Does It Matter Where You Read the News Story? Interaction of Incivility and News Frames in the Political Blogosphere

Communication Research

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 809-827

  Borah, Porismita ^a  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

attitude certainty; incivility; news frames; online participation; openmindedness; political blogosphere

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908602581     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650212449353     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Abdi H.Encyclopedia of social sciences research methods. Lewis-Beck M.Bryman A.Futing T., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003:1-8.
2. Ansolabehere S.,Iyengar S.Going negative. How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York, NY: Free Press; 1995:
3. Ball-Rokeach S.,Loges W.Making choices: Media roles in the construction of value choices.The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium; 1996Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1996. 277.
4. Borah P.Conceptual issues in framing: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature.Journal of Communication. 2011a;61:246-263
5. Borah P.Seeking more information and conversations: Influence of competitive frames and motivated processing.Communication Research. 2011b;38:303-325
6. Brewer P.Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A framing-based account.Public Opinion Quarterly. 2003;67:173-201
7. Brooks D.,Geer J.Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate.American Journal of Political Science. 2007;51:1-16
8. Cappella J.,Jamieson K.Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1997:
9. Chong D.,Druckman J.A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments.Journal of Communication. 2007;57 (1): 99-118
10. Dahlberg L.Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2001;7 (1):
11. D’Angelo P.News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman.Journal of Communication. 2002;52:870-888
12. De Dreu C. K. W.,van Knippenberg D.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. 2005;89:345-357
13. de Vreese C.The spiral of cynicism reconsidered.European Journal of Communication. 2005;20:283-301
14. Druckman J.The implications of framing effects for citizen competence.Political Behavior. 2001;23:225-256
15. Druckman J.Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir) relevance of framing effects.American Political Science Review. 2004;98:671-686
16. Druckman J.,Kam C.Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. Druckman J.Green D.Kuklinkski J.Lupia A., ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2011:
17. Eagly A.,Chaiken S.Psychology of attitudes. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1993:
18. Edwards K.,Smith E. E.A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71:5-24
19. Finkel S. E.,Geer J. G.A spot check: Casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack advertising.American Journal of Political Science. 1998;42:573-595
20. Forgette R.,Morris J. S.High conflict television news and public opinion.Political Research Quarterly. 2006;59:447-456
21. Fraser B.Perspectives on politeness.Journal of Pragmatics. 1990;14:219-236
22. Fridkin K. L.,Kenney P. J.The dimensions of negative messages.American Politics Research. 2008;36:694-723
23. Gennaro C.,Dutton W.The Internet and the public: Online and offline political participation in the United Kingdom.Parliamentary Affairs. 2006;59:299-313
24. Graber D.,Bimber B.,Bennett L.,Davis R.,Norris P.Academy & the Internet. Nissenbaum H.Price M. E., ed. New York, NY: Peter Lang; 2004:90-119.
25. Hwang H.,Borah P.,Kang N.,Veenstra A..Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association; 2008aMontreal, Canada; 2008a.
26. Hwang H.,Pan Z.,Sun Y.Influence of hostile media perception on willingness to engage in discursive activities: An examination of mediating role in media indignation.Media Psychology. 2008b;11:76-97
27. Iyengar S.Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1991:
28. Kim J.,Wyatt R.,Katz E.News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy.Political Communication. 1999;16:361-385
29. Kinney T. A.,Segrin C.Cognitive moderators of negative reactions to verbal aggression.Communication studies. 1998;49:49-71
30. Kunda Z.Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;53:636-647
31. Kunda Z.The case of motivated reasoning.Psychological Bulletin. 1990;108:480-498
32. Lee N.,McLeod D.,Shah D.Framing policy debates: Issue dualism, journalistic frames, and opinions on controversial policy issues.Communication Research. 2008;35:695-718
33. Mutz D. C.Effects of in-your-face television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition.American Political Science Review. 2007;101:621-635
34. Mutz D.,Reeves B.The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust.American Political Science Review. 2005;99:1-15
35. Nelson T. E.,Clawson R. A.,Oxley Z. M.Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance.American Political Science Review. 1997;91:567-583
36. Ng E.,Detenber B.The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2005;10 (3):
37. O’ReillyT. (2007). Call for a blogger’s code of conduct. Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/call_for_a_blog_1.html
38. Papacharissi Z.The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere.New Media & Society. 2002;4 (1): 9-27
39. Papacharissi Z.Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups.New Media and Society. 2004;6:259-283
40. Phillips T.,Smith P.Emotional and behavioural responses to everyday incivility: Challenging the fear/avoidance paradigm.Journal of Sociology. 2004;40:378
41. Scheufele D.Framing as a theory of media effects.Journal of Communication. 1999;49 (1): 103-122
42. Shah D.,Domke D.,Wackman D.“To thine own self be true”: Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies.Communication Research. 1996;23:509-560
43. Sobeiraj S.,Berry J.From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news.Political Communication. 2011;28 (1): 19-41
44. Stromer-Galley J.New voices in the political sphere: A comparative analysis of interpersonal and online political talk.Javnost/The Public. 2002;9:23-42
45. Sundar S.,Nass C.Conceptualizing sources in online news.Journal of Communication. 2001;51 (1): 52-72
46. Thorson K.,Vraga E.,Ekdale B.Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility.Mass Communication and Society. 2010;13:289-313
47. Valentino N.,Beckmann M.,Buhr T.A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government.Political Communication. 2001;18:347-367
48. Verba S.,Nie N.Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1972:
49. Verba S.,Schlozman K.,Brady H.Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1995: