Uncivil user comments have been found to have a negative effect on how people perceive an issue featured in the news, a news story, or a journalist who reports a news story. To advance this line of research, we draw on expectancy violations theory and the concept of heuristic cues to theorize the toxic atmosphere effect. We theorize that incivility in online comment threads could pose an even larger challenge to news organizations by cuing news audience members to perceive an entire news outlet—not just an individual story—as lacking in credibility. Based on two experiments in the United States (Study 1, n = 520; Study 2, n = 1056), we show that exposure to incivility can lead people to perceive a news outlet as less credible even though the incivility did not directly attack the news outlet. Such effects hold true even when people are exposed to comment threads in which the first several comments are civil. Democratic and business implications are discussed.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDA, et al. (2014) The ‘nasty effect’: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 373–387.
2.
AndersonAAYeoSKBrossardD, et al. (2018) Toxic talk: how online incivility can undermine perceptions of media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research30(1): 156–168.
3.
BurgoonJK (2015) Expectancy violations theory. In: The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, 1–9. DOI: 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102
4.
CarrDJBarnidgeMLeeBG, et al. (2014) Cynics and skeptics: evaluating the credibility of mainstream and citizen journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly91(3): 452–470.
5.
ChenGM (2017) Online Incivility and Public Debate: Nasty Talk. , NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
ChenGMRiedlMJShermakJ, et al. (2019) Breakdown of democratic norms? Understanding the 2016 U.S. presidential election through online comments. Social Media + Society5(2): 1–13. DOI: 10.1177/2056305119843637
8.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in website comments. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–579.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 2nd edition. New York: Guilford Publications.
11.
HwangHKimYKimY (2018) Influence of discussion incivility on deliberation: an examination of the mediating role of moral indignation. Communication Research45(2): 213–240.
12.
JohnsonTJKayeBK (2004) Wag the blog: how reliance on traditional media and the Internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly81(3): 622–642.
13.
KarlssonMBergströmAClerwallC, et al (2015) Participatory journalism – the (r)evolution that wasn’t. Content and user behavior in Sweden 2007–2013. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(3): 295–311. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12115
14.
KenskiKCoeKRainsSA (2020) Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: an examination of types and predictors. Communication Research47(6): 795–814.
15.
KimYChenH-TGil de ZúñigaH (2013) Stumbling upon news on the internet: effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior29(6): 2607–2614. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.005
McLaughlinCVitakJ (2012) Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media & Society14(2): 299–315.
18.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics59: 210–220.
19.
MillerANKattJABrownT, et al. (2014) The relationship of instructor self- disclosure, nonverbal immediacy, and credibility to student incivility in the college classroom. Communication Education63(1): 1–16.
20.
MuddimanA (2017) Personal and public levels of political incivility. International Journal of Communication11: 3182–3202.
21.
MuddimanAStroudNJ (2017) News values, cognitive biases, and partisan incivility in comment sections. Journal of Communication67(4): 586–609.
22.
MutzDCReevesB (2005) The new videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review99(1): 1–15.
23.
NaabTKHeinbachDZiegeleM, et al. (2020) Comments and credibility: how critical user comments decrease perceived news article credibility. Journalism Studies21(6): 783–801. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2020.1724181
24.
NichollSBRiceRE (2017) A dual-identity model of responses to deviance in online groups: integrating social identity theory and expectancy violations theory. Communication Theory27(3): 243–268.
25.
OreskesN (2018) The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? In: LloydAEWinsbergE (eds). Climate Modelling: Philosophical and Conceptual Issues. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-65058-6_2
26.
PaolacciGChandlerJIpeirotisPG (2010) Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making5(5): 411–419.
27.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6(2): 259–283.
ProchazkaFWeberPSchweigerW (2018) Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies19(1): 62–78.
30.
RösnerLWinterSKrämerNC (2016) Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior58: 461–1470.
31.
SantanaAD (2015) Incivility dominates online comments on immigration. Newspaper Research Journal36(1): 92–107. DOI: 10.1177/073953291503600107.
32.
SearlesKSpencerSDuruA (2020) Don’t read the comments: the effects of abusive comments on perceptions of women authors’ credibility. Information, Communication & Society23(7): 947–962. DOI: 10.1080/136911X.20181534985.
33.
ShahDV (2016) Conversation is the soul of democracy: expression effects, communication mediation, and digital media. Communication and the Public1(1): 12–18. DOI: 10.1177/2057047316628310.
34.
ShmargadYCoeKKenskiK, et al (2021) Social norms and the dynamics of online incivility. Social Science ComputerReview. Epub ahead of print 7 January 2021. DOI: 10.1177/0894439320985527
35.
StroudNJ (2011) Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
StroudNJScaccoJMMuddimanA, et al. (2015) Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(2): 188–203. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12104
SundarSS (2008) The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effectson credibility. In: MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (eds). Digital Media, Youth and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73–100.
39.
SundarSSKnobloch-WesterwickSHastallMR (2007) News cues: information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the America Society for Information Science and Technology58(3): 366–378. DOI:10.1002/asi.20511.
40.
TenenboimOCohenAA (2015) What prompts users to click and comment: a longitudinal study of online news. Journalism16(2): 198–217. DOI: 10.1177/1464884913513996.
41.
UsherN (2018) Re-thinking trust in the news: a material approach through “objects of journalism.”Journalism Studies19(4): 564–578.
42.
VaccariCValerianiA (2018) Digital political talk and political participation: comparing established and third wave democracies. SAGE Open8(2): 1–14. DOI: 10.1177/2158244018784986.
43.
Van DuynECollierJ (2019) Priming and fake news: the effects of elite discourse on evaluations of news media. Mass Communication and Society22(1): 29–48.
44.
WangS (2020) Moderating uncivil user comments by humans or machines? The effects of moderation agent on perceptions of bias and credibility in news content. Digital Journalism9(1): 64–83. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1851279.
45.
WeberPProchazkaFSchweigerW (2019) Why user comments affect the perceived quality of journalistic content: the role of judgment processes. Journal of Media Psychology31(1): 24–34.
46.
YamamotoMNahS (2018) A multilevel examination of local newspaper credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(1): 76–95.
