Altruistic World Online Library

Measurement

Negative emotions. Negative emotions were measured with respondents’ indication of whether the blogger’s commentary made them feel the following five negative emotions: anger, disgust, contempt, frustration, and irritation (KR-20 =.59, M=1.77, SD=1.35).

Open-mindedness. Respondents were asked to indicate on an 11-point scale (0=strongly disagree, 10=strongly agree) their level of agreement with each of the three statements, asking how reading of blogger’s commentary affected their thoughts: (1) “I felt more open to the arguments on both sides of the issue;” (2) “I learned new things regarding this issue,” and (3) “I changed or modified my opinions about this issue.” These items were averaged into an index (M=3.87, SD=1.90, α =.72).

Attitude certainty. Attitude polarization was constructed by asking respondents’ level of agreement on the following two statements: after reading the blogger’s commentary, (1) “I felt my opinions on this issue became stronger” and “I felt more confident in my own opinion.” Both items were measured on a zero (strongly disagree) to ten (strongly agree) scale (M=5.43, SD=2.04, Inter-item correlation =.56).

Willingness to talk with the other side.. Respondents were asked to indicate their feeling about discussion with people who have opposing views on the issue by asking their level of agreement with the following two statements: (1) “I would enjoy interaction with these people” and (2) “I would find it difficult to talk with these people on the issue” (reverse coded). Both items were measured on a zero (strongly disagree) to ten (strongly agree) scale (M=4.96, SD=2.09, Inter-item correlation =.43).

Control variables. The experimental factor of blog message structure (global vs. interspersed structure) was included as a control variable in order to exclude its potential effects on the dependent variables of this study. In addition to controlling for this experimental factor, we controlled respondents’ gender (68.7% respondents were female), year in college (Median=sophomore), and ideological extremity (M=1.31, SD=.08). ). To construct ideological extremity, we first created ideological conservatism by taking the mean scores of two items (M=2.23, SD=1.33, inter-item correlation=.66) asking about respondents’ ideological orientation on a seven-point scale (0=very liberal, 6=very conservative) with regard to (1) economic issues and (2) social issues. This composite scale was recoded into a 0-3 point scale of ideological extremity by folding the scale at the midpoint (M= 1.31,

Results

To examine interaction effects of incivility and ideological incongruence in the blogger’s commentary on emotions and attitudes, we employed dummy variable regression analysis instead of Analysis of Covariance because dummy variable regression analysis provides an easy way to determine which group mean differ from the others with the t-tests of individual dummy coefficients. In addition, the regression analysis provides an efficient way to examine mediation effects.

Interaction effects between incivility and ideological incongruence

For testing interaction effects between incivility of blogger’s commentary and ideological incongruence, regression analyses were conducted after controlling for the experimental factor of blog message structure, gender, year in college, and ideological extremity. The results for interaction effects on the four dependent variables (i.e., negative emotions, openmindedness, attitude certainty, and willingness to talk with the other side) were reported in Model 1 of Table 1.

As Figure 1 illustrates, the regression analysis revealed that there was a significant ordinal interaction effect on negative emotions toward the blogger’s commentary (β = .15, p < .05) by showing that there was no significant difference in negative emotions between uncivil and civil blogger’s commentary condition among those who were exposed to ideologically congruent blogger’s commentary (M=1.49, SE=.09 for the incivility condition; M=1.33, SE=.09 for the civility condition), while the difference was statistically significant among those who were exposed to ideologically incongruent blogger’s commentary (M=2.42, SE=.90 for the incivility condition ; M=1.81, SE=.93 for the civility condition). The results also revealed that those who were exposed to the ideologically incongruent commentary reported significantly greater negative emotions than those who were exposed to the congruent commentary even among those who were in civil blogger’s commentary condition (β = .18, p < .001). Thus, H1 was supported.

H2 predicted that incivility and ideological incongruence would have significant interaction effect on open-mindedness. As Figure 2 illustrates, the results confirmed a significant ordinal interaction effect on open-mindedness by showing that ideological incongruence increased negative effect of incivility on open-mindedness (β = -.12, p < .05). The difference in open-mindedness between uncivil and civil commentary condition among participants who were exposed to ideologically incongruent blogger’s commentary (M=3.15, SE=.12 for the incivility condition; M=4.13, SE=.13 for the civility condition) was significantly greater than among those who were exposed to ideologically congruent blogger’s commentary (M=4.36, SE=.13 for the civility condition; M=3.90, SE=.13 for the incivility condition). The results also showed that negative effect of incivility on open-mindedness was still significant even when participants were exposed to ideologically congruent blogger’s commentary (β = -.12, p < .05).

The results supported H3, which predicted an interaction effect between incivility and ideological incongruence on attitude certainty. As Figure 3 illustrates, the results revealed a significant disordinal (crossover) interaction effect (β =.16, p < .05) such that those in the incivility condition reported greater increased attitude certainty (M=5.74, SE=.14) than did those in the civility condition (M=5.40, SE=.15) among those who were exposed to ideologically incongruent blogger’s commentary, while those who were exposed to ideologically congruent blogger’s commentary showed the opposite pattern (M=5.09, SE=.15 for the incivility condition; M=5.48, SE=.14 for the civility condition).

H4 predicted an interaction effect between incivility and ideological incongruence on willingness to talk with the other side. Again, the results confirmed our prediction by showing that the interaction term of incivility and ideological incongruence was statistically significant (β =-.14, p < .05). As Figure 4 shows, the results revealed a disordinal (crossover) interaction pattern such that among those who were exposed to ideologically incongruent blogger’s commentary, uncivil tone of commentary produced lower level of willingness to talk with the other side than did civil tone (M=4.84, SE=.15 for the incivility condition; M=5.26, SE=.15 for the civility condition), while among those who were exposed to ideologically congruent blogger’s commentary uncivil tone produced higher level of willingness to talk with the other side than did civil tone (M=5.01, SE=.15 for the incivility condition; M=4.75, SE=.15 for the civility condition). In addition, the regression analysis showed that among participants in civil tone condition, those who were exposed to ideologically incongruent blogger’s commentary did show significantly higher level of willingness to talk with the other side than those exposed to ideologically congruent blogger’s commentary (β = .12, p < .05).

Testing the role of negative emotions in mediating interaction effects

H5 to H7 were established to test how negative emotions mediate the interaction effects of incivility and ideological incongruence on the three dependent variables of respondents’ attitudes (i.e., open-mindedness, attitude certainty, and willingness to talk with the other side). To test mediation, we used Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure. Baron and Kenny (1986) propose a series of necessary steps in establishing mediation: 1) the IV predicts the DV; 2) the IV predicts the mediator; and 3) when the IV and the mediator are both used to predict the DV, the mediator should be a significant predictor, and the IV decreases in its influence on the DV (partial mediation), or is removed (full mediation). Following this steps, we conducted additional analyses by entering negative emotion variable as a predictor in the prior regression analyses for testing Model 1. The results were presented in Model 2 in Table 1.

The results showed that negative emotions did fully mediate interaction effect of incivility and ideological incongruence on open-mindedness (H5) by showing that negative emotions had significant and negative effects on open-mindedness (β = -.24, p < .001) and interaction effect was reduced to no significant level when negative emotion variable was enter into the equation (β =-.12, p < .001 for Model 1; β =-.08, ns for Model 2). The results also revealed that negative emotions partially mediated interaction effects of incivility and ideological incongruence both on attitude certainty (H6) and willingness to talk with the other side (H7) such that negative emotions were significant related to attitude certainty (β =.21, p < .001) and interaction effect on dependent variable in Model 2 was smaller (β =.16, p < .05 for attitude certainty; β =-.14, , p < .05 for willingness to talk with the other side)than that in Model 1 (β =.13, p < .05 for attitude certainty; β =-.13, , p < .05 for willingness to talk with the other side). Thus, both H6 and H7 were supported.

Discussion

Responding to recent concern about incivility in the blogosphere, the current study attempts to find connections between blogger tone, reader ideology and attitudes toward political disagreement. Our findings generally support scholars’ concerns about detrimental effects of incivility especially when bloggers attacked the views consistent with the participants’. Among individuals who were exposed to like-minded blogger’s commentary, uncivil attack did not affect negative emotional reactions to the message and their open-mindedness. However, among individuals who were exposed to the unlike-minded blogger’s commentary, there were no significant differences in negative emotions and open-mindedness. In addition, the findings show that uncivil attack produced a backlash or boomerang effects such that it reinforced certainty of unlike-minded participants’ prior issue attitude and at the same time weakened certainty of likeminded participations’ prior attitude.

The findings also showed that unlike-minded blogger’s uncivil attack decreased willingness to talk with the other side, while like-minded blogger’s uncivil attack increased willingness to talk with the other side. These findings seem to be consistent with findings from prior research on disconfirmation bias (Edwards & Smith, 1996) and the counter-attitudinal message effects on defensive reactions (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Further, the findings from the study provide some empirical evidence supporting the role of negative emotions in mediating joint effects of incivility and incongruence on reader’s attitudes. Negative emotions were found to fully mediate the interaction effects on open-mindedness and partially mediate the interaction effects on attitude certainty and willingness to talk with the other side.

Our findings suggest that effects of exposure to disagreement may be contingent upon the way of communicators’ expressing disagreement, as Mendelberg and Oleske (2000) pointed out, “the positive effects of deliberation rest on the ability of the opposing sides to communicate about their disagreement” (p. 186). That is, the beneficial effects of exposure to disagreement in political discourse are not solely dependent on the content of disagreement, but also on the way of communicating disagreement. In this sense, incivility in expression of disagreement in political blogs may have detrimental effects on readers’ mind such as negative evaluations of arguments (Holtgraves, 1997), hostile perception (Jessmer & Anderson, 2001), and negative expectation of deliberative process (Mutz & Reeves, 2005).

Two particularly noteworthy aspects about these findings are the role of like-minded communication and incivility in the polarization process. Our findings suggest the possibility that polarization comes not just from people congregating in like-minded groups, but also from the lack of civility. Nasty language and name-calling tend to discourage people from sorting themselves into heterogeneous groups, partly because nasty language is off-putting and partly because people who expect to receive nasty attacks want a group of like-minded folks who will back them up when that happens. It appears that counter-attitudinal messages create a negative evaluation of the other side especially when message tone is uncivil. Our findings seem to be consistent with findings from prior research on disconfirmation bias (Edwards & Smith, 1996) and the counter-attitudinal message effects on defensive reactions (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).

Second, the manner of communicating disagreement appears to produce significant effects on message receivers’ attitudes toward political disagreement, especially when individuals were exposed to a counter-attitudinal message. Given that uncivil manners are perceived to violate norms of courtesy and reciprocity in resolving social confliction (Funk, 2001), uncivil expression from an opposing speaker could eventually initiate acrimonious public debate and worsen deeper confrontation (Mansbridge, 1983), and thus have detrimental effects on the democratic potential of such communication.

These results also have implications for broader theories of the role of discussion in democracy. Hostile attitudes toward the other side of an issue may lead people with strong attitudes to avoid future discussions with the other side. This is precisely the opposite of the “virtuous circle” of discussion, mutual understanding, and engagement discussed above. Future research should explore other aspects of message characteristics that might reduce or eliminate this hostile response, and should also directly test willingness to discuss politics with people on the other side in the future as a dependent variable.

Limitations

This study operates under several important limitations. First, our measurement of negative emotional reaction, constructed with a series of dichotomous variables, does not allow us to pinpoint exactly where effects on emotion are occurring. Although incongruence has an impact on negative emotion generally, each distinct emotional response may occur somewhat differently than the others, which a more precise measure might be able to reveal. Additionally, there may be some emotional response that is affected by exposure to a congruent uncivil message, which is not to be found in the emotions we chose to measure. Future research that examines reactions to congruent messages specifically should use emotional constructs more suited to the congruent context.

Second, our model does not address the potential beneficial effects of exposure to uncivil, unlike-minded messages. Some research has shown that the tendency to be open to other points of view may be in conflict with the tendency to engage and participate in the political process (Mutz, 2006). Although we note some of the negative impacts of incivility in a heterogeneous political discussion, it is possible and perhaps likely that some democratically desirable outcomes occur as well.

Finally, our study makes use of an undergraduate student sample and has all the limitations that come with it. Our subjects live in a liberal, politically engaged city, and many of them are taking courses in journalism, mass communication and political science. Because of this, they may approach our stimulus more critically and with greater availability of relevant knowledge than would the general public. Our results should be seen not as necessarily generalizable to the entire population, but as a first step toward examining one of the defining phenomena of the blogosphere.

Implications

Despite these limitations, the findings from this study raise a number of pertinent questions for political bloggers across the ideological spectrum. Perhaps most importantly, they show the potential for boomerang effects of their messages, through which their ideological opponents may become more strongly opposed to them after exposure to uncivil messages. For bloggers who tend to employ an uncivil tone, it may be wise to re-examine the goals of their blogging efforts – if those goals include swaying people from the opposing side of an issue to their side, or even persuade their opponents to listen to what they have to say, civility may be the key.

Indeed, we find that the condition most likely to produce openness to talking with people on the other side of this issue is the one in which subjects viewed a civil but ideologically incongruent message. When presented with an opposing viewpoint that doesn’t attack or ridicule their own beliefs, people are more willing to listen to and engage with that viewpoint, even if they don’t necessarily come to be persuaded by it. They are also more generally open-minded, which may or may not portend a future attitude change, but which certainly allows for the possibility of constructive discussion with the blogger.

For those who view the Internet, and blogs in particular, as a vital new venue for political discussion and deliberation, these findings imply both hazardous and bright potential futures. The uncivil tone that bloggers may use as a tool to rally partisans to a cause or campaign – potentially opening up new avenues of political participation – may have the unintended side effect of cutting off their ideological opponents’ willingness to engage in substantive discussion about matters of disagreement.

References

Adamic, L. A. & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 election: Divided they blog. Communications of the ACM, 36-43.

Altschuler, G. C., & Blumin, S. M. (2001). Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century: Princeton University Press.

Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference (pp. 67–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Brooks, D. J., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1-16.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage: Cambridge University Press.

Chambers, S. (1996). Reasonable democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the politics of discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Eds.), The good polity: Normative analysis of the state (pp. 17–34). Cambridge, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Cox, H. C. (1987). Verbal abuse in nursing: A report of a study, Nursing Management, 18, 47- 50.

Cox, H. C. (1991a). Verbal abuse nationwide, part 1: Oppressed group behavior. Nursing Management, 22, 32-35.

Cox, H. C. (1991b). Verbal abuse nationwide, part 2: Impact and modifications. Nursing Management, 22, 66-69.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345-357.

Eagly, A. & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of Attitudes. New York, HBJ.

Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24.

Funk, C. (2001). “Process Performance: Public Reaction to Legislative Policy Debate.” In J. R. Hibbing and E. Theiss-Morse (Eds.) What Is It About Government That Americans Dislike? (pp. 193–204). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gambaro, S., & Rabin, A. I. (1969). Diastolic blood pressure responses following direct and displaced aggression after anger arousal in high-and low-guilt subjects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 87-94.

Garramone, G. M. (1984). Voter Responses to Negative Political Ads. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 250-259.

Gentry, W. D. (1970). Effects of frustration, attack, and prior aggressive training on overt aggression and vascular processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 718- 725.

Gentry, W. D. (1972). Biracial aggression: I. Effect of verbal attack and sex of victim. The Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 75-82.

Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hokanson, J. E. (1961). Vascular and psychogalvanic effects of experimentally aroused anger. Journal of Personality, 29, 30-39.

Holtgraves, T. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 624–637.

Jessmer, S. L., & Anderson, D. (2001). The effect of politeness and grammar on user perceptions of electronic mail. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 331-346.

Kashani, J. H., Burbach, D. J., & Rosenberg, T. K. (1988). Perception of family conflict resolution and depressive symptomatology in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 42-48.

King, A. B. (2001). Affective dimensions of Internet culture. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 414-430.

Kingwell, M. (1995). A Civil Tongue: justice, dialogue, and the politics of pluralism: Penn State Press.

Kinney, T. A., & Segrin, C. (1998). Cognitive moderators of negative reactions to verbal aggression. Communication studies, 49, 49-71.

Lee, H. (2005). Behavioral strategies for dealing with flaming in an online forum. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 385-403.

Lerner, J. & Tetlock, P.E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275.

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Mansbridge, J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mansbridge, J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mansbridge, J. (1996). Using power/fighting power: The polity. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 46–66). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mendelberg, T. & Oleske, J. (2000). Race and public deliberation. Political Communication, 17, 169-191.

Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1-15.

Mutz, D.C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mutz, D.C., & Martin, P.S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. The American Political Science Review, 95, 97-114.

Ng, E., & Detenber, B. H. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (3), article 4. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/ng.html

O’Reilly, T. (2007). Call for a blogger’s code of conduct. Retrieved Jan 30, 2007, from radar.oreilly.com Web site: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/ ... log_1.html

Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media and Society, 6, 259-283.

Phillips, T., & Smith, P. (2004). Emotional and behavioural responses to everyday incivility: Challenging the fear/avoidance paradigm. Journal of Sociology, 40, 378-399.

Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Normative and Informational Influences in Online Political Discussions. Communication Theory, 16, 47-74.

Rainie, L., & Horrigan, J. (2007). Election 2006 Online. Report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Rule, B. G., & Hewitt, L. S. (1971). Effects of thwarting on cardiac response and physical aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 181-187.

Segrin, C., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1992). Depression and verbal aggressiveness in different marital couple types. Communication Studies, 43, 79-91.

Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Talmadge, J. (1987). The Flamers Bible. Retrieved October 29, 2007, from http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88q1/13785.8.html

Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 181-227.

Tesser, A., Martin, L. & Mendolia, M. (1995). The impact of thought on attitude extremity and attitude-behavior consistency. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. (pp. 73-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Uslaner, E. M. (1993). The Decline of Comity in Congress: University of Michigan Press.

Vissing, Y. M., Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1991). Verbal aggression by parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 223-238.

Warren, M. (1992). Democratic theory and self-transformation. American Political Science Review, 86, 8–23.

Warren, M. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. American Political Science Review, 90, 46-60.

Weger, H., & Aakhus, M. (2003). Arguing in internet chat rooms: Argumentative adaptations to chat room design and some consequences for public deliberation at a distance. Argumentation and Advocacy, 40, 23-39.

Table 1. Regression analyses for experimental effects on DVs and mediating effects of negative emotion



Note.

Control variables included gender, year of school, ideological extremity, and message structure manipulation (global vs. interspersed).

Cell entries are final regression coefficients.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, * p < .001.

Figure 1. Interaction pattern between incivility and ideological incongruence influencing on negative emotion



Note.

The interaction pattern was plotted based on estimated marginal means after controlling for the experimental factor of blog message structure, gender, year in college, and ideological extremity.