Cited by 237Social Media and PoliticsMedia Studies and CommunicationPublic Relations and Crisis Communication

A Bad Workman Blames His Tweets: The Consequences of Citizens' Uncivil Twitter Use When Interacting With Party Candidates: Incivility in Interactions With Candidates on Twitter

Open access
Theocharis, Yannis, Barberá, Pablo, Fazekas, Zoltán, Popa, Sebastian Adrian, Parnet, Olivier·2016·Journal of Communication

Abstract

Existing studies focusing on politicians' adoption of Twitter have found that they use it primarily as a broadcasting tool. We argue that citizens' impolite and/or uncivil behavior is one possible explanation for such decisions. Social media conversations are rife with harassment and politicians are a prime target. This alters the incentive structure of engaging in dialogue on social media. We use Spanish, Greek, German, and U.K. candidates' tweets sent during the run-up to the recent European Parliament elections, and rely on automated text analysis and machine learning methods to measure their level of civility. Our contribution is an actor-oriented theory of political dialogue that incorporates Twitter's specific affordances, clarifying how and why Twitter's democratic promise may be limited.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcom.12259

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O.
Affiliations
  • University of Mannheim (DE)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Kantar Public; Brussels 1160 Belgium
Venue
Journal of Communication
Published
2016-10-28
Volume
66
Issue
6
Pages
1007-1031
ISSN
0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2220275476
Cited by
237
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2
FWCI
39.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Communication (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
Keywords
Twitter, political civility, online harassment, political candidates, political dialogue, social media affordances, European Parliament elections, political communication

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