Can a self-regulation strategy help make social media more civil? Exploring the potential of mental contrasting with implementation intentions to reduce incivility in online political discussion
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2025
Can a self-regulation strategy help make social media more civil? Exploring the potential of mental contrasting with implementation intentions to reduce incivility in online political discussion
Civil interaction is a core practice of democratic participation. However, this condition is undermined by a contemporary landscape of online political discourse rife with incivility. Given the seemingly dismal state of American politics, a remedy to this problem is needed. We test the effects of a self-regulation intervention, mental contrasting with implementation intentions (MCII), on the expression of political incivility in a social media discussion setting. Data from two online experiments show that participants in the MCII condition expressed more civility and selected civil responses in response to uncivil communication cues. Implications are discussed.
BanduraA (1995) Perceived self-efficacy. In: MansteadASRHewstoneM (eds) Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 434–436.
4.
BayerUCAchtzigerAGollwitzerPM, et al. (2009) Responding to subliminal cues: do if-then plans cause action preparation and initiation without conscious intent?Social Cognition27(2): 183–201.
5.
BorahP (2014) Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research41(6): 809–827.
6.
BrooksDJGeerJG (2007) Beyond negativity: the effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 1–16.
7.
ChenGM (2017) Online Incivility and Public Debate: Nasty Talk. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
ChenMMuddimanGWilnerA, et al. (2019) We should not get rid of incivility online. Social Media + Society5(3): 1–5.
9.
ChenMGLuS (2017) Online political discourse: exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in news website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media61(1): 108–125.
10.
ChinCLuHWuC (2015) Facebook users’ motivation for clicking the “Like” button. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal43(4): 579–592.
11.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–679.
12.
CrossASheffieldD (2019) Mental contrasting for health behaviour change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effects and moderator variables. Health Psychology Review13(2): 209–225.
13.
DruckmanJNGubitzSRLloydAM, et al. (2019) How incivility on partisan media (de)polarizes the electorate. Journal of Politics81(1): 291–295.
14.
DuckworthALGrantHLoweB, et al. (2011) Self-regulation strategies improve self-discipline in adolescents: benefits of mental contrasting and implementation intentions. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology31(1): 17–26.
15.
EliasN (1994) The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
FeinbergMFrimerJA (2022) Incivility diminishes interest in what politicians have to say. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Epub ahead of print 16 November. DOI: 10.1177/19485506221136182.
18.
FridkinKLKenneyPJ (2011) Variability in citizens’ reactions to different types of negative campaigns. American Journal of Political Science55(2): 307–325.
19.
FriessDZiegeleMHeinbachD (2021) Collective civic moderation for deliberation? Exploring the links between citizens’ organized engagement in comment sections and the deliberative quality of online discussions. Political Communication38(5): 624–646.
20.
FritzscheASchlierBOettingenG, et al. (2016) Mental contrasting with implementation intentions increases goal-attainment in individuals with mild to moderate depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research40(4): 557–564.
21.
GagrčinE (2022) Your social ties, your personal public sphere, your responsibility: how users construe a sense of personal responsibility for intervention against uncivil comments on Facebook. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 22 August. DOI: 10.1177/14614448221117499.
22.
GervaisBT (2015) Incivility online: affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics12(2): 167–185.
23.
GervaisBT (2017) More than mimicry? The role of anger in uncivil reactions to elite political incivility. International Journal of Public Opinion Research29(3): 384–405.
24.
GollwitzerPMMayerDFrickC, et al. (2018) Promoting the self-regulation of stress in health care providers: an Internet-based intervention. Frontiers in Psychology9: 838.
25.
HanSHBrazealLM (2015) Playing nice: modeling civility in online political discussions. Communication Research Reports32: 20–28.
26.
HerbstS (2010) Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
27.
KhanML (2017) Social media engagement: what motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?Computers in Human Behavior66: 236–247.
28.
KimCYangSU (2017) Like, comment, and share on Facebook: how each behavior differs from the other. Public Relations Review43(2): 441–449.
29.
KimYKimY (2019) Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: the mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion. Computers in Human Behavior99: 219–227.
30.
LevayKEFreeseJDruckmanJN (2016) The demographic and political composition of mechanical turk samples. SAGE Open6(1): 2158244016636433.
31.
MansteadASRVan EekelenSAM (1998) Distinguishing between perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy in the domain of academic achievement intentions and behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology28(15): 1375–1392.
32.
MartenstynJAGrantAM (2021) An online, comparative effectiveness trial of mental contrasting with implementation intentions (MCII) versus solution-focused coaching (SFC) questions. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice15(1): 60–84.
33.
MarwickAEboydd (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
34.
MasonL (2015) “I disrespectfully agree”: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(1): 128–145.
35.
MasulloGMKimJ (2020) Exploring “angry” and “like” reactions on uncivil Facebook comments that correct misinformation in the news. Digital Journalism9(8): 1103–1122.
36.
MasulloGMLuSFadnisD (2020) Does online incivility cancel out the spiral of silence? A moderated mediation model of willingness to speak out. New Media & Society23(11): 3391–3414.
37.
MutzDC (2015) In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
OettingenG (2000) Expectancy effects on behavior depend on self-regulatory thought. Social Cognition18: 101–129.
39.
OettingenGGollwitzerP (2010) Strategies of setting and implementing goals: mental contrasting and implementation intentions. In: MadduxJETangneyJP (eds) Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 114–135.
40.
OettingenGReiningerKM (2016) The power of prospection: mental contrasting and behavior change. Social and Personality Psychology Compass10: 591–604.
41.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6: 259–283.
42.
ReichelmannAHawdonJCostelloM, et al. (2021) Hate knows no boundaries: online hate in six nations. Deviant Behavior42(9): 1100–1111.
43.
RiedlMJNaabTKMasulloGM, et al. (2021) Who is responsible for interventions against problematic comments? Comparing user attitudes in Germany and the United States. Policy & Internet13(3): 433–451.
44.
RossiniPStromer-GalleyJZhangF (2021) Exploring the relationship between campaign discourse on Facebook and the public’s comments: a case study of incivility during the 2016 US presidential election. Political Studies69(1): 89–107.
SuhayEBlackwellARocheC, et al. (2015) Forging bonds and burning bridges: polarization and incivility in blog discussions about Occupy Wall Street. American Politics Research43: 643–679.
48.
SundarSS (2008) The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (eds) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–100.
49.
ThorsonK (2014) Facing an uncertain reception: young citizens and political interaction on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society17(2): 203–216.
50.
WangGWangYGaiX (2021) A meta-analysis of the effects of mental contrasting with implementation intentions on goal attainment. Frontiers in Psychology12: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.565202.
51.
WebbTLSheeranP (2007) How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology43: 295–302.
52.
WebbTLSchweiger GalloIMilesE, et al. (2012) Effective regulation of affect: an action control perspective on emotion regulation. European Review of Social Psychology23(1): 143–186.
WolfMRStrachanJCSheaDM (2012) Forget the good of the game: political incivility and lack of compromise as a second layer of party polarization. American Behavioral Scientist56: 1677–1695.
55.
ZiegeleMNaabTKJostP (2020) Lonely together? identifying the determinants of collective corrective action against uncivil comments. New Media & Society22(5): 731–751.
