Suchergebnisse

Although the appraisal of online incivility highly depends on the social context in which it occurs, little research has focused on this aspect. Drawing on the general aggression model, we assumed that the appraisal of and the reaction to an uncivil discussion comment is affected by the represented stance and the appearance of accompanying comments. To examine these assumptions, we conducted an online experiment ( N = 611) with a three ( uncivil vs. civil vs. no preceding comments as a control) × two ( opposing vs. conforming recipient's views) between-subjects design. Data revealed that the influence of preceding comments is limited. However, people were more likely to attribute aggressive motives to senders of incivility when they opposed their opinion. In turn, these attributions increased individuals' anger, anxiety, hostile cognitions, but also enthusiasm. Furthermore, aggressive motive attributions, participants' emotions, and hostile cognitions guided participants' intentions to answer in a discussion-centered and/or aggressive way.

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.