A profile of arguing behaviors on Facebook

Abstract

This study explores how people argue on social-networking sites. Specifically, participants (N = 170) responded to open and closed-ended questions about the most recent argument they had engaged in on Facebook. Results of a content analysis of participants' answers revealed individuals tended to argue mostly about public issues, in somewhat complex arguments that involved a median of six people and with about 30 comments exchanged. Individuals often pursued multiple goals, with persuasion and defending themselves or others also reported by some. Arguments tended to end without resolution and most had no effects on arguers' relationships; however, for 20% of the sample, arguments permanently damaged their relationships. Although the number of friends participants had did not have a substantial effect on their frequency of arguing, the frequency with which one's friends argued on Facebook was positively related to one's own arguing frequency. These results are interpreted in connection to argumentation and computer-mediated-communication literatures. Limitations of the study as well as directions for future research are also discussed.

Impulsivity, internalizing symptoms, and online group behavior as determinants of online hate

“…Thus, it is likely that online hate offending occurs in situations where individuals who prefer attitudinal homophily are exposed to opposing views. This is in line with earlier research suggesting that the exposure to opposing groups or attitudechallenging information often provokes arguments and negative responses online [23,50]. In addition, like-minded social media cliques (i.e.…”

“…Even given the possibilities for selectivity online, people are still also exposed to heterogeneous social contacts and antagonistic views [40,48,49]. Arguments in social media often emerge around public issues as people defend their views [50], and likeminded groups tend to respond negatively to confronting social contacts [23]. This might be particularly true among impulsive individuals and those with negative-affect-laden symptoms, which are associated with decreased affective control and mood instability [39,51].…”

How Does Social Capital Associate With Being a Victim of Online Hate? Survey Evidence From the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Finland

“…Participation in like-minded online communities may foster segregation and polarization of views (Douglas, 2007;McGarty, Lala, & Douglas, 2011;Wojcieszak, 2010;Yardi & Boyd, 2010) and lead to conflicts with other online users or groups (Kenski et al, 2017;Zollo et al, 2017). Tensions between different ideologies online tend to form around public issues (Cionea, Piercy, & Carpenter, 2017) and online public spaces, such as news website comment sections, where individuals and groups of varying backgrounds confront one another (see, e.g., Cammaerts, 2009;Erjavec & Kovacǐc, 2012;Steinfeldt et al, 2010), involving a clash of views (Hutchens et al, 2015).…”

What Will They Think If I Post This? Risks and Returns for Political Expression Across Platforms

“…Anderson et al, 2014). Polarized attitudes can be a disadvantage to the political dialogue and may negatively influence informed public deliberation; furthermore, online political expression can also pose risks to interpersonal relationships (Cionea et al, 2017).…”

“…The ability to potentially share with larger and more diverse audiences may also affect polarization and division (Colleoni et al, 2014). Online disagreements are perceived as more harmful than those occurring offline (Barnidge, 2018) and can even permanently harm relationships (Cionea et al, 2017). In short, there are both potential risks and returns associated with online political expression.…”