It is increasingly common for journalists to use reader comments from social media as a quote or source of evidence for news. Past work on the effects of user-generated content has revealed that comments can have a host of negative effects on readers’ psychological processing of news, particularly when reader comments are hostile or uncivil. What happens, however, when online comments are moderated by a journalist? Does comment gatekeeping influence the effects of comments? Informed by the Modality-Agency-Interactivity-Navigability model and warranting theory, an experiment (N = 365) was conducted to answer these questions using a 2 (comment gatekeeping: low vs. high) × 2 (comment valence: positive vs. negative) × 2 (news involvement: low vs. high) design. Results revealed that journalistic gatekeeping of comments decreases article credibility and increases bias through the indirect pathway of source trustworthiness, regardless of news type or comment valence.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.LadwigP. (2014). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373–387.
2.
AppelmanA.SundarS. S. (2015). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 59–79.
3.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
4.
CameronJ.GeidnerN. (2014). Something old, something new, something borrowed from something blue: Experiments on dual viewing TV and Twitter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58, 400–419.
5.
ChenG. M.NgY. M. M. (2016). Third-person perception of online comments: Civil ones persuade you more than me. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 736–742.
6.
ChenS.ChaikenS. (1999). The heuristic systematic model in its broader context. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
ChungM.MunnoG. J.MoritzB. (2015). Triggering participation: Exploring the effects of third-person and hostile media perceptions on online participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 452–461.
8.
DeAndreaD. C. (2014). Advancing warranting theory. Communication Theory, 24, 186–204.
9.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
HoustonJ. B.HansenG. J.NisbettG. S. (2011). Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News, 5, 79–92.
11.
HsuehM.YogeeswaranK.MalinenS. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors?Human Communication Research, 41, 557–576.
12.
HwangH.KimY.HuhC. U. (2014). Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58, 621–633.
13.
KimY. (2015). Exploring the effects of source credibility and others’ comments on online news evaluation. Electronic News, 9, 160–176.
14.
KohY. J.SundarS. S. (2010). Heuristic versus systematic processing of specialist versus generalist sources in online media. Human Communication Research, 36, 103–124.
15.
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 Communication, 18, 32–45.
16.
LeeE.-J.JangY. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37, 825–846.
17.
LiS.FengB.ChenM.BellR. A. (2015). Physician review websites: Effects of the proportion and position of negative reviews on readers’ willingness to choose the doctor. Journal of Health Communication, 20, 453–461.
18.
McCroskeyJ. C.TevenJ. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66, 90–103.
19.
MetzgerM. J. (2009). The study of media effects in the era of Internet communication. In NabiR. L.OliverM. B. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 561–576). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
NassC.ReevesB.LeshnerG. (1996). Technology and roles: A tale of two TVs. Journal of Communication, 46, 121–128.
21.
O’KeefeD. J. (2015). Trends and prospects in persuasion theory and research. In O’KeefeD. J. (Ed.), Persuasion: Theory and research (pp. 214–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
23.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.SchumannD. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.
24.
PettyR. E.PriesterJ. R.BrinolP. (2002). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BryantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 91–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theores in social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
ShiR.MessarisP.CappellaJ. N. (2014). Effects of online comments on smokers’ perception of antismoking public service announcements. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 975–990.
28.
StavrosituC. D.KimJ. (2015). All blogs are not created equal: The role of narrative formats and user-generated comments in health prevention. Health Communication, 30, 485–495.
29.
SundarS. S. (2008a). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
SundarS. S. (2008b). Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In KonijnE.UtzS.TanisM.BarnesS. (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 58–74). New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
SundarS. S.JiaH.WaddellT. F.HuangY. (2015). Toward a theory of interactive media effects (TIME): Four models for explaining how interface features affect user psychology. In SundarS. S. (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 47–86). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
32.
VeldhuisJ.KonijnE. A.SeidellJ. C. (2014). Negotiated media effects. Peer feedback modifies effects of media’s thin-body ideal on adolescent girls. Appetite, 73, 172–182.
33.
WaddellT. F.SundarS. S. (2017). #thisshowsucks! The overpowering influence of negative social media comments on television viewers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61, 393–409. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2017.1309414
34.
WaddellT. F. (2017). What does the crowd think? How online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance. New Media & Society.
35.
WaddellT. F.BaileyA. (forthcoming). Inspired by the crowd: The effect of online comments on elevation and universal orientation. Communication Monographs. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2017.1369137
36.
WaddellT. F.BaileyE. (2017). Is social television the “anti-laugh track?” Testing the effect of negative comments and canned laughter on comedy reception. Psychology of Popular Media Culture.
37.
WaltherJ. B.DeAndreaD.KimJ.AnthonyJ. C. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36, 469–492.
38.
WaltherJ. B.JangJ. w. (2012). Communication processes in participatory websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 2–15.
39.
WaltherJ. B.ParksM. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
WaltherJ. B.Van Der HeideB.HamelL. M.ShulmanH. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication a test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36, 229–253.
41.
WaltherJ. B.Van Der HeideB.KimS. Y.WestermanD.TongS. T. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep?Human Communication Research, 34, 28–49.
42.
WinterS.BrücknerC.KrämerN. C. (2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 431–436.
43.
XuQ. (2013). Social recommendation, source credibility, and recency: Effects of news cues in a social bookmarking website. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 757–775. doi:10.1177/1077699013503158
