The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Email Flaming Behaviors and Organizational Conflict
Abstract
This study explores whether the attributes listed in the literature on flaming in email are considered characteristic of flaming by actual email users. Through the creation of a semantic differential scale-called the Message Invectives Scale-the study took eight concepts found in more than 20 research articles on flaming and examined email users' responses to a set of 20 messages in relation to those eight characteristics. Findings indicate that in each of the 20 cases, six of the original eight concepts relate to each other to form a common set, which also correlates positively with perceptions of flaming. Some of the messages that scored high for flaming contained profanity, all capital letters, excessive exclamation points or question marks, indicating that these attributes also relate to flaming. Based on these findings, recommendations are advanced as to how email should be used to avoid negative attributes that can lead to organizational conflict.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The author [7] found a Cronbach alpha value of 0.87. Hwang et al. [53] also found a value of 0.87.”
From Dark Personality Traits and Online Behaviors: Portuguese Versions of Cyberstalking, Online Harassment, Flaming and Trolling Scales (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“As for the Flaming Behaviors Scale, the alpha value obtained was identical to the original author Turnage [7] and the study by Hwang et al. [53].”
From Dark Personality Traits and Online Behaviors: Portuguese Versions of Cyberstalking, Online Harassment, Flaming and Trolling Scales (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
Citations
Cites
Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2202131 · Cited by 3,477
Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication
Sproull, L. S., & Kiesler, S. B. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492 · Cited by 2,377
Group processes in computer-mediated communication
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S. B., & McGuire, T. W. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90050-6 · Cited by 1,179
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01462.x · Cited by 1,000
The Psychology of the Internet
Wallace, P. E. (1999) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511581670 · Cited by 863
Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time
Walther, J. B. (1995) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.186 · Cited by 817
Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication
Herring, S. (1995) · Computerization and Controversy, 2nd Ed. · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-415040-9.50121-4 · Cited by 535
The dark side of organizational behavior
Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Pritchard, R. D. (2004) · Cited by 404
Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making.
McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S. B., & Siegel, J. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.917 · Cited by 324
Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Management
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2003) · Thammasat University Digital Collections · Cited by 321
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bayard, 2001, Gender, expletive use, and context: Male and female expletive use in structured and unstructured conversation among New Zealand university students, Women and Language, 24, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition
Lapidot‐Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014 · Cited by 709
Yus, F. (2011) · Pragmatics & beyond. New series · doi:10.1075/pbns.213 · Cited by 627
Jane, E. A. (2012) · Feminist Media Studies · doi:10.1080/14680777.2012.741073 · Cited by 381
Don’t You Know That You’re Toxic: Normalization of Toxicity in Online Gaming
Beres, N. A., Frommel, J., Reid, E., Mandryk, R. L., & Klarkowski, M. (2021) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445157 · Cited by 242
Online hatred of women in the Incels.me forum: Linguistic analysis and automatic detection
Jaki, S., De Smedt, T., Gwóźdź, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G. (2019) · Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict · doi:10.1075/jlac.00026.jak · Cited by 226
Metadata
- Authors
- Turnage, A. K.
- Affiliations
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Turnage, Anna K.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-59
- ISSN
- 1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058673351
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 8.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Digital Communication and Language
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Violence and Bullying
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Conflict Management and Negotiation
- Keywords
- organizational conflict, swearing, exclamation points, question marks, email etiquette, computer-mediated communication, semantic differential
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
