Meaner on Mobile: Incivility and Impoliteness in Communicating Contentious Politics on Sociotechnical Networks

Groshek, Jacob; Cutino, Chelsea

doi:10.1177/2056305116677137

Cited by 40 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…vote choice," and that the immediate effect was especially strong during the 2012 Senate debate. Additional research has suggested that different social media platforms may facilitate more uncivil behavior, particularly on mobile devices (Hmielowski, Hutchens, & Cicchirillo, 2014;Groshek & Cutino, 2016) and may reduce politeness (Halpern & Gibbs, 2013) or the willingness to open to others (Colleoni, Rozza, & Arvidsson, 2014).…”

Section: Active Passive and Uncivil Social Media Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign

Groshek

Koc-Michalska

2017

Information, Communication & Society

Self Cite

192

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceUndoubtedly, populist political candidates from the right and the left, including Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, changed the tenor and direction of the 2016 presidential contest in the US. Much like Barack Obama’s electoral successes that were credited at least in part to his savvy social media campaigning in 2008 and 2012, since Trump’s victory, the notion that social media ‘helped him win’ has been revitalized, even by Trump himself [McCormick, R. (2016a). Donald Trump says Facebook and Twitter ‘helped him win’.The Verge. Retrieved fromhttp://www.theverge.com/2016/11/13/13619148/trump-facebook-twitter-helped-win]. This study therefore explores citizen support for populist and establishment candidates across the ideological spectrum in the US to specifically examine if using social media was related to an increased likelihood of supporting populist presidential political candidates, including Trump. Differing forms of active, passive, and uncivil social media were taken into account and the findings suggest active social media use for politics was actually related to less support for Republican populists, such as Trump, but that forms of both passive or uncivil social media use were linked to an increase in the likelihood of support to a level roughly equivalent to that of the traditional television viewing. These patterns are almost the inverse of support for Democratic populists, in this case namely Sanders

show abstract

Section: Active Passive and Uncivil Social Media Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign

Groshek

Koc-Michalska

2017

Information, Communication & Society

Self Cite

192

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each setting allows us to see a different perspective on identity" (p. 325). Groshek and Cutino (2016) extended Suler's original framework using hashtags of three controversial issues on Twitter to show that communication shared on the hashtags is often more uncivil and impolite than other forms of Internet communication. Moreover, in their roundtable conversation on hate speech online, Shepherd, Harvey, Jordan, Srauy, and Miltner (2015) discussed the hashtag infrastructure.…”

Section: Affordancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Communicative Constitution of Hate Organizations Online: A Semantic Network Analysis of “Make America Great Again”

Eddington

2018

Social Media + Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media has changed the nature of political organization, discourse, and engagement. From likes, retweets, shares, and memes, everyday users have an amplified voice in the online, public-political sphere. Since 2004 with Howard Dean's attempt to gain momentum for the Democratic candidacy and even more evident in the 2008 elections and the advent of Twitter and YouTube, the emergence of online political campaigns, political theatrics, and political discourse are everyday occurrences (Highfield, 2016). Due in part to the access afforded by social media, individual supporters have new ways to engage with, voice concern for, and even criticize political leaders (Garimella, Weber, & De Choudhury, 2016). With everyday individuals being able to take part in the political process, scholars have directed efforts toward social media to understand the changing research landscape (for a review and study of online information sources, see Nikolav, Oliveira, Flammini, & Menczer, 2015). Some have explored the nature of political candidates' social media campaigns and web presence to find that certain candidates are lightning rods of support and criticism (DiGrazia, McKelvey, Bollen, & Rojas, 2013). Although U.S. Presidential campaigns have long been sources of fierce conversation and polarizing discourse, the 2016 campaign has been characterized by veteran journalist, Dan Rather, in the following way: This has been sort of a dumpster fire of an election campaign, in which both sides, and I'm not giving false equivalency here, one side more than the other-racism, chauvinism, some jingoism, 790763S MSXXX10.

show abstract

“…The dissemination of information regarding progress in health-related fields such as genetics has grown considerably due to the ease of access to online information. However, the process of translation frequently involves simplifying or exaggerating information so as to capture attention [51, 52]. Without the requisite nuance in explanation and understanding, this information is easily misinterpreted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential use of clinical polygenic risk scores in psychiatry – ethical implications and communicating high polygenic risk

Palk

Dalvie

Vries

et al. 2019

Philos Ethics Humanit Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychiatric disorders present distinct clinical challenges which are partly attributable to their multifactorial aetiology and the absence of laboratory tests that can be used to confirm diagnosis or predict risk. Psychiatric disorders are highly heritable, but also polygenic, with genetic risk conferred by interactions between thousands of variants of small effect that can be summarized in a polygenic risk score. We discuss four areas in which the use of polygenic risk scores in psychiatric research and clinical contexts could have ethical implications. First, there is concern that clinical use of polygenic risk scores may exacerbate existing health inequities. Second, research findings regarding polygenic risk could be misinterpreted in stigmatising or discriminatory ways. Third, there are concerns associated with testing minors as well as eugenics concerns elicited by prenatal polygenic risk testing. Fourth, potential challenges that could arise with the feedback and interpretation of high polygenic risk for a psychiatric disorder would require consideration. While there would be extensive overlap with the challenges of feeding back genetic findings in general, the potential clinical use of polygenic risk scoring warrants discussion in its own right, given the recency of this possibility. To this end, we discuss how lay interpretations of risk and genetic information could intersect. Consideration of these factors would be necessary for ensuring effective and constructive communication and interpretation of polygenic risk information which, in turn, could have implications for the uptake of any therapeutic recommendations. Recent advances in polygenic risk scoring have major implications for its clinical potential, however, care should be taken to ensure that communication of polygenic risk does not feed into problematic assumptions regarding mental disorders or support reductive interpretations.

show abstract

Meaner on Mobile: Incivility and Impoliteness in Communicating Contentious Politics on Sociotechnical Networks

Cited by 40 publications

References 48 publications

Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign

Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign

The Communicative Constitution of Hate Organizations Online: A Semantic Network Analysis of “Make America Great Again”

Potential use of clinical polygenic risk scores in psychiatry – ethical implications and communicating high polygenic risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About