Incivility (Hate Speech/Incivility)

The variable incivility is an indicator used to describe violations of communication norms. These norms can be social established within a society, culture or parts society (e.g. class, milieu group) democratic society. In this sense associated with behaviors that threaten collective face deny people their personal freedoms, and stereotype individuals groups. Furthermore, some scholars include impoliteness into the concept argue two concepts have no clear boundaries Seely, 2017). They therefore as aggressive, offensive derogatory expressed directly indirectly other parties. many studies message classified uncivil if contains at least one instance violent threat). direction statement coded ‘interpersonal’/‘personal’ ‘other-oriented’/‘impersonal’ sometimes also ‘neutral’, meaning it not directed any group individual. Field application/theoretical foundation: One unifying element labelled has violation existing norm. Which are seen violated depends on theoretical tradition. Incivility research related theories conversation: conversational-maxims (Grice, 1975), face-saving (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1989) conversational-contract (Fraser, 1990). Further, ties view public part opinion formation decision-making processes, e.g. deliberative democracy deliberation (Dryzek, 2000; Gutmann Thompson, 1996; Habermas, 1994). References/combination methods data collection: examined through content analysis combined comparative designs (e.g., Rowe, 2015) experimental (Muddiman, 2017; Oz, Zheng, Chen, addition, analyses accompanied by interviews surveys, for example validate results (Erjavec Kova?i?, 2012). Example studies: Research question/research interest: Previous been interested in extent, levels online specific discussion, discussions topic, platform different platforms comparatively). Object analysis: investigated user comments political newsgroups, news websites, media Twitter, Facebook), blogs, science blogs consultation platforms. Timeframe Many investigate focusing periods between 2 months 1 year. It common use constructed weeks. Level Most manual measure level message, comments. On higher analysis, whole discussion thread measured estimated. lower utterances, sentences words which preferred automated analyses. Table 1. measures study Construct Dimensions/Variables Explanation/example Reliability Papacharissi (2004) (separate from impoliteness) threat propose overthrow government force Ir = .89 association person using labels, whether those mild – “liberal”, more “faggot”)? .91 individuals’ rights freedom, freedom speak .86 Coe, Kenski, Rains (2014) (impoliteness included) name-calling mean-spirited disparaging K-? .67 aspersion idea, plan, policy, behavior .61 reference lying stating implying policy was disingenuous .73 vulgarity profanity language would considered proper “pissed”, “screw”) professional discourse pejorative speech remark about way communicates .74 / Rowe (2015) proposes revolution) advocates armed struggle opposition threatens violence against government) ? .66 individual restricting freedoms certain members asserts widely held but fixed oversimplified image idea particular type .80 .77 Seely (2017) incivility(impoliteness insulting name calling remarks often aspersions .84 “lazy f**kers”, “a**holes” stereotyping party/ideology “typical lefties” .88 “isms”/discriminatory “if we don’t get rid idiotic Muslim theologies, will growing problems” “GENERALS LIKE TO HAVE A MALE SOLDIER ON THEIR LAP AT ALL TIMES.” .78 sarcasm “betrayed again Repub leadership . what shock” .79 accusations shouting excessive capitalization and/or exclamation points .83 .81 Note: inter-coder reliability statistics; index Perreault Leigh (1989); Krippendorff’s-?; Cohen’s Kappa Codebook available under: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365 References Brown, P., S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. K., Rains, A. (2014). Online Uncivil? Patterns Determinants Newspaper Website Comments. Journal Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104 Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford theory. Oxford, New York: Erjavec, M. P. (2012). “You Don't Understand, This War! ” Analysis Hate Speech News Web Sites' Mass Communication Society, 15(6), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.619679 Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives politeness. Pragmatics, 14(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-n E. (1989). Interaction ritual: Essays face-to-face behavior. Pantheon Books. Grice, H. (1975). Logic conversation. Cole (Ed.), Syntax Semantics: acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Gutmann, A., D. F. (1996). Democracy disagreement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press Harvard (1994). Three Normative Models Democracy. Constellations, 1(1), 1–10. Muddiman, (2017). : Personal incivility. International 11, 3182–3202. M., G. Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, attributes. Media 20(9), 3400–3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516 Papacharissi, Z. (2004). online: Civility, politeness, potential 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444 I. (2015). Civility 2.0: discussion. Information, 18(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365 N. Virtual Vitriol: Comparative Within Political Discussion Forums. Electronic News, 12(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243117739060