Previous research shows that one-sided and uncivil reader comments posted below professionally edited online news articles may affect a recipient’s perception of the specific issue at hand. However, it remains largely unclear whether specific comments affect a reader’s perception of an individual actor depicted in an online news article. An online experiment showed substantial effects (e.g., attitudes, perceived responsibility, perceived opinion climate) of valenced reader comments on a recipient’s evaluation of a scandalized financial manager depicted in connection with a mediated financial scandal. Furthermore, recipients’ perceived journalistic quality of the article itself was affected by specific reader comments.
AllernS.KantolaA.PollackE.Blach-OrstenM. (2012). Increased scandalization. Nordic political scandals 1980-2010. In AllernS.PollackE. (Eds.), Scandalous! The mediated construction of political scandals in four Nordic countries (pp. 29-50). Gothenburg, Sweden: Nordicom.
2.
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. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009
3.
ArendtF. (2014). Dose-dependent media priming effects of stereotypic newspaper articles on implicit and explicit stereotypes. Journal of Communication, 63, 830-851. doi:10.1111/jcom.12056
4.
AschS. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1-70. doi:10.1037/h0093718
5.
AxsomD.YatesS.ChaikenS. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.30
6.
BadenC.SpringerN. (2014).Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. European Journal of Communication, 29, 529-548. doi:10.1177/0267323114538724
7.
BellurS.SundarS. S. (2014). How can we tell when a heuristic has been used? Design and analysis strategies for capturing the operation of heuristics. Communication Methods and Measures, 8(2), 116-137. doi:10.1080/19312458.2014.903390
8.
BrosiusH. B.BirkM. (1994). Text-Bild-Korrespondenz und Informationsvermittlung durch Fernsehnachrichten [Text-picture correspondence and information brokerage]. Rundfunk und Fernsehen, 42(2), 171-183.
9.
BrunsA. (2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
10.
ChmielA.SienkiewiczJ.PaltoglouG.BuckleyK.ThelwallM.HolystA. (2010). Negative emotions accelerating users activity in BBC Forum (Cornell University Library E-Prints). Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5459v1
11.
CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
12.
DahlgrenP. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147-162. doi:10.1080/10584600590933160
13.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15. doi:10.1086/268763
14.
DomingoD.QuandtT.HeinonenA.PaulussenS.SingerJ. B.VujnovicM. (2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond. An international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers. Journalism Practice, 2, 326-342. doi:10.1080/17512780802281065
15.
FreemanB. (2011). Tobacco plain packaging legislation: A content analysis of commentary posted on Australian online news. Tobacco Control, 20, 361-366. doi:10.1136/tc.2011.042986
16.
FreyS. (1999). Die Macht des Bildes. Der Einfluß der nonverbalen Kommunikation auf Kultur und Politik [The power of images. The effect of nonverbal communication on culture and politics]. Bern, Germany: Huber.
17.
GigerenzerG.ToddP. M.ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
HabermasJ. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
HermidaA.ThurmanN. (2008). A clash of cultures: The integration of user-generated-content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 2, 343-356. doi:10.1080/17512780802054538
HoustonJ. B.HansenG. J.NisbettG. S. (2011). Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News, 5(2), 79-92. doi:10.1177/1931243111407618
22.
ImhofK. (2002). Medienskandale als Indikatoren sozialen Wandels. Skandalisiserung in den Printmedien im 20. Jahrhundert [Media scandals as indicators of social change. Scandalization in the print media in the 20th century]. In HahnK. (Ed.), Öffentlichkeit und Offenbarung. Eine interdisziplinäre Mediendiskussion [Public and disclosures. An interdisciplinary media discussion] (pp. 73-98). Konstanz, Germany: UVK.
23.
KepplingerH. M. (2009). Publizistische Konflikte und Skandale [Journalistic conflicts and scandals]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
24.
KepplingerH. M. (2012). Die Mechanismen der Skandalisierung [The mechanisms of scandalization]. Munich, Germany: Olzog.
25.
KepplingerH. M.GeissS.SiebertS. (2012). Framing scandals: Cognitive and emotional media effects. Journal of Communication, 62, 659-681. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01653.x
26.
KochT.ZerbackT. (2013). Helpful or harmful? How frequent repetition affects perceived statement credibility. Journal of Communication, 63, 993-1010. doi:10.1111/jcom.12063
27.
LangA. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
28.
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.
29.
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, 825-846. doi:10.1177/0093650210376189
30.
LokeJ. (2013). Reader’s debate a local murder trial: “Race” in the online public sphere. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6, 179-200. doi:10.1111/j.1753-9137.2012.01139.x
31.
LudwigM.SchierlT.von SikorskiC. (Eds.). (2016). Mediated scandals – Gründe, Genese und Folgeeffekte von medialer Skandalberichterstattung [Mediated scandals – causes, emergence and consequences of reporting about scandals]. Köln, Germany: Halem.
32.
LullJ.HinermanS. (1997). Media scandals: Morality and desire in the popular culture marketplace. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
33.
MatthesJ. (2007). Beyond accessibility? Toward an on-line and memory-based model of framing effects. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 32(1), 51-78. doi:10.1515/COMMUN.2007.003
34.
MatthesJ.SchemerC. (2012). Diachronic framing effects in competitive opinion environments. Political Communication, 29(3), 319-339. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.694985
35.
MatthesJ.MarquartF.NadererB.ArendtF.SchmuckD.AdamK. (2015). Questionable research practices in experimental communication research: A systematic analysis from 1980 to 2013. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(4), 193-207. doi:10.1080/19312458.2015.1096334
36.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
37.
MitchellD.-G. (2013). Here today, gone tomorrow? Assessing how timing and repetition of scandal information affects candidate evaluations. Political Psychology, 35, 679-701. doi:10.1111/pops.12095
38.
MussweilerT. (2001). “Seek and ye shall find”: Antecedents of assimilation and contrast in social comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 499-509. doi:10.1002/ejsp.75
39.
MussweilerT. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472-489. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472
40.
NaE. K.RheeJ. W. (2008). A study on readers’ comments: Changes in the online news usage pattern and the implications for discursive public. Seoul: Korea Press Foundation.
41.
NadeauR.CloutierE.GuayJ.-H. (1993). New evidence about the existence of a bandwagon effect in the opinion formation process. International Political Science Review, 14, 203-213. doi:10.1177/019251219301400204
42.
Noelle-NeumannE. (1995). Public opinion and rationality. In GlasserT. L.SalmonC. T. (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 33-54). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
PeterC.RossmannC.KeylingT. (2014). Exemplification 2.0: Roles of direct and indirect social information in conveying health messages through social network sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 26(1), 19-28. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000103
45.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.
PörksenB.DetelH. (2012). Der entfesselte Skandal. Das Ende der Kontrolle im digitalen Zeitalter [The unbound scandal. The end of control in the digital age]. Cologne, Germany: Halem.
48.
ReaderB. (2012). Free press vs. free speech? The rhetoric of “civility” in regard to anonymous online comments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 495-513. doi:10.1177/1077699012447923
49.
SabatoL.StencelM.LichterS. R. (2000). Peepshow: Media and politics in an age of scandal. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
50.
SantanaA. D. (2014a). Controlling the conversation: The availability of commenting forums in online newspapers. Journalism Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2014.972076
51.
SantanaA. D. (2014b). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8, 18-33. doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
52.
ShahA. K.OppenheimerD. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207-222. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207
53.
SherifM.HovlandC. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
SimonH. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1-19. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.000245
55.
SingerJ. B. (2010). Quality control. Perceived effects of user-generated content on newsroom norms, values and routines. Journalism Practice, 4, 127-142. doi:10.1080/17512780903391979
56.
SingerJ. B.AshmanI. (2009). “Comment is free, but facts are sacred”: User-generated content and ethical constructs at the Guardian. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24, 3-21. doi:10.1080/08900520802644345
57.
SnidermanP. M.BrodyR.TetlockP. E. (1991). Reasoning about politics: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
SundarS. S.NassC. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51, 52-72. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x
62.
SuranM.HoltonA. E.ColemanR. (2014). Topical punch: Health topics as drivers of idiosyncratic reader responses to online news articles. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 725-739. doi:10.1177/1077699014550093
63.
ThompsonJ. B. (2000). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press/Blackwell.
64.
ThorsonK.VragaE.EkdaleB. (2010). Credibility in context. How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 289-313. doi:10.1080/15205430903225571
65.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
66.
von SikorskiC.LudwigM. (2014, May). Visual scandalization, Effects of visual news frames on recipients’ judgements about scandalized individuals.Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
67.
WaltherJ. B.DeAndreaD.KimJ.AnthonyJ. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of anti-marijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36, 469-492. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01384.x
68.
WeberP. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16, 941-957. doi:10.1177/1461444813495165
69.
XuQ. (2013). Social recommendation, source credibility, and recency: Effects of news cues in a social bookmarking website. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 757-775. doi:10.1177/1077699013503158
70.
YeykelisL.CummingsJ. J.ReevesB. (2014). Multitasking on a computer: Arousal and the frequency, anticipation, and prediction of task-switching. Journal of Communication, 64, 167-192. doi:10.1111/jcom.12070
71.
ZerbackT.KochT.KrämerB. (2015). Thinking of others: Effects of implicit and explicit media cues on climate of opinion perceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 421-443. doi:10.1177/1077699015574481
72.
ZiegeleM.BreinerT.QuiringO. (2014). What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news items. Journal of Communication, 64, 1111-1138. doi:10.1111/jcom.12123
