“What an idiot!” – How the appraisal of the writer of an uncivil comment impacts discussion behavior

Abstract

Despite incivility in online discussions being linked to various negative effects, less is known about the mechanisms of how incivility works. So far, explanations by social perception have been neglected. Therefore, drawing on the multiple inference model, this study employs an attribution theoretical approach to examine whether the motives and traits that people attribute to senders of uncivil or opposing comments affect their intentions to join a discussion. Employing a 2 (incivility vs. no incivility) × 2 (like-minded vs. opposing stance) between-subjects design, data from an online experiment ( N = 452) were analyzed applying a path model (SPSS AMOS). Results revealed that participants attributed more aggressive and less nonaggressive motives to senders of uncivil messages. The attribution of aggressive motives consequently increased hostile inferences about the target. A similar pattern occurred when individuals were exposed to an opposing stance. In result, hostile inferences about the sender’s traits decreased participants’ willingness to discuss.

Appraising Uncivil Comments in Online Political Discussions: How Do Preceding Incivility and Senders’ Stance Affect the Processing of an Uncivil Comment?

“…This pattern is very likely to contribute to conflicts when it comes to cross-cutting discussions since people seemingly pay more attention to an individual's (different) stance than to the prevailing communication norm. Thus, adding to previous research on the effects of disagreement and incivility (e.g., Chen & Lu, 2017;Gervais, 2017;Kluck & Krämer, 2021), our results indicate that people focus rather on person factors like the stance of commenters than on the social context.…”

“…Consequently, people should appraise uncivil discussion behavior preceded by other uncivil comments as less aggressively motivated than uncivil discussion behavior that is preceded by comments, not including incivility. Supporting this idea, as discussed earlier, it was found that inducing aggressive behavior is appraised as more negative than reactive aggressive behavior (Reeder et al, 2002) and people attribute more aggressive discussion motives to individuals who comment in an uncivil manner compared to those who comment civilly (Kluck & Krämer, 2021). Yet, in the context of online discussions, it has not been investigated how the attribution of discussion motives for uncivil commenting differs depending on the amount of incivility in other comments.…”

“…Yet, in the context of online discussions, it has not been investigated how the attribution of discussion motives for uncivil commenting differs depending on the amount of incivility in other comments. Based on earlier results (Kluck & Krämer, 2021;Shmargad et al, 2021) it can be assumed that: H1: When exposed to an uncivil comment which is preceded by uncivil comments, people will attribute less aggressive motives to the comment's sender compared to the sender of an uncivil comment which is accompanied by preceding comments, not including incivility.…”

“…It was demonstrated that people attribute more negative motives to individuals who behave proactively in an aggressive manner compared to persons who aggressively react to others’ preceding aggressive behavior (Reeder et al, 2002). In the context of online discussions, Kluck and Krämer (2021) found that individuals attribute more aggressive motives to the sender of an uncivil comment than to the sender of a civil comment.…”

“…Yet, in the context of online discussions, it has not been investigated how the attribution of discussion motives for uncivil commenting differs depending on the amount of incivility in other comments. Based on earlier results (Kluck & Krämer, 2021; Shmargad et al, 2021) it can be assumed that:…”