Does It Matter Where You Read the News Story? Interaction of Incivility and News Frames in the Political Blogosphere
Abstract
The political blogosphere is replete with uncivil discussions and is apt to examine the influence of incivility on news frames. The present study brings in literature from incivility and framing effects and uses two experiments to examine the influence of incivility on news frames for democratic outcomes such as willingness to participate, online participation, openmindedness, and attitude certainty. Primary findings indicate the detrimental effects of incivility causing less openmindedness and more attitude certainty. At the same time, incivility causes more willingness to participate and online participation. More importantly, the findings demonstrate how incivility interacts with news frames. Implications for news framing effects in the social media landscape are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
La polarización política es socialmente perniciosa porque la intolerancia y animosidad que genera pueden socavar los cimientos del funcionamiento democrático (diálogo, respeto y colaboración por el bien común).
“Varios autores ven la polarización política como un fenómeno socialmente pernicioso porque la intolerancia y animosidad que genera (Borah, 2014;Hwang et al., 2018;Layman et al., 2006;Marks et al., 2019) pueden socavar los cimientos mismos del funcionamiento democrático que implican el diálogo, el respeto y la capacidad de colaborar en pos del bien común (Levenduski, 2013;McCoy et al., 2018).”
From El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica (2022) · cites this paper as Borah, 2014
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · see citing works
A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x · Cited by 1,159 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Do Platform Migrations Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The_Donald and r/Incels
Ribeiro, M. H., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., & West, R. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.10397 · Cited by 102
El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica
Freidin, E., Moro, R., & Silenzi, M. I. (2022) · REVISTA SAAP · doi:10.46468/rsaap.16.1.a2 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Nordbrandt, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2022.921188 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Empirical research has connected exposure to online rudeness to decreased political trust, and the polarization of thought (Anderson et al., 2014; Borah, 2014; Lyons and Veenstra, 2016).”
Background
- Authors
- Borah, P.
- Affiliations
- Washington State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Borah, Porismita
- ORCID
- Borah, Porismita
- Venue
- Communication Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-06-14
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 809-827
- ISSN
- 0093-6502 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3810
- OpenAlex
- W2164803079
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 17.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- incivility, news framing, political blogs, blogosphere, online political discussion, attitude certainty, willingness to participate, online political participation, social media, framing effects
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
