The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond Incivility: Understanding Patterns of Uncivil and Intolerant Discourse in Online Political Talk
Open accessAbstract
This article takes up the popular argument that much online discussion is toxic and hence harmful to democracy, and argues that the pervasiveness of incivility is not incompatible with democratically relevant political talk. Instead of focusing on the tone of political talk, scholars interested in understanding the extent to which digital platforms threaten democratic values should focus on expressions of intolerance. I demonstrate the validity of this conceptual model by investigating the discursive and contextual features associated with incivility and intolerance online in the context of public comments in two different platforms—news websites and Facebook. Results show that incivility and intolerance occur in meaningfully different discussion settings. Whereas incivility is associated with features that reveal meaningful discursive engagement, such as justified opinion expression and engagement with disagreement, intolerance is likely to occur in homogeneous discussions about minorities and civil society—exactly when it can hurt democracy the most.
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
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy
Habermas, J. (1996) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 · Cited by 9,998
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 1×
“I developed a systematic content analysis (Neuendorf, 2002) coding scheme to capture a set of dimensions of online political talk and incivility, inspired by prior research (Coe et al., 2014; Stromer-Galley, 2007).”
MethodThe online disinhibition effect
Suler, J. (2004) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/1094931041291295 · Cited by 4,375
Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age
Bostaph, S., & Barber, B. R. (1985) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/1059650 · Cited by 4,000
Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Language
Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., & Weber, I. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14955 · Cited by 2,610
Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy
Mutz, D. C. (2006) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511617201 · Cited by 1,687
Çömlekçi, M. F. (2019) · Kırklareli University Institutional Repository (Kırklareli University) · Cited by 1,606
The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior
(2007) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.001.0001 · Cited by 1,159
Papacharissi, Z. (2004) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444804041444 · Cited by 1,154
Abusive Language Detection in Online User Content
Nobata, C., Tetreault, J., Thomas, A., Mehdad, Y., & Chang, Y. (2016) · Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2872427.2883062 · Cited by 1,122
Cited by
How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abp9364 · Cited by 363
Mob Censorship: Online Harassment of US Journalists in Times of Digital Hate and Populism
Waisbord, S. (2020) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2020.1818111 · Cited by 308
Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models
Bisbee, J., Clinton, J. D., Dorff, C., Kenkel, B., & Larson, J. M. (2024) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2024.5 · Cited by 209
Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.add8424 · Cited by 184
A review and provocation: On polarization and platforms
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231161880 · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- Rossini, P.
- Venue
- Communication Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-05-26
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 399-425
- ISSN
- 0093-6502 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3810
- OpenAlex
- W3026396873
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 66
- FWCI
- 39.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Beyond Incivility: Understanding Patterns of Uncivil and Intolerant Discourse in Online Political Talk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0093650220921314
- The paper
- Rossini, P. (2022). Beyond Incivility: Understanding Patterns of Uncivil and Intolerant Discourse in Online Political Talk. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921314
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.
