Suchergebnisse

Danksagung -- Inhaltsverzeichnis -- Abbildungs- und Tabellenverzeichnis -- 1 Einleitung -- Teil I: Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation -- 2 Definitorische Einordnung -- 2.1 Unmittelbare Anschlusskommunikation -- 2.1.1 Inhaltliche Dimensionen -- 2.1.2 Prozessdimensionen -- 2.2 Öffentliche Online-Anschlusskommunikation -- 2.2.1 Definitionsrahmen -- 2.2.2 Erscheinungsformen -- 2.2.3 Öffentlichkeitsebenen -- 2.3 Nutzerkommentare -- 3 Vergleich der Strukturen und Funktionen -- 3.1 Strukturen -- 3.1.1 Unmittelbare Anschlusskommunikation -- 3.1.2 Nutzerkommentare -- 3.2 Funktionen

Marc Ziegele untersucht, was Nachrichten im Internet nicht nur lesenswert, sondern auch diskussionswert macht. Hierfür entwickelt der Autor auf Grundlage der Nachrichtenwerttheorie ein theoretisches Modell über die Motive von Internetnutzern, Nachrichten zu kommentieren und zeigt auf, warum sich bestimmte Kommentarinhalte bei bestimmten Meldungen häufen. Dieses Modell wird in drei qualitativen Untersuchungen empirisch fundiert und erweitert. Eine zentrale Erkenntnis der Arbeit ist, dass Nachrichtenfaktoren in journalistischen Meldungen - unter anderem Kontroverse, Erfahrbarkeit - und Diskussionsfaktoren in Kommentaren - unter anderem Aggressivität, lebensweltliche Erfahrungen - das Kommentierbedürfnis von späteren Nutzern in einem dynamischen Zusammenspiel beeinflussen und für unterschiedliche Diskussionsqualitäten verantwortlich sind. Der Inhalt • Theoretisches Modell des Diskussionswerts • Nachrichtenwert und Diskussionswert• Qualitative Studien: Diskussionswerte Nachrichten- und Kommentareigenschaften • Der Einfluss von Diskussionsarchitekturen und individuellen Nutzermerkmalen Die Zielgruppen • Dozierende und Studierende der Sozialwissenschaften, insbesondere der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Psychologie, Soziologie • Journalisten und Community-Manager Der Autor Marc Ziegele ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Institut für Publizistik der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Comment sections have become an integral part of digital journalism. They enable users to share their viewpoints and discuss news issues with others. From a deliberative perspective, there is controversy regarding the democratic benefits of comment sections. Though previous research analyzed causes and effects of uncivil and low-quality comments, it is not clear what makes users contribute deliberative and civil comments. The present study combines data from an online survey and a content analysis of the comments that the survey participants provided to investigate the relative importance of personality traits and situational states for commenting behavior. The findings show that the quality of user comments is both a matter of personality traits and situational states. Incivility was found to be triggered mainly by sadistic personality traits and specific article topics, whereas deliberative comments result from high levels of agreeableness, cognitive involvement, and from low levels of extraversion and positive affect.

AbstractMany websites of online retail stores display two forms of electronic word of mouth on a single product site, namely single customer reviews and aggregate review scores. This study compares the effects of simultaneously presented single customer reviews and aggregate review scores on product evaluations of visitors of online retail stores. We hypothesize that well‐argued single customer reviews should be more influential than aggregate review scores that display the mean rating of all published reviews of a product. Drawing on a 2 × 2 factorial online experiment, we show that a single customer review is effective, even when potential buyers do not perceive it as representing overall customer satisfaction. Effects of the aggregate review score are weaker and completely mediated by a potential buyer's estimate of overall customer satisfaction. Trust in product reviews as a credible source of product‐related communication moderates some of these effects. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Incivility in user comments on news websites has been discussed as a significant problem of online participation. Previous research suggests that news outlets should tackle this problem by interactively moderating uncivil postings and asking their authors to discuss more civilized. We argue that this kind of interactive comment moderation as well as different response styles to uncivil comments (i.e., factual vs. sarcastic) differently affect observers' evaluations of the discussion atmosphere, the credibility of the news outlet, the quality of its stories, and ultimately observers' willingness to participate in the discussions. Results from an online experiment show that factual responses to uncivil comments indirectly increase participation rates by suggesting a deliberative discussion atmosphere. In contrast, sarcastic responses indirectly deteriorate participation rates due to a decrease in the credibility of the news outlet and the quality of its stories. Sarcastic responses however increase the entertainment value of the discussions.

Deliberation theory posits that users' willingness to participate in online comment sections should increase if the discussions are more evidence-based. However, extant empirical research does not clearly support this assumption. The current study argues that social comparison processes and the metacognitive perception of knowledge mediate the relationship between evidence in comments and participation intention in different ways. Findings from two online experiments ( NStudy1 = 368; NStudy2 = 854) support this assumption: For three different topics, the results show that providing evidence in comments, as opposed to merely opinions, increases participants' perceived knowledge by increasing their factual knowledge. At the same time, evidence in comments decreases participants' perceived knowledge through social comparison with other commenters. Higher perceived knowledge is related to increased participation intention. In summary, the studies reveal psychological mechanisms that explain why high deliberative quality of online discussions does not necessarily stimulate further user participation.

User comments on news websites are a controversial element of online communication. Various studies have reported the negative effects of comments criticizing the related news articles on readers' attitudes toward the issues described in these articles. However, these findings are mostly based on measurements directly after the reception of comments. No research has investigated the long-term effects of comments on readers' article-related attitudes and compared them with the effects of cues emanating from the articles themselves. Therefore, this study transferred the sleeper effect in persuasion to news sites with comment sections. In a 2 × 2-experiment, the persuasiveness of an article was measured immediately after reception and after a delay of 2 weeks. Low/high source credibility and negative/positive user comments served as discounting/acceptance cues. Results suggest that user comments caused a relative sleeper effect of the article-induced persuasion; they affected the article's persuasiveness in the short term, but not in the long term.

Brands, celebrities, or politicians are increasingly facing enormous online outrages in response to moral misconducts. These online firestorms are characterized by high message volume, indignant tonality, and negative opinion climate. Based on the concept of moral panics, this article analyzes why people join online firestorms. We argue that participation behavior is driven by a moral compass and a desire for social recognition. Results of an experiment and a content analysis of user comments show that a higher number of participants decreases users' willingness to participate but fosters compliance with the prevalent opinion and tonality of the comments. We also observe that a higher moral arousal of the issue increases perceived similarity with previous participants, which in turn affects whether and how people participate. In total, our results indicate the importance of social context for participation behavior in an online firestorm.

ZusammenfassungUnzivile Online-Diskussionen können Einstellungen zu gesellschaftlichen Streitfragen polarisieren, prosoziales Verhalten gegenüber bestimmten Gruppen reduzieren und potenzielle Teilnehmende von einer aktiven Beteiligung abschrecken. Um das Diskussionsklima zu verbessern und die dysfunktionalen Konsequenzen von unzivilen Online-Diskussionen zu reduzieren, werden neben der Intervention professioneller Community-Manager immer wieder die Potenziale zivilcouragierten Engagements durch die Nutzer*innen selbst diskutiert.Die vorliegende Studie untersucht, welche Faktoren hemmend oder begünstigend auf verschiedene Formen der Intervention von Nutzer*innen gegen Inzivilität in Online-Diskussionen wirken. Anhand einer Befragung von 575 Mitgliedern der Gruppe #ichbinhier prüfen wir den Einfluss verschiedener interventionshemmender und -begünstigenden Faktoren, die wir aus der Forschung zum Bystander-Verhalten ableiten, auf die Bereitschaft, sich mittels eigener Kommentare ("tippen") oder durch die Bewertung bereits vorhandener Kommentare ("klicken") einzubringen.Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die politische Facebook-Nutzung, das Gefühl persönlicher Verantwortung sowie die Erwartung einer Verbesserung des Diskussionsklimas die generelle Interventionsbereitschaft ("klicken" und "tippen") in der untersuchten Gruppe begünstigen. Die eigene schriftsprachliche Kompetenz sowie die Erwartung sozialer Anerkennung spielen lediglich für die Intervention mittels eigener Kommentare eine Rolle; das Bewerten vorhandener Kommentare bleibt davon unberührt. Click-Speech erscheint demnach als eine alternative und weniger voraussetzungsvolle Interventionsform im Vergleich zur Intervention mittels Kommentaren.

Unzivile Online-Diskussionen können Einstellungen zu gesellschaftlichen Streitfragen polarisieren, prosoziales Verhalten gegenüber bestimmten Gruppen reduzieren und potenzielle Teilnehmende von einer aktiven Beteiligung abschrecken. Um das Diskussionsklima zu verbessern und die dysfunktionalen Konsequenzen von unzivilen Online-Diskussionen zu reduzieren, werden neben der Intervention professioneller Community-Manager immer wieder die Potenziale zivilcouragierten Engagements durch die Nutzer*innen selbst diskutiert. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht, welche Faktoren hemmend oder begünstigend auf verschiedene Formen der Intervention von Nutzer*innen gegen Inzivilität in Online-Diskussionen wirken. Anhand einer Befragung von 575 Mitgliedern der Gruppe #ichbinhier prüfen wir den Einfluss verschiedener interventionshemmender und -begünstigenden Faktoren, die wir aus der Forschung zum Bystander-Verhalten ableiten, auf die Bereitschaft, sich mittels eigener Kommentare ("tippen") oder durch die Bewertung bereits vorhandener Kommentare ("klicken") einzubringen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die politische Facebook-Nutzung, das Gefühl persönlicher Verantwortung sowie die Erwartung einer Verbesserung des Diskussionsklimas die generelle Interventionsbereitschaft ("klicken" und "tippen") in der untersuchten Gruppe begünstigen. Die eigene schriftsprachliche Kompetenz sowie die Erwartung sozialer Anerkennung spielen lediglich für die Intervention mittels eigener Kommentare eine Rolle; das Bewerten vorhandener Kommentare bleibt davon unberührt. Click-Speech erscheint demnach als eine alternative und weniger voraussetzungsvolle Interventionsform im Vergleich zur Intervention mittels Kommentaren. ; Uncivil online discussions can polarize attitudes to social issues, reduce pro-social behavior towards certain groups, and deter potential participants from active participation. Besides the intervention of professional community managers, the potential of civic engagement by users themselves is repeatedly discussed as a possible way to improve the discussion climate and reduce the dysfunctional consequences of uncivil online discussions. The present study examines which factors inhibit or encourage the various forms of engagement of users against incivility in online discussions. In a survey of 575 members of the group #ichbinhier (#iamhere) we examine the influence of various factors – derived from research on bystander behavior – that inhibit or encourage the willingness to intervene in uncivil online discussions with own comments ("typing") or by evaluating existing comments ("clicking"). The results show that political Facebook usage, the feeling of personal responsibility, and the expectation of an improved discussion climate are positively related to the willingness to intervene ("click" and "type") in the studied sample. The own written language competence as well as the expectation of social recognition only play a role for the intervention by means of own comments; the evaluation of existing comments remains unaffected. Click-speech thus appears as an alternative and less demanding form of intervention compared to the intervention via comments.

Journalists, scholars, and citizens have raised concerns regarding the high share of incivility in comment sections of news outlets. The current study surveyed members of the social movement #ichbinhier, which aims at collectively countering uncivil comments to cultivate a civil discussion atmosphere in comment sections. We root the activities of #ichbinhier as corrective action and identify the determinants of the members' engagement by integrating research on bystander behavior and collective action. The findings of our survey show that factors pertaining to individual skills, perceived responsibility, and expected benefits relate to the members' likelihood to engage against uncivil online comments. Regarding factors derived from collective action research, group efficacy and knowledge of the rules and structures of the movement account for higher levels of engagement. These results shed light on the factors that motivate and inhibit #ichbinhier members—and, potentially, Facebook users in general—to engage against uncivil comments.

Previous research suggests that distinct characteristics of news articles, such as their news factors, account for the different participation rates in comment sections as well as the degree of interactivity among the discussants. In this study, this assumption is tested in the Facebook environment and extended to the analysis of how news factors (i.e., event characteristics) and illustration factors (i.e., characteristics resulting from a specific journalistic editing) of news articles predict the inclusiveness of discussions, as well as the occurrence of civility, rationality, and deliberative interactivity in user comments. A content analysis of 619 news articles and 11,218 related user comments on nine nation-wide Facebook news pages reveals that the news factors controversy, latent conflict, contravention, obtrusiveness, and impact particularly account for specific discussion qualities. The results also show that the illustration factors emotional language/ visualizations, slant, and conversational prompts affect the deliberative quality of the discussions.

This study investigates how exposure to different news sources, propensity to vote (PTV) for a party and demographics are related to belief in conspiracy theories drawing on three repeated cross-sectional surveys in Germany 2017–2019. Results show that frequent exposure to alternative news sites and video-sharing platforms increased conspiratorial beliefs. Frequency of exposure to the quality press, public service TV news, and news aggregators diminished beliefs in conspiracy theories. Exposure to TV news, legacy media online, tabloids, social media, and user comments was unrelated to such beliefs. PTV for far left and right parties increased conspiratorial beliefs, moderate party preference reduced them.