Dillonquantstudyonpolitenessinnewspaperforums.pdf
Ohio Communication Journal
Volume 56 – March 2018, pp. 120-135
_____________________________
Kelly P. Dillon (PhD, The Ohio State University) is an Assistant Professor of Communication at Wittenberg University.
Rachel L. Neo (PhD, The Ohio State University) is an Assistant Professor of Communications at the University of Hawaii,
Manoa.
Natalee Seely (PhD, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill) is an Assistant Professor of Journalism at Ball State
University
Civil Keystrokes: Examining Anonymity, Politeness, and Civility in Online Ohio
Newspaper Forums
Kelly P. Dillon
Rachel L. Neo
Natalee Seely
Online news discussion forums have become popular virtual spaces for public discourse. Computer-mediated
communication theories suggest the anonymity afforded by online platforms may deindividuate individuals, leading
to less civility and politeness. The current study examines the role of anonymity within the setting of online news
comment forums and whether anonymous comments contain more incivility and impoliteness than Facebook-
identified users. Comments from two Associated Press articles were collected from four major newspapers’
websites. Results suggest anonymous comments are less civil and less polite than those commenting through
Facebook profiles. Future research is necessary to determine the implications of online discussion forums.
Keywords: civility, computer-mediated communication, newspaper, comments, politeness, SIDE model
Americans’ online news consumption has surpassed radio and print media, becoming the second most
popular news media outlet only to television, leading to about four in ten Americans getting their news online
(Mitchell, Gottfried, Barthel, & Shearer, 2016). As the online presence of newspapers has grown, the avenues for
the expression of public opinion have become more diverse. The present study aims to understand how the different
affordances of these forums affect civility and politeness in comments. Historically, letters to the editor served as
the primary feedback forums in the news industry. With more newspapers taking their publications to the internet,
readers can now express their opinions in online news forums, characterized by fewer gatekeepers and more
opportunity for participation across time and space.
These forums are digital spaces where readers can offer their voices, opinions and feedback on news content
and issues, allowing them to interact with both the content and other readers (Hlavach & Freivogal, 2011). Many
large U.S. newspapers including The Los Angeles Times enable readers to register anonymously to post comments.
Users have the autonomy to be identified by usernames and handles that can be as vague or as descriptive as they
choose. Other newspapers, like USA Today, or scholarly websites such as Popular Science, recently have taken
steps to restrict anonymity by linking comments to Facebook profiles or disabling comments entirely. Some
research has suggested online civility not only leads to polarization between commenters (Chen & Ng, 2017), but
also influences readers’ perceptions of the subject matter (Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2013).
Online comments may also affect journalists’ approach to newswriting (Diakopoulos & Naaman, 2011) and
experiments have suggested incivility and impoliteness can affect readers’ judgment of journalistic quality
(Prochazka, Weber, & Schweiger, 2018). Editors have expressed concerns about cyberbullying and the spread of
misinformation within comment sections, especially when many news outlets do not have the time or staffing to
monitor the content of forums (Brost, 2013).
Some scholars have suggested that anonymity enables users to express unconventional opinions without
the fear of being judged by gender, race or disability (Papacharissi, 2004). Conversely, others have contended that
higher levels of anonymity exacerbate hostile discourse (Rösner, Winter, & Krämer, 2016). In an initial content
analysis of comments made in the Washington Post’s website followed by a comparison of comments made on the
website to those made on the newspaper’s Facebook page, Rowe (2013) found a clear difference in civility. Using
a theory driven approach, we aim to examine whether social media profiles on source sites or the use of anonymity
leads to uncivil and impolite behavior in online news forums.
121 Dillon et. al / Anonymity, politeness, and civility online
Anonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) Anonymity is a construct defined by the absence of identifiers (Marx, 1999); however, many scientists
agree that anonymity is a social phenomenon. Marx (1999) argued that anonymity requires an audience of at least
one other person. Rationales for anonymity include the facilitation of information, the protection and privacy of
one’s self, the avoidance of persecution and the encouragement of experimentation and risk-taking (Marx, 1999).
The different type of online platforms allows for varying degrees of concealment of physical appearance,
location, name and other identifying characteristics. For instance, some types of news sites allow people to create a
user account with the news site and post comments using pseudonyms and fake names. However, online platforms
such as Facebook do not necessarily have ‘visual anonymity,’ as others can easily glean clues about a person’s real
identity from information displayed on his or her Facebook profile—people typically put their real names and
display photos of themselves on their Facebook profiles (DeAndrea & Walther, 2011).
The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) model provides a salient theoretical
framework to explain why online platforms facilitate impolite and uncivil discourse (Walther, 2011). Though
originally constructed with organizational groups in mind, the SIDE model has been applied to a wide variety of
CMC situations and environments (Tidwell & Walther, 2006). This model purports deindividuation in online group
settings leads to a transfer of salience from self to the collective, causing group identification and adherence to
group norms. The SIDE model identifies two factors that drive CMC behavior: visual anonymity that leads users
into a state of deindividuation and the lack of verbal and nonverbal cues, known as the cues-filtered-out approach
(Walther, 1992). When in a state of deindividuation, CMC users will “orient themselves to a salient social category
or group” (Walther, 2011, p. 450) and relate with other users on the basis of group membership (Lea, Spears, & de
Groot, 2001). This anonymity frees people from ordinary relationships and social conventions such as politeness,
and transports the user into an environment where the self is less important than the collective (Reicher, Spears, &
Postmes, 1995). Users will act according to in-group norms and adopt a group identity.
Going by the tenets of SIDE, it is a logical inference that newspapers allowing anonymous users to comment
will have statistically more comments after articles compared to those newspapers requiring a known profile login,
such as through Facebook. Furthermore, based on the reduction of social presence afforded by CMC, we seek to
examine the conditions under which commenters will be more likely to disclose their own personal political
identities.
H1a: Newspapers allowing anonymous comments will have more initial comments than newspapers
requiring a social media profile.
H1b: Newspapers allowing anonymous comments will have more responsive comments than newspapers
requiring a social media profile.
RQ: Under what conditions, topical and anonymity, would individuals disclose their own personal political
identities?
Politeness
Extensive research has examined the effects of politeness in conversational exchanges; however, there is
no fixed scholarly consensus as to what constitutes ‘politeness.’ According to Fraser (1990), there are four broad
perspectives of ‘politeness.’ The ‘social-norm’ perspective views ‘politeness’ in terms of speech styles and contends
that politeness is associated with higher levels of formality and adherence to social etiquette rules. Grice’s (1989)
“conversational maxim” describes how communication efficiency can be enhanced using principles such as conflict,
minimizing strategies to maximize cooperation between parties. Goffman’s (1971) ‘face saving’ view delineates
between two types of ‘faces’: positive and negative face. ‘Positive’ face describes how people behave politely in
order to maintain relationships with others, whereas ‘negative’ face describes how people assert their autonomy by
expressing frank opinions that could potentially offend other parties. Lastly, the ‘conversational-contract’ view
posits that conversation participants have certain preliminary normative expectations of one another that are applied
to all discussion parties (Fraser & Nolen, 1981). Ultimately, politeness is defined as the extent to which a participant
follows these conversational norms.
Ohio Communication Journal / March 2018 122
Although some commenters may make attempts at politeness, it is difficult to ascertain whether politeness
is a driving force or motivator of behavior or communication choice in these forums. In sum, politeness can be
described as the extent to which people adhere to conversation etiquette and norms, negotiate between sacrificing
one’s face and saving face, and attempt to minimize conflict by cooperating with other parties (Chen, 2015; Fraser,
1990). According to “cues filtered out” approaches, online communication platforms lack the visual markers of
face-to face communication (Culnan & Markus, 1987). Applying conversational norms, which have been
established using face-to-face communication, in the mediated environment is a challenge. Such visual anonymity
makes it harder to trace peoples’ real identities and reduces the social cost of being impolite. Consequently, scholars
have contended that the anonymity afforded by online platforms emboldens people to be impolite when having
political discussions with others (Ng & Detenber, 2005; Papacharissi, 2004). Given previous studies (for example
Halpern & Gibbs, 2012) have shown that people tend to have more impolite political discussions on anonymous
platforms than on known platforms, we hypothesize people who post comments with their news site user accounts
will be more impolite than people who post comments using their Facebook accounts. Impoliteness, then, may be
the norm in the mediated, deindividuated environment, rather than a violation of norms. When a user is individuated,
or uses a social media account with a (presumed) authentic photograph, real name, and networked ties, like that of
Facebook, an active attempt to adhere to conversational norms like politeness should be observed. Thus, we
hypothesize
H2: People who post comments with their news site user accounts will be more impolite than people who
post comments using their Facebook accounts.
Civility
Civility is regarded as a key hallmark of deliberative political discourse. The term ‘civility’ was derived
from the term ‘civil discourse.’ Civil discourse is essential for the functioning of a democracy (for example, Dutton,
1996; Johnson & Johnson, 2000). Some scholars have lamented the decline of civil discourse in the public sphere
(Bowman & Knox, 2008). Nevertheless, other scholars have cited the potential of online platforms to foster civil
discourse (Pavlik, 1994). As such, it is imperative to examine the extent to which online platforms promote or
stymie civil discourse.
The present study also aims to differentiate between civility and politeness in CMC research. Previous
research tends to conflate incivility with impoliteness. For instance, in Ng and Detenber’s (2005) study, their
‘uncivil’ experimental conditions consisted of people being impolite by flouting conversation norms, e.g., hurling
personal attacks at one another. Some scholars have suggested that it is unrealistic to expect political discourse to
always be carried out in a polite fashion (Garnham, 1992). Furthermore, political discourse that is carried out in a
polite manner tends to be more restrained because people practice self-censorship and espouse the status quo so as
to avoid offending people (Holtgraves, 1997). It would seem that such measured polite discourse impedes spirited
debate that reflects democratic ideals, as Lyotard (1984) and Schudson (1997) have found. Rather, whimsical,
heated, political debate that flouts conversation norms and etiquette might actually enhance democratic goals as
such discussions tend to be more diverse than polite political discourse (Dillard, Wilson, Tusing, & Kinney, 1997).
Thus, it is important to delineate between impoliteness and incivility. According to Papacharissi (2004),
uncivil discourse goes beyond what is typically regarded as ‘impoliteness,’ i.e., flouting etiquette or social norms,
and being uncooperative. Rather, civil discourse is discourse that espouses democratic ideals and the common
societal good (Shils, 1992). Papacharissi (2004) further argues that civility is a form of ‘collective politeness.’ As
such, when people denigrate social categories of people, they are deemed to be behaving in an uncivil manner.
However, if people hurl aspersions at each other (for example, “You’re an incompetent governor!”), they are simply
being impolite, not uncivil.
Given civility is a hallmark of a democratic society in which each individual ideally has an equal
opportunity to voice their frank opinions for the collective good, Papacharissi (2004) defined uncivil discourse as
discourse that undermines democratic ideals, challenges the common good by depriving people of their personal
freedoms and discriminating against social categories of people. Thus far, few studies have explicitly delineated
between known (not anonymous) and anonymous online platforms when examining the extent to which people
engage in uncivil political discourse online. Although other content analyses have shown people are generally civil
123 Dillon et. al / Anonymity, politeness, and civility online
when expressing their views online, these have only focused on examining civility within the context of online
message boards (Papacharissi, 2004). Such displays of incivility are more likely to occur in anonymous contexts
because users are acting under a cloak of anonymity. (Papacharissi, 2002; Spears & Lea, 1994). Furthermore,
according to the SIDE model (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 1998; Spears & Lea, 1992), the lack of nonverbal cues on
the Internet causes people to interact with one another using cues (for example, textual cues) that give indications
about group-level attributes of other discussants. Consequently, people are more likely to form stereotypes of other
online discussants and make derogatory remarks based on perceptions of social categories that these discussants
belong to (Spears & Lea, 1992). As such, we hypothesize:
H3: There will be more uncivil comments from anonymous news site user accounts than comments using
Facebook accounts.
The struggle to civilly discuss politics in the news and interpersonal conversations is as historic as the
American democracy (Capella & Jamieson, 1997; Herbst, 2010). Furthermore, online political news stories
generally tend to receive more comments than non-political online news stories (Tsagkias, Weerkamp, & de Rijke,
2009). Scholars contend the online political sphere is highly polarized, with opposing parties having factious debates
on political issues that are characterized by emotionally charged vitriol (Hargittai, Gallo, & Kane, 2008; Sunstein,
2001). Topics discussed online that have clear sides in opposition of each other, especially partisan leaning, have
been found to have fewer civil comments (Coe, Kenski, & Rains, 2014). As such, we predict online political news
stories will receive more impolite and uncivil comments than non-political online news stories.
H4: Comments to political stories will be less civil than non-political stories.
H5: Comments to political stories will be less polite than non-political stories.
Methods
Sample
Four Ohio newspapers that allow online comments to AP articles were chosen for the current study. The
state of Ohio was specifically chosen because of its importance in presidential elections as a swing state, the
frequency of candidate and surrogate visits during the 2012 campaign, and for the comparisons of the cities and
newspapers chosen. The newspapers used in this study were the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Cuyahoga County), Toledo
Blade (Lucas County), Dayton Daily News (Montgomery County), and the Cincinnati Inquirer (Hamilton County).
The newspapers range in daily circulation from 95,000 to 300,000, and are each well established in their respective
communities. Two of the newspapers require commenters to use their known Facebook profile in order to leave a
comment. Two newspapers require commenters to create an account, creating any handle they would like. We
recognize anonymity could be perceived as a spectrum than as a binary. The Facebook profiles necessary for leaving
comments in the Cincinnati Enquirer and Toledo Blade could contain false or fake profiles, deidentified profile
pictures, or creative names, obscuring the commenter’s real identity. Additionally, the handles created by
commentators in the Plain Dealer and Dayton Daily News could contain identifying information, depending on how
much the commentator wants to reveal. Table 1 contains circulation and total comments drawn from each paper.
Table 1
Condition, Daily Circulation, and Total Number of Comments from Sample Newspapers
Newspaper Condition Circulation N of Comments
Cleveland Plain Dealer Anonymous 246,571 431
Cincinnati Enquirer Facebook 144,154 88
Toledo Blade Facebook 94,215 31
Dayton Daily News Anonymous 94,425 32
Ohio Communication Journal / March 2018 124
Content In order to determine if it is truly the platform affordances that lead to differences in comment content, it
was important to use the same articles during the same time frames, keeping the content as standardized as possible.
This also minimized possible effects of external events unrelated to the chosen topic (for example, global events on
election related news). We also wanted to determine if type of content, political or non-political, would yield
different types of comments in the different conditions. Thus, newspaper articles surrounding a non-political and
political event approximately one week apart were used for the current study.
AP articles on a political topic and a non-political topic were chosen as the stimuli for collecting comments.
The AP is a news agency that operates nearly 250 news bureaus throughout the world, and the agency’s news
content is published and circulated in more than 1,500 newspapers. The AP’s articles are written in plain, non-
inflammatory language and circulated widely across communities. The choice of AP articles helped in the
standardization of article content, regardless of the partisan leanings of the editorial boards of the newspaper. The
same AP article was available in all four newspapers in both topics and was examined for edits or updates during
the 24-hour comment capture timeframe.
The political topic chosen for this study is the recap of the Presidential debate covering domestic policy
held in Denver, CO on October 3, 2012. This was the first of three Presidential Candidate debates and covered
domestic policy exclusively (where the remaining debates will either be a blend of foreign and domestic policy or
a town hall meeting). The non-political topic chosen was a controversial ruling by replacement referees during the
Seattle Seahawks-Pittsburgh Steelers NFL game on September 24, 2012. The referees’ ruling, outcome of the game,
and subsequent national outrage was a hot topic and the final straw in a media narrative about the ongoing NFL
referee strike. This event was also chosen given neither of the NFL teams in Ohio (Cincinnati Bengals or the
Cleveland Browns) were involved in the story. Prior to the choice of the NFL topic, two other non-political stories
were considered: one reporting the Emmy awards and another regarding the response to super storm Sandy. The
Emmy story yielded no comments in the first day. The discussion following the story covering responses to Sandy
evolved into a political topic, making comparisons moot. Because we wanted to make sure the non-political story
was within a week of the political topic, we settled on the NFL story, which was controversial at the time, and
engaged readers to comment.
Procedures
Comments and articles were printed digitally every few hours for 24-hours after the articles’ posting to the
newspapers’ websites. Articles were compared for substantial editing and none was found. Streams of comments
were compared to determine if newspaper webmasters removed or flagged comments deemed offensive or in
violation of the newspapers’ policies and none were found. Comments were recorded in chronological order and
coded for newspaper, topic, condition, and if they were initial or responsorial. Each commenter from each
newspaper was given a unique subject identification code and all comments from the commenter were coded with
this code. A total of 210 unique commenters were found across the four newspapers and two topics. One commenter
appeared to comment on each newspaper’s political article, using the same handle and nearly the same comment.
Civility and Impoliteness Coding. A total of 582 comments were organized according to paper, condition,
topic, timing, and commenters’ subject identification codes by the lead author. All subsequent data analysis was
conducted using only subject identification codes in order to ensure handles, which can contain political or uncivil
speech in and of themselves, would not affect analysis of comments. Each post was coded as either an initial post,
where the author addressed the content of the news article in a new “thread,” or as a reply, where the author
addressed a comment from another author or another author directly. If available, the number of likes/dislikes a
comment received and whether the newspaper designated the author as a “Top Commenter” was also recorded.
The remaining two authors adapted previous civility and politeness coding schemas to use to train on 25
comments, illustrated in Table 2 (Papacharissi, 2004). Civility codes focused on verbalization of threats to
democracy, political identification, or stereotypes directed towards self, other commenters, or a non-present
generalized ‘other.’ Comments containing threats to another commenter’s rights (for example, “Keep talking like
that and you’ll see what I mean”) or a non-present other (for example, “Seniors listen up…those death panels are
for real.”) were coded as uncivil. According to the tenets of SIDE theory, it would be uncivil for a commenter to
deindividuate another discussant or non-present other, and ascribe assumed group characteristics (Postmes &
125 Dillon et. al / Anonymity, politeness, and civility online
Spears, 1998). Included in these codes are comments containing political identification of self (for example, “As a
democrat and as an Obama voter”), other commenter (for example, “Jim, if you were an actual conservative”), or
general non-present other (for example, “As a liberal, Obama goes left”). Comments containing stereotypes such
as “women are so desperate” or political stereotypes towards specific parties such as “You lefties just cant let Bush
go!” or “what do we expect who was trained by Marxist professors?” were also coded for incivility.
Table 2 Civility, Politeness Codes and Actual Sample Examples
Category Code (to OD or NPO) Actual User Comments
Civility Politically identify (self) “As a democrat, and as a Obama voter,
Political stereotype “You lefties just cant let Bush go!”
Non-political stereotype “This is why people call you desperate!!”
Threat to freedoms “His efforts to increase socialism in the US won't work as it never
has and never will…freedom remains the answer.”
Politeness Sarcasm “Pete Carroll has been on the right end of both the Bush Push and
now the Fail Mary.”
All caps “YOU CAN raise revenue and lower taxes when you GROW the
economy.”
Name calling “Romney has been a clown since day one”
Aspersions (excluding
lying)
“You lose the argument about ACA everytime & yet you continue
are you stupid as well as ignorant?”
Accusations of lying “love watching you liars get their butts handed to them. Face it
doink, Obama was exposed last night for the liar he is!”
Hyperbole “certainly you are refering to The Amateur King.”
Non-cooperation “Obama has no intention of ever working with Republicans.”
Vulgarities “hell, he didn't even read his own bill!” Note: OD = other discussant, NPO = non-present other
The coding schema for impoliteness contained more specific interpersonal communication codes (Jamison
& Falk, 1999; Papacharissi, 2004). Each type of interpersonal communication was coded for either towards other
discussant or non-present other. Use of sarcasm was coded as a measure of impoliteness, such as “’Romney is
ducking the issues regarding his refusals to release his income tax return;” “It's filed away safe and sound with the
President's birth certificate :);” or a non-present other such as “Pete Carroll has been on the right end of both the
Bush Push and now the Fail Mary.” Comments in all-caps were labeled as impolite as over-capitalization of text
online is a known heuristic for yelling (Brusco, 2011). Aggressive communication such as name calling (for
example, “Romney has been a clown since day one.”) and aspersions (for example, “You lose the argument about
ACA everytime and yet you continue are you stupid as well as ignorant?”), excluding lying, were considered
impolite comments. Accusing of others of lying (for example, “love watching you liars get their butts handed to
them”), non-cooperation (for example, “Obama has no intention of ever working with the Republicans”), and
hyperbole (for example, “certaintly you are referring to The Amateur King”) could be considered threats to
democratic conversation and therefore impolite (Ng & Detenber, 2005; Papacharissi, 2004). Finally, any comments
including vulgarities or swear words were coded as impolite per societal norms of public speech.
The codebook was developed over a series of meetings with the other authors on these 25 comments.
Conversations determined if a single word, or the entire comment, would suffice for any given code. It was decided
the entire comment would the unit of analysis, and the codebook reflected this agreement. After training, each coder
coded the same random 10% sample, and Cohen was calculated for each variable (Hayes & Krippendorf, 2007).
Intercoder reliability was found to be 0.91, indicating acceptable agreement on most of the training content. The
categories with disagreements, specifically aspersions towards another commenter and aspersions towards a non-
present other, were discussed and clarified in the codebook. Next, the two coders each coded half of the remaining
sample to test hypotheses, and Cohen was calculated for each variable. The final coding analysis found all
Ohio Communication Journal / March 2018 126
categories met a threshold of Cohen > 0.80, which has been found to be a satisfactory discipline standard (Lacy
& Riffe, 1996; Wrench, Thomas-Maddox, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2016).
Results
A comparison of total number of comments in each condition was conducted to test H1a and H1b. In the
Facebook condition, readers left a total of 34 unique comments (18%), and in the anonymous condition, readers left
a total of 152 unique comments (92%). A binomial test found this distribution is not due to chance, p < .001. H1a
is therefore supported. Similarly, in the Facebook condition, readers left a total of 85 (21%) comments in response
to others’ comments, and readers in the anonymous condition left a total of 311 (79%) comments in response to
others’ comments. A binomial test found this distribution is not due to chance, p < .001, and thus H1b is supported.
In order to test H2, seven categories were summed creating a civility index of comments (M = 0.12, SD =
0.32, range = 0 - 1). A higher score on this index illustrated a more uncivil comment. A one-tailed independent
groups t-test found anonymous comments (M = 0.13, SD = 0.33) were less civil than Facebook comments (M =
0.08, SD = 0.27), t(579) = -1.732, p = .043, supporting H2. Sub-scales of civility were calculated, summing the
codes of comments made towards other discussants (M = 0.02, SD = 0.12, range = 0 - 1) and NPO; M = 0.10, SD =
0.3, range = 0 - 1). One-tailed independent groups t-tests suggest no difference in civility by condition in comments
made towards non-present others or those comments made towards other discussants. Comparison of total number
of comments across profile conditions revealed only one variable, assigning political stereotypes to generalized
others not involved in the online discussion, was found in nearly 10% of all comments. The remaining six variables
were equal to or less than 1% of comments coded in the affirmative for the incivility code (see Table 3).
Table 3
Comparison of Civility Indexes by Condition
Facebook Anonymous
M SD M SD t
Civility Index* 0.08 0.27 0.13 0.33 -1.73
Civility – NPOns 0.06 0.24 0.10 0.30 -1.97
Civility – ODns 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.12 0.13 Note: ns = not significant; * = p < .05; ** = p < .001
Across conditions, negative stereotypes were rarely assigned to other discussants or non-present generalized
others, and the differences in frequency were found to be statistically insignificant. Of the 50 comments coded as
assigning political stereotypes to a non-present other, 43, or 86%, were in the anonymous profile condition and only
seven, or 14%, were in the Facebook profile condition. A binomial test found this distribution to be due to condition,
and not chance. Therefore, political stereotypes will be more likely to be assigned to non-present others in an
anonymous profile.
To test H3, 16 coding categories were summed to create an impoliteness index based on comments towards
other discussants or non-present others (see Table 4). A higher score on this index meant the comment was more
impolite (M = 1.1, SD = 1.18, range= 0-8). A one-tailed independent groups t-test found anonymous comments (M
= 0.13, SD = 1.23) were marginally less polite than Facebook comments (M = 0.95, SD = 0.96), and trending towards
significance, t(575) = -1.44, p = .08. Sub-scales of politeness were calculated, summing the codes of comments
made towards other discussants (M = 0.18, SD = 0.51, range = 0-4) and non-present others (M = 0.89, SD = 1.04,
range = 0-5). One-tailed independent groups t-tests suggest anonymous comments (M = 0.93, SD = 1.06) were less
polite in when made towards non-present others compared to Facebook comments (M = 0.73, SD = 0.92), t(579) =
-1.94, p = .05. There was no difference found between anonymous (M = 0.17, SD = 0.52) or Facebook (M = 0.23,
SD = 0.46) conditions in comments made towards other discussants, t(579) = 1.03, p = .30.
127 Dillon et. al / Anonymity, politeness, and civility online
Table 4
Comparison of Politeness Indexes by Condition
Facebook Anonymous
M SD M SD t
Politeness Indexns 0.95 0.96 1.10 1.23 -1.44
Politeness – NPOns 0.72 0.93 0.92 1.06 -1.94
Politeness - ODns 0.23 0.17 0.46 0.52 1.03 Note: ns = not significant; OD = other discussant; NPO = non-present other
Table 5
Pearson Chi-Square and Binomial Tests of Politeness Variables by Condition
Analysis of comments coded ‘yes’
2 Facebook
(n, %)
Anonymous
(n, %)
All-Caps NPO 2.42** 7, 12.5% 49, 87.5%
Name Call of NPO 9.24** 9, 9.2% 89, 90.8%
Aspersion OD 3.06* 16, 29.6% 38, 70.4%
Aspersion NPO 4.89** 36, 15.9% 191, 84.1%
Accuse Lying NPO 5.49** 23, 30.7% 52, 69.3% Note: * = p < .05; ** = p < .001; OD = other discussant; NPO = non-present other
Table 6
Comparison of Civility Means of Comments on Non-Political & Political News Articles
Non-Political Topic Political Topic
M SD M SD t
Civility Index** 0 0 0.13 0.33 -8.74
Civility – NPO** 0 0 0.11 0.31 -8.06
Civility – ODns 0 0 0.02 0.13 -0.88 Note: ns = not significant; * = p < .05; ** = p < .001; OD = other discussant; NPO = non-present other
Binomial tests were calculated for five of the individual politeness items that were coded as ‘present’ (1)
in at least 9% of the comments across conditions. Nearly 90% of the comments did not contain the remaining eleven
variables. The impoliteness variables examined were typing in all caps, calling names, accusing of lies, and using
aspersions towards other discussants or generalized others (see Table 5).
Using the same civility index used for testing H2, a one-tailed independent groups t-test comparing means
in each topic condition were calculated and found comments left on political articles were less civil than comments
left on non-political articles, t(579) = -8.74, p < .001. Sub-scales of civility were created to comparing comments
directed towards other discussants and comments made about non-present others across topics (see Table 6).
Comments made about non-present others in political topics were less civil than those made in reaction to the non-
political news story. There was no statistical difference between topics on comments made towards other
discussants, t(579) = -0.88, p = .19. Just as in the condition tests, only assignment of political stereotypes to non-
present others was present in at least 10% of the total comments. The remaining six variables were coded in no
more than 2% of the comments, and not analyzed.
A Pearson chi-square and follow-up binomial test found a significant difference between article topic and
rate of political stereotypes being assigned to non-present others, 2(1) = 4.59, p = .03. Of the 50 comments coded
as assigning political stereotypes to non-present others, all were written in comments to the political article.
Therefore, political stereotypes will be more likely to be assigned to non-present others in a political article.
Ohio Communication Journal / March 2018 128
Assignment of political stereotypes to other discussants and non-present others was not expected in
comments made to non-political stories. Pearson chi-square and binomial tests examining frequencies of comments
assigned to other discussants were not significant, but comments made to non-present others were. The only
comments assigning political stereotypes to non-present others were found in response to a political article.
Additional chi-square tests compared the frequency of negative stereotypes (non-political) towards other
discussants and non-present others in comments by topic. Once more, there were no statistical differences between
the cells. Nearly 99% of comments did not contain a negative stereotype towards anyone and does not warrant
further comparison of frequencies. Therefore, topic does not affect the probability of assignment of negative
stereotypes being made by commenters to other discussants or non-present others.
The same politeness index was used to calculate one-tailed independent groups t-tests comparing means in
each topic condition (see Table 7). Comments left on political articles were not found to be less polite than
comments left on non-political articles. Political news stories had less polite comments directed at non-present
others than non-political stories. Four of the same specific politeness variables were present in at least 10% of
comments, leading to binomial tests to determine if distribution of codes was due to chance or the article’s topic
(Table 8). Individuals commenting on political stories are less civil directing their comments towards non-present
others indexed by typing in all caps (95% of comments were from political stories, p < .001), name-calling (95%
of comments were from political stories, p < .001), use of aspersions (93% of comments were from political stories,
p < .001), and accusing non-present others of lying (100% of comments were from political stories, p < .001).
Therefore, H5 is partially supported.
Table 7
Comparison of Politeness of Comments on Non-Political and Political News Articles
Non-Political Topic Political Topic
M SD M SD t
Polite Indexns 0.82 0.83 1.09 1.21 -1.46
Politeness – NPOns 0.78 0.85 0.90 1.05 -0.73
Politeness – OD** 0.04 0.21 0.20 0.58 -3.92 Note: ns = not significant; * = p < .05; ** = p < .001; OD = other discussant; NPO = non-present other
Table 8
Pearson Chi-Square and Binomial Tests of Politeness Variables by Condition
Analysis of comments coded ‘yes’
2 Sports
n, %
Politics
n, %
All-Caps Non-Present Other 0.50** 3, 5% 53, 95%
Name Call of Non-Present Other 0.06** 7, 7% 93, 93%
Aspersion Non-Present Other 1.18** 7, 7% 91, 93%
Accuse Lying Non-Present Other 7.23* 0, 0% 75, 100% Note: ns = not significant; * = p < .05; ** = p < .001
In order to answer the proposed research question, each comment was coded for self-identification of party
or fandom and ideology. Self-identification was coded as whether the commenter identifies with a specific political
identity (0 = no, 1 = yes) such as “Amen brother, I’m a democrat;” “I’m a conservative…”. Ideology was coded as
pro-Obama/anti-Romney (for example, “I’m going to vote today, and I won’t vote for Mitt;” “Obama has the better
policies”), pro-Romney/anti-Obama (“Romney is for all of us;” “best policies! Romney/Ryan”), or unknown.
Ninety-nine percent of all commenters did not self-identify specifically in any way, and four of the six commenters
who had were found in the anonymous condition. Pearson chi-square tests were found to be not significant. A
Pearson chi-square test did not show any statistical significance difference between topics and self-identification.
Therefore, neither condition nor article topic affect rate of self-identification.
A series of binomial and crosstabs tests were conducted to determine under what conditions ideology would
be disclosed. A binomial test first confirms there is a significant difference beyond chance between the number of
129 Dillon et. al / Anonymity, politeness, and civility online
pro-Romney/anti-Obama comments (N=259) and pro-Obama/anti-Romney (N=70) comments, p < .001. A chi-
square test suggests there is no difference in proportions of disclosure of ideology between anonymous or social
media profile conditions, 2(1) = .001, p = .98. A comparison of the number of ideological disclosures by paper,
however, was significant, 2(3) = 11.88, p = .01 (see Table 9). The clearest difference appeared between the
proportion of pro-Romney/anti-Obama comments to pro-Obama/anti-Romney comments left in the Cleveland Plain
Dealer and the proportion of comments in each ideological category in the Dayton Daily News. It is interesting to
note these two papers were both in the anonymous condition. In particular, the number of pro-Romney/anti-Obama
comments left on the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s article accounted for 62.3% of the 329 comments that disclosed
some sort of ideology.
Table 9
Pearson Chi-Square of Ideological Disclosures by Paper
Cleveland
Plain Dealer
Toledo
Blade
Cincinnati
Enquirer
Dayton Daily
News
Pro-Obama/Anti-Romney 48a 6a,b 5a,b 11b
Pro-Romney/Anti-Obama 205a 12a,b 29a,b 13b
2(3) = 11.88, p = .01. Each subscript letter denotes a subset of paper categories whose column proportions do not
differ significantly from each other at the .05 level.
Discussion
Our current study found civility and politeness, and possibly rationality, are hard to come by when users
are anonymous to others. In total, most of our hypotheses were either completely or partially supported. The
anonymous nature of certain newspaper comment forums yielded more comments, and these comments were less
civil and polite compared to comments left in forums requiring a Facebook login. Additionally, political news
articles in general tend to lead to less civil and less polite comments than non-political news stories. Comments
towards non-present others were especially less civil and less polite across condition and topic. These findings are
consistent with the tenets of the SIDE theory (Spears & Lea, 1992) and previous findings indicating that people
tend to be more impolite on anonymous online platforms than on online platforms requiring a known profile (for
example, Halpern & Gibbs, 2012; Santana, 2014). We believe this is the first study to collect comments from the
same newspaper article during the same period of time, standardizing the environments and content to which users
were commenting. Furthermore, this study filled the gap in the literature using the SIDE theory to examine whether
people were more uncivil in anonymous online conditions than in online conditions where a user’s identity is known.
The finding of proportions of self-disclosure of political ideology are particularly interesting. In the Dayton
Daily News, there were no differences between the number of pro-Obama/anti-Romney and pro-Romney/anti-
Obama comments (see Table 9). In the Cleveland Plain Dealer, however, there were four times as many pro-
Romney/anti-Obama comments compared to the pro-Obama/anti-Romney self-disclosures. While these papers
were both in the anonymous condition, their communities’ political histories may offer insight (Richardson, 2017).
Democrats have held the offices of city commissioners in Dayton since the early 1990s, but prior to then the offices
were served by Republicans. In the same time period, the mayor of Dayton has been Democrat, Republican, and
Independent, and all U.S. representatives have been Republican as well. Conversely, Cleveland’s mayor, city
council, and U.S. Representatives have all been Democrats since the mid-1980s. In fact, Cuyahoga County is a
majority Democratic county (Exner, 2016), has carried Democratic candidates in Presidential elections since the
1990s, and is considered one of the most progressive, liberal cities in the state. From our data, it appears the
anonymous environment provided those in the minority (Republicans) in the largest Democratic county
(Cuyahoga). Research examining the spiral of silence in CMC contexts has shown people who perceive their
opinions to be in the minority feel more emboldened expressing their honest views on anonymous CMC platforms
(McDevitt, Kiousis, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003). It is plausible that the Republicans living in that region knew that
they were in the minority and thus felt more comfortable criticizing Obama online under the guise of anonymity.
Ohio Communication Journal / March 2018 130
More research is needed to examine the extent to which anonymity creates partisan echo chambers online among
political groups whose opinions are in the minority.
Concerns of individuals becoming somehow “submerged in the machine” leading to social isolation and
deindividuation effects lead more psychological, sociological, and communication research to focus on the
interpersonal aspects and ramifications of CMC (Kielser, Siegel, & McGuire, 1986). This study aimed to explore
the role of anonymity on incivility in CMC settings, but current research only scratches the surface of how
anonymity affects the dynamics of online discussion. Future research can take a number of directions, including the
experimental route to establish a more causal relationship between anonymity and incivility. An experimental
design involving the creation of anonymous and identified conditions within the context of comment forums would
have great explanatory power. Anonymity may give those who feel marginalized protection to speak out, but our
findings suggest those doing the speaking are doing so in less civil and polite ways, which can lead to constant face
saving in light of identity threats, culminating in a spiral of toxicity.
Further research is also needed to gauge the effects of incivility on readers’ perception of bias in the news
and their perception of the journalist and newspaper’s credibility. Prochazka, Weber, and Schweiger (2018) found
while “uncivil comments decreased the perceived formal quality of an article” civil comments themselves did
nothing to improve such perceptions (p. 72). With online news consumption on the rise, comment forums are
becoming increasingly common, and thus more visible to readers. Even if an online newsreader is not actively
participating in the discussion, the comments from other readers are easily seen following most news articles.
According to Jones, Ravid, & Rafaeli (2004), nearly half of online news readers may be comprised of individuals
who do not participate in commenting behavior, but who still read posts from other users. Thus, the effects of
incivility within online commentary may reach beyond just those who actively engage in online conversation. A
more qualitative approach could explore the effect of negative and impolite comments on journalists themselves,
especially those comments directed at the author or publisher of a story by examining whether uncivil comments
affect a journalist’s mental health, their ability to perform their job well, or their job satisfaction.
The results of this study also beg the question: What can, or should, be done about incivility in online news
environments? Some media outlets, such as NPR and Chicago Sun-Times, have disabled their comment sections
entirely. Scott Montgomery, managing editor of NPR digital news in 2016, stated the comment sections were not
“providing a useful experience for the vast majority of users” (Montgomery, 2016, p. 1). Banning comment sections
altogether may be the most practical solutions for news outlets that have neither the time nor the resources to monitor
and take down offensive posts. Other scholars suggest that journalists might engage with commenters within the
forum to steer the conversation back to quality discussion, such answering legitimate questions posed by users,
providing more information on a story, or encouraging and being supportive of quality, civil comments (Straud,
Curry, Scacco, & Muddiman, 2014).
Limitations
We have used a very narrow definition of anonymity in the present study, and thus our results may be
limited in external validity. Anonymity in other CMC studies has been defined as simply visual anonymity, where
“individuals communicate with each other without their physical appearances attached to their messages” (Morio
& Buchholz, 2009, p. 298). A hierarchy of anonymity has been proposed (Azechi, 2005), and tested in a variety of
contexts, including civility in online newspaper comments (Reader, 2012). Two of the source sites used in this study
could be considered more pseudo-anonymous than truly anonymous, given the users had opportunities to choose
their own handles, which could include identifying factors. There is also no true way to ensure those who
commented on the articles in the Cincinnati Enquirer or Toledo Blade had accurate and honest Facebook profiles.
These varying levels of anonymity – when the outlet permits it, pseudo-anonymous when the outlet requires an
account and/or name be created, and identifiable when the outlet requires an existing social media profile be linked
– should be tested experimentally in the future, or, conversations with the platform administrators to determine to
what extent anonymity is accurate.
The entanglement of civility and politeness should not be understated. Civility can offer a means to enable
deliberative, constructive conversations on topics, that elicit passion and mobilization. Deliberate debate is
necessary for a “well-functioning democracy,” without which can “lead to apathy and disaffection with political
participation” (Mouffe, 2000, p. 104). Civility is often studied as a discursive activity (Santana, 2014) whereas
131 Dillon et. al / Anonymity, politeness, and civility online
politeness is a communication strategy to save face of either speaker or receiver (Chen, 2015). Political issues have
been found to be tied to some individuals’ sense of self (Walsh, 2004), and thus face threat impoliteness can strike
at the very core of a person. The content analyzed in the present study was discursive in nature, insofar as individuals
were leaving commentary either to an article or in response to another’s comments. From the content alone,
however, it is difficult to determine if saving face from perceived threats were motivations behind comments made.
Impoliteness in a comment that is responding to a negative face threat would be expected according to politeness
theory (Brett et al., 2007). In fact, others have found resolution of impolite or uncivil communication online is
unlikely if a user’s sense of face is challenged (Brett et al., 2007).
We were faced with certain challenges when choosing our non-political AP story. Our original story
regarding the Emmys, did not yield any comments. Our third choice of non-political story, Hurricane Sandy, yielded
highly politicized conversations due to the involvement of key campaign surrogates and government entities. The
choice of political topic may have had some influence in which civility and politeness indexes were significant:
other discussant vs. non-present others. Had we chosen a political story less centered around the performance of a
non-present others the comments may have been coded differently. Future research should attempt to validate the
findings obtained in this study by examining the nature of comments posted in reference to online news stories on
controversial political issues that do not necessarily have specific political scapegoats such as climate change, gun
control laws, or equal rights for gay men and lesbians.
Although we drew upon coding categories that were used in previous studies on impoliteness and incivility
in online comments (Papacharissi, 2004), we were unable to find the specific adjectives and nouns comprising each
of these coding categories. Consequently, we had to use our discretion to decide on the most appropriate coding
categories for words that appeared in the comments that we encountered. Also, we coded for the absence or
presence of specific words, and did not code for the tone of the entire comment. For instance, one commenter wrote,
“Well the FAILED ONE proved what he is all about and how is looking out for a special segment of the population.
Now you should understand. Thank me for educating you.” Using our coding schema, we coded that the commenter
was simply calling others names (for example, “failed one”). However, we did not deem the commenter to be
hurling aspersions because none of the individual words in those two sentences were derogatory. Future research
should examine the comment holistically.
Conclusions
News writers and editors, whether in the ‘traditional’ or ‘convergence’ camp, have perceived online
comments as a means of engaging and establishing a community (Meyer & Carey, 2014; Robinson, 2010). Scholars
have expressed hope that the anonymity of online platforms would bridge divides between various social classes of
people and enhance deliberative democracy (Barlow, 1996; Pavlik, 1994). The negative effects of allowing
incivility and impoliteness to take over newspaper forums has been a concern of journalists, editors, and readers
alike (Anderson et al., 2013; Coe et al., 2014). Some have found deliberative moderation and involvement by either
the reporter or the content provider can lead to a decreased likelihood of incivility and impoliteness (Stroud, Scacco,
Muddiman, & Curry, 2014), and offered plausible tips to decrease toxic communication without losing online
commentary’s deliberative properties (Stroud et al., 2014). However, the findings from this study seem to suggest
otherwise. Although anonymous online platforms generate higher levels of discourse than social media identified
platforms, such discourse also tends to be more impolite and uncivil than discourse on online platforms requiring a
social media profile. Thus, there seems to be a tradeoff between anonymity and discourse that is both civil and
polite. As such, newspaper websites that prize civil and polite discourse over the volume of discourse might want
to consider making users post comments using social media profile accounts.
Ohio Communication Journal / March 2018 132
References
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The “Nasty Effect:” Online
incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication,
19(3), 373-387. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009
Azechi S (2005) Information humidity model: explanation of dual modes of community for social intelligence
design. AI & Society, 19(1), 110–122. doi:10.1007/s00146-004-0304-3
Barlow, J. P. (1996). “Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace,” from
http://wac.colostate.edu/rhetnet/barlow/barlow_declaration.html
Bowman, J. S., & Knox, C. C. (2008). Ethics in government: no matter how long and dark the night. Public
Administration Review, 68, 625–637. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00903
Brett, J. M., Oleakalns, M., Friedman, R., Goates, N., Anderson, C., & Lisco, C. C. (2007). Sticks and stones:
Language, face, and online dispute resolution. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 85-99.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24161853
Brost, L. F. (2013). Editors have mixed feelings on user-generated content. Newspaper Research Journal, 34(3),
101. doi:10.1177/073953291303400308
Brusco, J. M. (2011). Know your netiquette. AORN, 94(3), 279-286.
Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Chen, G. M., & Ng, Y. M. M. (2017). Nasty online comments anger you more than me, but nice ones make me as
happy as you. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 181-188. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.010
Chen, G. M. (2015). Losing face on social media: Threats to positive face lead to an indirect effect on retaliatory
aggression through negative affect. Communication Research, 42(6), 819-838.
doi:10.1177/0093650213510937
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in
newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658-679. doi:10.1111/JCOM.12104
Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L.
Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 420-443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
DeAndrea, D. C., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Attributions for inconsistencies between online and offline self-
presentations. Communication Research, 38, 805-825. doi:10.1177/0093650210385340
Diakopoulos, N., & Naaman, M. (2011, March). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In
Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 133-142). ACM.
Dillard, J. P., Wilson, S. R., Tusing, K. J., & Kinney, T. A. (1997). Politeness judgments in personal relationships.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 297–325. doi:10.1177/0261927X970163003
Dutton, W. H. (1996). Network rules of order: Regulating speech in public electronic fora. Media, Culture &
Society, 18, 269-290. doi:10.1177/0261927X970163003
Exner, R. (2016, November 24). “Democratic presidential candidates do best in Cuyahoga County; Putnam leads
for Republicans: Statistical Snapshot, Cleveland Plain Dealer. Retrieved from www.cleveland.com.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspective on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–236. doi:10.1016/0378-
2166(90)90081-N
Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 27, 93–109. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93
Garnham, N. (1992). The media and the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp.
359-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goffman, E. (1971). Interaction ritual. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2012). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of
Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159-1168.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008
Hargittai, E., Gallo, J., & Kane, M. (2008). Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal
bloggers. Public Choice, 134, 67-86. doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9201-x
133 Dillon et. al / Anonymity, politeness, and civility online
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorf, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data.
Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89. doi:10.1080/19312450709336664
Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Hlavach, L., & Freivogel, W. H. (2011). Ethical implications of anonymous comments posted to online news
stories. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 26, 21-37. doi:10.1080/08900523.2011.525190
Holtgraves, T. (1997). Yes, but . . . positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 16, 222–239. doi:10.1177/0261927X970162006
Jamieson, K. H., & Falk E. (1999). Civility in the House of Representatives: The 105th Congress. The Annenberg
Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/105thCongressCivil/
REP26.pdf
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000). Civil political discourse in a democracy: The contribution of
psychology. Journal of Peace Psychology, 6, 291-317. doi:10.1207/S15327949PAC0604_01
Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction
spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194-210.
Lacy, S., & Riffe, D. (1996). Sampling error and selecting intercoder reliability samples for nominal content
categories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 963-973.
doi:10.1177/107769909607300414
Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity
processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526-537.
doi:10.1177/0146167201275002
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition. Minneapolis, MN: UMN Press.
Marx, G. T. (1999). What's in a Name? Some Reflections on the Sociology of Anonymity. Information Society,
15, 99-112. doi:10.1080/019722499128565
McDevitt, M., Kiousis, S., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2003). Spiral of moderation: Opinion expression in computer-
mediated discussion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 454-470.
doi:10.1093/ijpor/15.4.454
Meyer, H. K., & Carey, M. C. (2014). In Moderation: Examining how journalists' attitudes toward online
comments affect the creation of community. Journalism Practice, 8(2), 213-228.
doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.859838.
Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., & Shearer, E. (2016). The Modern News Consumer: News attitudes and
practices in the digital era. From Pew Research Center’s Journalism & Media. Retrieved from
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/
Montgomery, Scott. (2016, August 17). Beyond Comments: Finding Better Ways to Connect with You. National
Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2016/08/17/490208179/beyond-
comments-finding-better-ways-to-connect-with-you
Morio, H., & Buchholz, C. (2009). How anonymous are you online? Examining online social behaviors from a
cross-cultural perspective. AI & Society, 23(2), 297-307. doi:10.1007/s00146-007-0143-0
Mouffe, C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. London, UK: Verso.
Ng, E. W. J., & Detenber, B. H. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on
perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00252.x
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media and Society, 4, 9-27.
doi:10.1177/14614440222226244
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political
discussion groups. New Media and Society, 6, 259-283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political
discussion groups. New Media and Society, 6, 259-284. doi: 10.1177/1461444804041444
Ohio Communication Journal / March 2018 134
Pavlik, J. V. (1994). Citizen access, involvement, and freedom of expression in an electronic environment. In F.
Williams and J. V. Pavlik (Eds.), The people’s right to know: Media, democracy, & the information
highway (pp. 139–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deinviduation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychology
Bulletin, 123, 238-259. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breeching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-
mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715. doi:10.1177/009365098025006006
Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2018). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on
perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies, 19(1), 62-78. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497
Reader, B. (2012). Free press vs. free speech? The rhetoric of “civility” in regard to anonymous online
comments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(3), 495-513.
doi:10.1177/1077699012447923
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena.
European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161-198. doi:10.1080/14792779443000049
Richardson, J. F. (2017). “Politics” in the online version of the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History/Dictionary of
Cleveland Biography. Retrieved from https://case.edu/ech/articles/p/politics/
Robinson, S. (2010) Traditionalists vs. convergers: Textual privilege, boundary work, and the journalist –
Audience relationship in the commenting policies of online newsites, Convergence: The International
Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(1): 125–143. doi:10.1177/1354856509347719.
Rösner, L., Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on
aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461-470.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.022
Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion.
Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121-138. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365
Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18-33.
doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,
14, 1–13. doi:10.1080/15295039709367020
Shils, E. (1992). Civility and civil society. In E. C. Banfield (Ed.), Civility and citizenship (pp. 1–16). New York,
NY: PWPA (Professors World Peace Academy).
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated
communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(2), 157-187.
doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90050-6
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer-mediated
communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 30-65). New
York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research, 21, 427-459. doi:10.1177/009365094021004001
Stroud, N., Curry, A., Scacco, J., & Muddiman, A. (2014). Journalist involvement in comment sections. Engaging
News Project. Retrieved from: http://engagingnewsproject.org/research/journalist-involvement/
Stroud, N., Scacco, J., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. (2014). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations'
Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188-203. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104
Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2006). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions,
and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication
Research, 28, 317-348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x
Tsagkias, M., Weerkamp, W., & De Rijke, M. (2009, November). Predicting the volume of comments on online
news stories. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management
(pp. 1765-1768). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Walsh, K. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
135 Dillon et. al / Anonymity, politeness, and civility online
Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective.
Communication Research, 19, 52-90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003
Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In M. L. Knapp
& J. A. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 443–479). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wrench, J. S., Thomas-Maddox, C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. (2013). Quantitative research methods
for communication: A hands-on approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Copyright of Ohio Communication Journal is the property of Ohio Communication Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
