The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion
Abstract
In an effort to clean up user comment sections, news organizations have turned to Facebook, the world's largest social network site, as a way to make users more identifiable and accountable for the content they produce. It is hypothesized that users leaving comments via their Facebook profile will be less likely to engage in uncivil and impolite discussion, even when it comes to discussing politically sensitive and potentially divisive issues. By analysing the content of discussion as it occurs in response to political news content on the Washington Post Facebook, and comparing it to that which occurs on the Washington Post website where users are afforded a relatively high level of anonymity, the present study determines the extent to which Facebook increases the level of civility and impoliteness in an area of political discussion renowned for uncivil and impolite communicative behaviour. In line with earlier theories of social interaction, the paper finds that political discussion on The Washington Post website is significantly more likely to be uncivil than discussion of the same content on the Washington Post Facebook page. Moreover, the incivility and impoliteness on the Washington Post website are significantly more likely to be directed towards other participants in the discussion compared to The Washington Post Facebook page.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x · Cited by 16,251
Dewey, J. (1927) · University of Michigan Library Repository · Cited by 4,147
Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x · Cited by 3,068
Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123 · Cited by 2,630
Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492 · Cited by 2,374
The crowd: A study of the popular mind.
Le Bon, G. (1908) · T Fisher Unwin eBooks · doi:10.1037/10878-000 · Cited by 2,025
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
Wittenborn, J. R. (1959) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-195907000-00020 · Cited by 1,897
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
(2018) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/(issn)1083-6101 · Cited by 1,883
Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization
(1992) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/0024-6301(92)90251-v · Cited by 1,758
Cited by
Echo chambers of denial: Explaining user comments on climate change
Walter, S., Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1394893 · Cited by 158
BOR, A., & PETERSEN, M. B. (2022) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055421000885 · Cited by 128
Public deliberation on government-managed social media: A study on Weibo users in China
Medaglia, R., & Zhu, D. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.003 · Cited by 114
Cho, D., & Kwon, K. H. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.046 · Cited by 107
Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models
Bisbee, J., Clinton, J. D., Dorff, C., Kenkel, B., & Larson, J. (2023) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/5ecfa · Cited by 213
Metadata
- Authors
- Rowe, I.
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-07-22
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 121-138
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W2037853032
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 61.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1369118x.2014.940365
- The paper
- Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2014.940365
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.