Although an increasing amount of aggressive and polarized tweets about climate change are being observed, little is known about how they spread on Twitter. This study focuses on how different types of network gatekeepers use aggressive styles and how the styles affect their propagation. The current study employed a computational method and identified 951 influential accounts from 7.25 million tweets about climate change in 2019 and 2020. We analyzed their use of aggression and politicized cues, and the relationship with the volume of retweets. Results showed that even though aggressive tweets were a small portion of the overall tweets about climate change, aggressive tweets were more likely to be politicized and retweeted. Specifically, aggressive tweets from politicians received the most retweets and news media amplified the aggression. The findings of this study build upon the current knowledge of the use of aggression online and provide practical implications for environmental communicators.
AndersonAAHuntingtonHE (2017) Social media, science, and attack discourse: how Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication39(5): 598–620.
2.
Barzilai-NahonK (2008) Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: a framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(9): 1493–1512.
3.
BergerJMilkmanKL (2012) What makes online content viral?Journal of Marketing Research49(2): 192–205.
4.
BoykoffMT (2011) Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BradyWJWillsJAJostJT, et al. (2017) Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America114(28): 7313–7318.
6.
BrulleRJ (2014) Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change122(4): 681–694.
7.
ChenYWangL (2022) Misleading political advertising fuels incivility online: a social network analysis of 2020 U.S. presidential election campaign video comments on YouTube. Computers in Human Behavior131: 107202.
8.
ChinnSHartPSSorokaS (2020) Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication42(1): 112–129.
9.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–679.
10.
DunlapREMcCrightAMYaroshJH (2016) The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the US. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development58(5): 4–23.
11.
FineJAHuntMF (2021) Negativity and elite message diffusion on social media. Political Behavior. Epub ahead of print 11August. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-021-09740-8.
12.
González-BailónSBorge-HolthoeferJMorenoY (2013) Broadcasters and hidden influentials in online protest diffusion. American Behavioral Scientist57(7): 943–965.
13.
GoovaertsIMarienS (2020) Uncivil communication and simplistic argumentation: decreasing political trust, increasing persuasive power?Political Communication37(6): 768–788.
14.
GreenbergBS (1976) The effects of language intensity modification on perceived verbal aggressiveness. Communications Monographs43(2): 130–139.
15.
GrimmerJRobertsMEStewartBM (2021) Machine learning for social science: an agnostic approach. Annual Review of Political Science24(1): 395–419.
16.
HandlerC [@chelseahandler] (2017) Hey dumbass, global warming doesn’t only mean extreme heat; it means extreme weather. Hot and cold. Maybe buy a thermometer and shove it up your ass (Tweet). Twitter, 28December. Available at: https://twitter.com/chelseahandler/status/946567438761521152?lang=en
17.
HartPSChinnSSorokaS (2020) Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication42(5): 679–697.
18.
HilbeJM (2011) Negative Binomial Regression. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HillRPCapellaMChoYN (2015) Incivility in political advertisements: a look at the 2012 US presidential election. International Journal of Advertising34(5): 812–829.
20.
HmielowskiJDHutchensMJCicchirilloVJ (2014) Living in an age of online incivility: examining the conditional indirect effects of online discussion on political flaming. Information Communication and Society17(10): 1196–1211.
21.
HoltonAECoddingtonMLewisSC, et al. (2015) Reciprocity and the news: the role of personal and social media reciprocity in news creation and consumption. International Journal of Communication9: 2526–2547.
22.
JangSMHartPS (2015) Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change32: 11–17.
23.
JohnsonDI (2012) Swearing by peers in the work setting: expectancy violation valence, perceptions of message, and perceptions of speaker. Communication Studies63(2): 136–151.
24.
JungherrA (2016) Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology and Politics13(1): 72–91.
25.
KimJ (2018) Online incivility in comment boards: partisanship matters—but what I think matters more. Computers in Human Behavior85: 405–412.
26.
KirilenkoAPMolodtsovaTStepchenkovaSO (2015) People as sensors: mass media and local temperature influence climate change discussion on Twitter. Global Environmental Change30: 92–100.
27.
KwakHLeeCParkH, et al. (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Categories and subject descriptors. In: WWW ‘10: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC, 26–30 April, pp. 591–600. New York: ACM.
28.
LamotK (2021) What the metrics say. The softening of news on the Facebook pages of mainstream media outlets. Digital Journalism10(4): 517–536.
29.
LauRRSigelmanLRovnerIB (2007) The effects of negative political campaigns: a meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics69(4): 1176–1209.
30.
LeeJXuW (2018) The more attacks, the more retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s agenda setting on Twitter. Public Relations Review44(2): 201–213.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly52(2): 155–194.
33.
McCrightAMMarquart-PyattSTShwomRL, et al. (2016) Ideology, capitalism, and climate: explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Research and Social Science21: 180–189.
34.
MartelJLBrissetteFPLucas-PicherP, et al. (2021) Climate change and rainfall intensity–duration–frequency curves: overview of science and guidelines for adaptation. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering26(10): 03121001.
35.
MeltzerK (2015) Journalistic concern about uncivil political talk in digital news media: responsibility, credibility, and academic influence. The International Journal of Press/Politics20(1): 85–107.
36.
MerazSPapacharissiZ (2013) Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on #Egypt. International Journal of Press/Politics18(2): 138–166.
37.
MetaxasPMustafarajEWongK, et al. (2015) What do retweets indicate? Results from user survey and meta-review of research. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media9(1): 658–661.
38.
MistriADasB (2020) Environmental change and migration: a growing concern. In: MistriADasB (eds) Environmental Change, Livelihood Issues and Migration (pp. 1–19). Singapore: Springer.
39.
MutzDCReevesB (2005) The new video malaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review99(1): 1–15.
Oeldorf-HirschASundarSS (2015) Posting, commenting, and tagging: effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior44: 240–249.
42.
OliveiraLSDVaz-de-MeloPOAmaralMS, et al. (2020) Do politicians talk about politics? Assessing online communication patterns of Brazilian politicians. ACM Transactions on Social Computing3(4): 1–28.
43.
RobertsMEStewartBMTingleyD, et al. (2014) Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science58(4): 1064–1082.
44.
RomeroDMGalubaWAsurS, et al. (2011) Influence and passivity in social media. In: GunopulosDHofmannTMalerbaD, et al (eds) Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (pp. 18–33). Berlin: Springer.
SchäferMSIvanovaASchmidtA (2014) What drives media attention for climate change? Explaining issue attention in Australian, German and Indian print media from 1996 to 2010. International Communication Gazette76(2): 152–176.
48.
ShoemakerPJReeseSD (2014) Mediating the Message in the 21st Century: A Media Sociology Perspective. 3rd ed.New York: Routledge.
49.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMA, et al. (2016) The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science25(4): 400–414.
50.
SobierajSBerryJM (2011) From incivility to outrage: political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication28(1): 19–41.
51.
StieglitzSDang-XuanL (2013) Emotions and information diffusion in social media—sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems29(4): 217–248.
52.
StierSPoschLBleierA, et al. (2017) When populists become popular: comparing Facebook use by the right-wing movement Pegida and German political parties. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1365–1388.
53.
SydnorE (2018) Platforms for incivility: examining perceptions across different media formats. Political Communication35(1): 97–116.
54.
TandocEC (2014) Journalism is twerking? How web analytics is changing the process of gatekeeping. New Media and Society16(4): 559–575.
55.
ThorsonKWangL (2020) Committed participation or flashes of action? Mobilizing public attention to climate on Twitter, 2011–2015. Environmental Communication14(3): 347–363.
56.
ThorsonKVragaEEkdaleB (2010) Credibility in context: how uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society13(3): 289–313.
57.
van DijckJAlinejadD (2020) Social media and trust in scientific expertise: debating the Covid-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. Social Media+ Society6(4): 2056305120981057.
58.
VeltriGAAtanasovaD (2017) Climate change on Twitter: content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science26(6): 721–737.
59.
WangXYuYLinL (2020) Tweeting the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP21): an analysis of a social network and factors determining the network influence. Online Social Networks and Media15: 100059.
60.
WeeksBELaneDSKimDH, et al. (2017) Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(6): 363–379.
61.
XuZLaffidyMEllisL (2022) Clickbait for climate change: comparing emotions in headlines and full-texts and their engagement. Information Communication and Society. Epub ahead of print 13March. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2022.2050416.
62.
YuanSLuH (2020) “It’s global warming, stupid”: aggressive communication styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly97(4): 1003–1025.
63.
YuanSLuH (2022) Examining a conceptual framework of aggressive and humorous styles in science YouTube videos about climate change and vaccination. Public Understanding of Science. Epub ahead of print 2May. DOI: 10.1177/09636625221091490.
64.
YuanSBesleyJCLouC (2018) Does being a jerk work? Examining the effect of aggressive risk communication in the context of science blogs. Journal of Risk Research21(4): 502–520.
65.
YuanSMaWBesleyJC (2019) Should scientists talk about GMOs nicely? Exploring the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and preexisting attitude. Science Communication41(3): 267–290.
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.
