Drawing from the stereotype content model, we examine how people respond to likeminded and counter-attitudinal political comments appearing after a news article. We experimentally test how citizens behave when they are able to click on one of three different buttons posted next to others’ comments—“Like,” “Recommend,” or “Respect.” In the experiment, political attitudes predicted button clicking, but the button label affected the strength of the relationship. In some instances, people clicked on fewer buttons associated with likeminded comments and more buttons associated with counter-attitudinal comments when the button was labeled with “Respect” as opposed to “Like” or “Recommend.” The pattern of results for the “Recommend” button differed across two issues. The results suggest that political comments can trigger stereotypical reactions. Although the “Like” button is well known, news organizations interested in promoting less partisan behaviors should consider using a “Respect” button rather than the “Like” or “Recommend” button in comment sections.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDAet al. (2014) The “nasty effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 373–387.
2.
BeckerJCAsbrockF (2012) What triggers helping versus harming of ambivalent groups? Effects of the relative salience of warmth versus competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology48(1): 19–27.
3.
ChengJDanescu-Niculescu-MizilCLeskovecJ (2014) How Community Feedback Shapes User Behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
4.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–679.
5.
CrawfordJTModriSAMotylM (2013) Bleeding-heart liberals and hard-hearted conservatives: subtle political dehumanization through differential attributions of human nature and human uniqueness traits. Journal of Social and Political Psychology1(1): 86–104.
6.
CuddyAJCFiskeSTGlickP (2007) The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology92(4): 631–648.
7.
CuddyAJCFiskeSTGlickP (2008) Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In: ZannaMP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 40). London: Elsevier, pp. 61–149.
8.
CuddyAJCFiskeSTKwanVSYet al. (2009) Stereotype content model across cultures: towards universal similarities and some differences. The British Journal of Social Psychology / The British Psychological Society48(1): 1–33.
9.
DayMVFiskeSTDowningELet al. (2014) Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin40(12): 1559–1573.
10.
FeldmanL (2011) The effects of journalist opinionation on learning from the news. Journal of Communication61(6): 1183–1201.
11.
FestingerL (1962) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
FiskeSTCuddyAJCGlickPet al. (2002) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82(6): 878–902.
13.
FiskeSTXuJCuddyACet al. (1999) (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues55(3): 473–489.
14.
GarrettRKResnickP (2011) Resisting political fragmentation on the internet. Daedalus140(4): 108–120.
15.
GrahamG (2014) APME survey: editors remain concerned about quality and tone of online comments. New York: Associated Press Media Editors. Available at: http://www.apme.com/ (accessed 30 December 2015).
16.
GrahamJHaidtJNosekBA (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology96(5): 1029–1046.
17.
HaidtJGrahamJ (2007) When morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research20(1): 98–116.
18.
HalpernDGibbsJ (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 1159–1168.
19.
HayesAFMatthesJ (2009) Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods41(3): 924–936.
20.
HoustonJBHansenGJNisbettGS (2011) Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News5(2): 79–92.
21.
HurwitzJPeffleyM (2005) Playing the race card in the post-Willie Horton era: the impact of racialized code words on support for punitive crime policy. Public Opinion Quarterly69(1): 99–112.
22.
IyengarSWestwoodSJ (2015) Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 690–707.
23.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
24.
JacksonS (1992) Message Effects Research: Principles of Design and Analysis. New York: Guilford.
25.
JostJTAmodioDM (2011) Political ideology as motivated social cognition: behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion36(1): 55–64.
26.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMengJ (2009) Looking the other way selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research36(3): 426–448.
27.
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 Communication18(1): 32–45.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6(2): 259–283.
30.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin.
31.
PostmesTSpearsRLeaM (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research25(6): 689–715.
32.
RoweI (2015) Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society18(2): 121–138.
33.
RuizCDomingoDMicoJLet al. (2011) Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics16(4): 463–487.
34.
SantanaAD (2014) Virtuous or vitriolic: the effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice8(1): 18–33.
35.
ShahDVBoyleMPSchmierbachMet al. (2010) Specificity, complexity, and validity: rescuing experimental research in framing effects. In: D’AngeloPKuypersJA (eds) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 215–232.
36.
SimonAFJeritJ (2007) Toward a theory relating political discourse, media, and public opinion. Journal of Communication57(2): 254–271.
37.
SingerJB (2013) User-generated visibility: secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space. New Media & Society16(1): 55–73.
38.
StroudNJ (2011) Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
StroudNJScaccoJMCurryA (2016) The presence and use of interactive features on news websites. Digital Journalism4(3): 339–358.
40.
TaberCSLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
41.
WiseKHammanBThorsonK (2006) Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(1): 24–41.
