Online news comment sections are a ubiquitous presence across media outlets. Although research has assessed both the content and effects of these comment spaces, little is known about how the structure of comment spaces influences news users’ online commentary. As democratic theorists argue, the structure of a communicative space can influence its deliberative quality. We conducted two separate experiments to determine how news comment section structure affects online commentary. We found that both comment section structure and the structure of pre-comment information enhanced both the quantity of comment engagement and its deliberative quality.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDAet al. (2014) The ‘nasty effect’: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19: 373–387.
2.
BennettWLLawrenceRGLivingstonS (2007) When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
CappellaJNPriceVNirL (2002) Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication19: 73–93.
4.
ChambersS (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science6: 307–326.
5.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64: 658–679.
6.
CutrellEGuanZ (2007) What are you looking for? An eye-tracking study of information usage in web search. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Paris, 27 April–2 May, pp.407–416. New York: ACM.
7.
Delli CarpiniMXCookFLJacobsLR (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science15(7): 315–344.
8.
DiakopoulosNANaamanM (2011) Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work, Hangzhou, China, 19–23 March, pp. 133–142. New York: ACM.
9.
EvelandWP (2003) A ‘mix of attributes’ approach to the study of media effects and new communication technologies. Journal of Communication53: 395–410.
10.
FishkinJSLuskinRC (2005) Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica40: 284–298.
11.
FreelonD (2015) Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion. New Media & Society17(5): 772–791.
12.
GastilJ (2008) Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
GibbJR (1961) Defensive communication. Journal of Communication11(3): 141–148.
14.
GrankaLAJoachimsTGayG (2004) Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Sheffield, 25–29 July, pp. 478–479. New York: ACM.
15.
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.
16.
HayesAFShanahanJGlynnCJ (2001) Willingness to express one’s opinion in a realistic situation as a function of perceived support for that opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research13: 45–58.
17.
HermidaAThurmanN (2008) A clash of cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journalism Practice2: 343–356.
18.
HuangLNPriceV (2001) Motivations, goals, information search, and memory about political candidates. Political Psychology22: 665–692.
19.
HullmanJDiakopoulosN (2011) Visualization rhetoric: Framing effects in narrative visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics17(12): 2231–2240.
20.
KarpowitzCFRaphaelC (2014) Deliberation, Democracy, and Civic Forums. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
KimJWyattROKatzE (1999) News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication16(4): 361–385.
22.
KnoblochSPatzigGMendeAMet al. (2004) Affective news effects of discourse structure in narratives on suspense, curiosity, and enjoyment while reading news and novels. Communication Research31(3): 259–287.
23.
KovachBRosenstielT (2007) The Elements of Journalism: What News People Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York: Three Rivers Press.
24.
KsiazekTBPeerLLessardK (2016) User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments. New Media & Society18(3): 502–520.
25.
LangA (1989) Effects of chronological presentation of information on processing and memory for broadcast news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media33(4): 441–452.
26.
LeeEJ (2012) That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18: 32–45.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
RojasH (2010) ‘Corrective’ actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research22(3): 343–363.
31.
RuizCDomingoDMicoJLet al. (2011) Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. International Journal of Press/Politics16: 463–487.
32.
SackW (2005) Discourse architecture and very large-scale conversation. In LathamRSassenS (eds) Digital Formations: IT and New Architectures in the Global Realm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 242–282.
33.
SingerJB (2006) Stepping back from the gate: Online newspaper editors and the co-production of content in campaign 2004. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83: 265–280.
34.
SkovsgaardMAlbækEBroPet al. (2013) A reality check: How journalists’ role perceptions impact their implementation of the objectivity norm. Journalism14(1): 22–42.
35.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2007) Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation3(1): 12.
36.
StroudNJ (2011) Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
StroudNJScaccoJMMuddimanACurryAL (2015) Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication20(2): 188–203
TewksburyDAlthausSL (2000) Differences in knowledge acquisition among readers of the paper and online versions of a national newspaper. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77: 457–479.
41.
VragaEKEdgerlySWangBMet al. (2011) Who taught me that? Repurposed news, blog structure, and source identification. Journal of Communication61: 795–815.
42.
WitschgeT (2004) Online deliberation: Possibilities of the Internet for deliberative democracy. In: ShanePM (ed.) Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet. New York: Routledge, pp. 109–122.
43.
WojcieszakME (2010) ‘Don’t talk to me’: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society12: 637–655.
44.
WrightSStreetJ (2007) Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society9(5): 849–869.
45.
ZukinCKeeterSAndolinaMet al. (2006) A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. Oxford University Press.
