The "nasty effect:" online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 373-387

  Anderson, Ashley A ^a   Brossard, Dominique ^b   Scheufele, Dietram A ^b   Xenos, Michael A ^b   Ladwig, Peter ^b  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Blogs; Incivility; Nanotechnology; Online comments; Risk perceptions

Indexed keywords

BLOGS; NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; INCIVILITY; ONLINE COMMENT; ONLINE SOURCES; POLARIS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 84898049874     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10836101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12009     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24-52.
2. Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546-558.
3. Brossard, D. & Shanahan, J. (2006) Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28(1), 47-63.
4. Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 385-404.
5. Cappella, J., & Jamieson, K. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
6. Dietz, T., Frey, R., & Rosa, E. (2002). Risk, technology and society. In R. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 562-629). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
7. Dutton, W. (1996). Network rules of order: Regulating speech in public electronic fora. Media, Culture & Society, 18(2), 269.
8. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
9. Elving, R. (1994). Brighter lights, wider windows: Presenting Congress in the 1990s. Washington D.C: American Enterprise Institute and The Brookings Institution.
10. Funk, C. L. (2001). Process performance: Public reaction to legislative policy debate. In J. R. Hibbing & E. Theiss-Morse (Eds.), What is it about government that Americans dislike? (pp. 193-204). New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Hill, K., & Hughes, J. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
12. th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.
13. Jamieson, K. (1997). Civility in the House of Representatives. APPC report 10. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/hear01.html.
14. Janofsky, M. (2005). When cleaner air is a biblical obligation. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/politics/07air.html.
15. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-90.
16. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2007). Nanotechnology risk perceptions: The influence of affect and values. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School.
17. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187.
18. King, A. (2001). Affective dimensions of Internet culture. Social Science Computer Review, 19(4), 414.
19. Krimsky, S., & Golding, D. (1992). Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.
20. Ladwig, P., Dalrymple, K. E., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2012). Perceived or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs048.
21. Lee, C. J., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 819-834.
22. McGraw, K., Willey, E., & Anderson, W. (1999, April). It's the process stupid!? Procedural considerations in evaluations of congress. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
23. Michaud, K. (2008). The good steward: The impact of religion on climate change attitudes. Paper presented at the APSA 2008 Annual Meeting.
24. Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of in-your-face television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621-635.
25. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1-15.
26. National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2011). What is nanotechnology? Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html.
27. Ng, E., & Detenber, B. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(3).
28. Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Science and society: Framing science. Science, 316(5821), 56.
29. Nisbet, M. C., & Nisbet, E. C. (2005). Evolution and intelligent design: Understanding public opinion. Geotimes, 50, 28-33.
30. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2007). The future of public engagement. Scientist, 21(10), 38-44.
31. NRC. (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process: National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
32. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9-27.
33. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259-283.
34. Patterson, T. (1993). Out of order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
35. Peter D. Hart Associates. (2007). Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Washington D.C.: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc.
36. Phillips, T., & Smith, P. (2004). Emotional and behavioural responses to everyday incivility: Challenging the fear/avoidance paradigm. Journal of Sociology, 40(4), 378.
37. Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. (2006). Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory, 16(1), 47.
39. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
40. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. (2011). An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/.
41. Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137-160.
42. Robinson, M., & Appel, K. (1979). Network news coverage of Congress. Political Science Quarterly, 94(3), 407-418.
43. Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E. H., Conti, J., & Harthorn, B. H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology 4(11), 752-758.
44. Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667.
45. Shils, E. (1992). Civility and civil society. New York: Paragon House Publishers.
46. Sigelman, L., & Bullock, D. (1991). Candidates, issues, horse races, and hoopla: Presidential campaign coverage, 1888-1988. American Politics Research, 19(1), 5-32.
47. Sjöberg, L. (2004). Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. EMBO reports, 5(Suppl 1), S47-S51.
48. Sjöberg, L., & Winroth, E. (1986). Risk, moral value of actions, and mood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 27(1), 191-208.
49. Smith, G., John, P., Sturgis, P., & Nomura, H. (2009, September). Deliberation and Internet engagement: Initial findings from a randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of facilitated internet forums. Paper presented at the European Consortium of Political Research General Conference, Potsdam.
50. Uslaner, E. (1993). The decline of comity in Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
51. Wilson, J. (2006). How divided are we? Commentary 121(2), 15.