104
11.
ConoverP. J.SearingD. D. (2005). Studying everyday political talk in the deliberative system. Acta Politica, 40, 269–283. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500113
12.
ConoverP. J.SearingD. D.CreweI. M. (2002). The deliberative potential of political discussion. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 21–62. doi:10.1017/S0007123402000029
13.
DahlbergL. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4, 615–633. doi:10.1080/13691180110097030
14.
DahlgrenP. (2002). In search of the talkative public: Media, deliberative democracy and civic culture. The Public, 9, 1–21. doi:10.1080/13183222.2002.11008804
15.
DarcyR. (1994). Women, elections, & representation (2nded.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
16.
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. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
EvelandW. P.HivelyM. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205–224. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
19.
EvelandW. P.ThomsonT. (2006). Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56, 523–542. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x
20.
FitzgeraldJ. (2013). What does “political” mean to you?Political Behavior, 35, 453–479. doi:10.1007/s11109-012-9212-2
21.
FreelonD. (2015). Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion. New Media & Society, 17, 772–791. doi:10.1177/1461444813513259
22.
GansH. J. (2011). Multiperspectival news revisited: Journalism and representative democracy. Journalism, 12, 3–13. doi:10.1177/1464884910385289
23.
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. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1447334
24.
Gil de ZúñigaH.VeenstraA.VragaE.ShahD. (2010). Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways to political participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7, 36–51. doi:10.1080/19331680903316742
KarpowitzC. F.MendelbergT. (2014). The silent sex: Gender, deliberation, and institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
KenskiK.CoeK.RainsS. A. (in press). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650217699933
28.
KimJ.WyattR. O.KatzE. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361–385. doi:10.1080/105846099198541
29.
KsiazekT. B. (2015). Civil interactivity: How news organizations’ commenting policies explain civility and hostility in user comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59, 556–573. doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1093487
30.
LawlessJ. L.FoxR. L. (2005). It takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
LawlessJ. L.FoxR. L. (2010). It still takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
LutzC.HoffmannC. P.MeckelM. (2014). Beyond just politics: A systematic literature review of online participation. First Monday, 19, 1–36. doi:10.5210/fm.v19i7.5260
33.
McLeodJ. M.ScheufeleD. A.MoyP. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315–336. doi:10.1080/105846099198659
34.
MendelbergT. (2002). The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence. In Delli CarpiniM. X.HuddyL.ShapiroR. (Eds.), Research in micropolitics: Political decision-making, deliberation and participation (pp. 151–193). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
35.
MeyerH. K.SpeakmanB. (2016). Quieting the commenters: The spiral of silence’s persistent effect on online news forums. ISOJ, 6, 51–70. doi:10.18411/d-2016-154
36.
MuddimanA. (2017). Personal and public levels of incivility. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3182–3202.
37.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
MutzD. C.MondakJ. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68, 140–155. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x
39.
NauC.StewartC. O. (2018). Effects of gender and verbal aggression on perceptions of US political speakers. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6, 127–148. doi:10.1075/jlac.00006.nau
40.
NirL.McClurgS. D. (2015). How institutions affect gender gaps in public opinion expression. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79, 544–567. doi:10.1093/poq/nfv016
41.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259–283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444
42.
PaxtonP.HughesM. M. (2015). Women, politics, and power: A global perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
43.
PeacockC. (in press). (Not) Talking politics: Motivations and strategies for avoiding the expression of political opinions. Western Journal of Communication, 1–19. doi:10.1080/10570314.2019.1597157
44.
PeacockC.LeavittP. (2016). Engaging young people: Deliberative preferences in discussions about news and politics. SocialMedia + Society, 2, 1–11. doi:10.1177/2056305116637096
45.
PeacockC.ScaccoJ. M.StroudN. J. (in press). The deliberative influence of comment section structure. Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884917711791
46.
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). Vancouver, Canada: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675134
47.
PortoM. P. (2007). Frame diversity and citizen competence: Towards a critical approach to news quality. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 303–321. doi:10.1080/07393180701560864
48.
PostmesT.SpearsR. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073–1083. doi:10.1177/01461672022811006
49.
PriceV. (1992). Public opinion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
50.
PriceV.NeijensP. (1997). Opinion quality in public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9, 336–360. doi:10.1093/ijpor/9.4.336
51.
RawlinsW. K. (1998). Theorizing public and private domains and practices of communication: Introductory concerns. Communication Theory, 8, 369–380. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00225.x
52.
RidgewayC. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637–655. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00233
53.
RuizC.DomingoD.MicoJ. L.Diaz-NociJ.KoldoM.MasipP. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. International Journal of Press/Politics, 16, 463–487. doi:10.1177/1940161211415849
54.
SchaffnerB. F. (2005). Priming gender: Campaigning on women’s issues in US Senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 803–817. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00156.x
55.
SchlozmanK. L.BurnsN.VerbaS.DonahueJ. (1995). Gender and citizen participation: Is there a different voice?American Journal of Political Science, 39, 267–293. doi:10.2307/2111613
56.
Stromer-GalleyJ.MuhlbergerP. (2009). Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy. Political Communication, 26, 173–192. doi:10.1080/10584600902850775
57.
StroudN. J.ScaccoJ. M.MuddimanA.CurryA. L. (2014). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 188–203. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104
SukumaranA.VezichS.McHughM.NassC. (2011). Normative influences on thoughtful online participation. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3401–3410). Vancouver, Canada: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979450
UlbigS. G.FunkC. L. (1999). Conflict avoidance and political participation. Political Behavior, 21, 265–282. doi:10.1023/a:1022087617514
62.
VerbaS.BurnsN.SchlozmanK. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. Journal of Politics, 59, 1051–1072. doi:10.2307/2998592
63.
Vesnic-AlujevicL. (2012). Political participation and web 2.0 in Europe: A case study of Facebook. Public Relations Review, 38, 466–470. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.010
64.
VochocováL.RosenfeldováJ. (2019). Ridiculed, but safe: What e-mothers’ discussion on migration tells us about the potential of “third spaces” for the political communication of women. European Journal of Communication, 34, 142–158. doi:10.1177/0267323118810865
65.
VochocováL.ŠtětkaV.MazákJ. (2016). Good girls don’t comment on politics? Gendered character of online political participation in the Czech Republic. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 1321–1339. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1088881
66.
WalshK. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
67.
WelchS. (1977). Women as political animals? A test of some explanations for male-female political participation differences. American Journal of Political Science, 21, 711–730. doi:10.2307/2110733
68.
WitschgeT. (2004). Online deliberation: Possibilities of the Internet for deliberative democracy. In ShaneP. M., (Ed.), Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the Internet (pp. 109–122). New York, NY: Routledge.
69.
WolakJ.McDevittM. (2011). The roots of the gender gap in political knowledge in adolescence. Political Behavior, 33, 505–533. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9142-
70.
WyattR. O.KatzE.KimJ. (2000). Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. Journal of Communication, 50, 71–92. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02834.x
71.
YeagerD. S.KrosnickJ. A.ChangL.JavitzH. S.LevenduskyM. S.SimpserA.WangR. (2011). Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and Internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 709–747. doi:10.1093/poq/nfr020
ZiegeleM.QuiringO.EsauK.FriessD. (in press). Linking news value theory with online deliberation: How news factors and illustration factors in news articles affect the deliberative quality of user discussions in SNS’ comment sections. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650218797884
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.
