Making sense of user comments: Identifying journalists’ requirements for a comment analysis framework

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Bibliographische Infos

Cover der Ausgabe: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Jahrgang 6 (2017), Heft 4
Open Access Vollzugriff

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Jahrgang 6 (2017), Heft 4

Autor:innen:
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyrightjahr
2017
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Kapitelinformationen

Open Access Vollzugriff

Jahrgang 6 (2017), Heft 4

Making sense of user comments: Identifying journalists’ requirements for a comment analysis framework

Autor:innen:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Kapitelvorschau:

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Baden, C., & Springer, N. (2014). Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. European Journal of Communication, 29(5), 529–548. doi:10.1177/ 0267323114538724 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  2. Bergström, A. (2008). The Reluctant Audience: Online Participation in the Swedish Journalistic Context. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 5, 60–79. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  3. Bergström, A., & Wadbring, I. (2014). Beneficial yet crappy: Journalists and audiences on obstacles and opportunities in reader comments. European Journal of Communication, 30(2), 137–151. doi:10.1177/0267323114559378 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  4. Blom, R., Carpenter, S., Bowe, B. J., & Lange, R. (2014). Frequent contributors within U.S. newspaper comment forums: An examination of their civility and information value. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(10), 1314–1328. doi:10.1177/0002764214527094 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  5. Boczkowski, P. J., & Mitchelstein, E. (2012). How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on online news sites: Clicking, E-mailing, and commenting. Human Communication Research, 38, 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01418.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  6. Borah, P. (2014). Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research, 41(6), 809– 827. doi:10.1177/0093650212449353 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  7. Bowman, S., & Willis, C. (2003). We media. How audiences are shaping the future of news and information. Retrieved from http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_ media.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  8. Chen, G.M., Pain, P., Chen, V.Y., Mekelburg, M., Springer, N., & Troger, F. (forthcoming). “You really have to have a thick skin.” A cross cultural perspective on how online harassment influences female journalists. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  9. Cheung, C. M., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 461–470. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  10. 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 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  11. Diakopoulos, N. A., & Naaman, M. (2011). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In CSCW ‘11 Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 133–142). New York: ACM. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  12. Domingo, D. (2008). Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: dealing with an uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 680–704. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  13. Edström, M. (2016). The trolls disappear in the light: Swedish experience of sexualized hate speech in the aftermath of Behring Breivik. International Journal for Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, 5(2), 96–106. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  14. Esau, K., Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2017). Design matters! An empirical analysis of online deliberation on different news platforms. Policy & Internet, 9(3), 321–342. doi:10.1002/ poi3.154 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  15. Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–1190. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  16. Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  17. Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M, Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016, 12 April) The dark side of Guardian comments. TheGuardian.com. Retrieved from https:// www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  18. Garton Ash, T. (2016). Free speech: Ten principles for a connected world. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  19. Gervais, B. T. (2014). Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 167–185. doi:10.1080/19331681.2014.997416 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  20. Goode, L. (2009). Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society, 11, 1287–1305. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  21. Graham, T., & Wright, S. (2014). Discursive equality and everyday talk online: The impact of “superparticipants”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 625– 642. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12016 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  22. Graham, T., & Wright, S. (2015). A tale of two stories from “below the line”. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(3), 317–338. doi:10.1177/1940161215581926 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  23. Hall, S. (2006). Encoding/decoding. In M. G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies (S. 163–173). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  24. Heinbach, D., Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2017). Sleeper effect from below. Long-term effects of source credibility and user comments on the persuasiveness of news articles. Presentation at the 67th annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), 25.–29. May 2017, San Diego, USA. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  25. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler Dwayne D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 38–52. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  26. Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  27. Hermida, A. (2011). Mechanisms of participation: How audience options shape the conversation. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, . . . M. Vujnovic (Eds.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 13–33). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  28. Hwang, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. (2016). Influence of discussion incivility on deliberation: An examination of the mediating role of moral indignation. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650215616861 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  29. Ksiazek, T. B. (2016). Commenting on the news. Journalism Studies, 1–24. doi:10.1080/14 61670X.2016.1209977 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  30. Lee, E.-J., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37, 825–846. doi:10.1177/0093650210376189 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  31. Löfgren Nilsson, M., & Örnebring, H. (2016). Journalism under threat: Intimidation and harassment of Swedish journalists. Journalism Practice, 10(7), 880–890. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  32. Manosevitch, E. & Walker, D. M. (2009). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX, April 17–18. Retrieved from https://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2009/papers/ManosevitchWalker09.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  33. Marchionni, D. (2014). Online story commenting. An experimental test of conversational journalism and trust. Journalism Practice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17 512786.2014.938943 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  34. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017. Retrieved from http://www.digitalnewsreport. org/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  35. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(6), 259–283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  36. Preuß, M., Tetzlaff, F., & Zick, A. (2017). “Publizieren wird zur Mutprobe”. Studie zur Wahrnehmung von und Erfahrungen mit Angriffen unter Journalist_Innen. [“Publishing is becoming a test of courage”. A study on perceptions and experiences concerning aggression among journalists]. Retrieved from https://mediendienst-integration.de/file-admin/Dateien/Studie-hatespeech.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  37. Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2016). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies, 1–17. doi:10.1080/146 1670X.2016.1161497 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  38. Quiring, O., & Schweiger, W. (2008). Interactivity – a review of the concept and a framework for analysis. Communications – the European Journal of Communication Research, 33(2), 147–167. doi:10.1515/COMMUN.2008.009 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  39. Reich, Z. (2011). User comments: The transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, . . . M. Vujnovic (Eds.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 96– 117). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  40. Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539– 555. doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  41. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22, 463–487. doi:10.1177/1940161211415849 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  42. Santana, A. (2010). Conversation or cacophony: Newspapers reporters’ attitudes toward online reader comments. August 4, 2010. Annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Newspaper Division, Denver, CO Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  43. Schultz, T., Jackob, N., Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., & Schemer, C. (2017). Erosion des Vertrauens zwischen Medien und Publikum? [Erosion of trust between the media and audiences?]. Media Perspektiven, (5), 246–259. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  44. Singer, J. B. (2010). Quality control: Perceived effects of user-generated content on newsroom norms, values and routines. Journalism Practice, 4(2), 127–142. doi:10.1080/ 17512780903391979 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  45. Singer, J. B., Hermida, A., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T., . . . Vujnovic, M. (Eds.). (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  46. Soffer, O., & Gordoni, G. (2017). Opinion expression via user comments on news websites: analysis through the perspective of the spiral of silence. Information, Communication & Society, 0(0), 1–16. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1281991 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  47. Springer, N. (2014). Beschmutzte Öffentlichkeit? Warum Menschen die Kommentarfunktion auf Online-Nachrichtenseiten als öffentliche Toilettenwand benutzen, warum Besucher ihre Hinterlassenschaften trotzdem lesen, und wie die Wände im Anschluss aussehen. [Soiled publicity? Why people use comments on online news sites as public toilet walls, why users read them anyway, and how the walls are looking afterwards]. Berlin: LIT. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  48. Springer, N., Engelmann, I., & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 798–815. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.997268 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  49. Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  50. Stroud, N. J., van Duyn, E., & Peacock, C. (2016). News commenters and news comment readers. Retrieved from http://engagingnewsproject.org/enp_prod/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ENP-News-Commenters-and-Comment-Readers1.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  51. Thurman, N., Cornia, A., & Kunert, J. (2016). Journalists in the UK. Retrieved from https:// reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Journalistsin%20the%20UK.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  52. Toepfl, F., & Piwoni, E. (2015). Public spheres in interaction: comment sections of news websites as counterpublic spaces. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 465–488. doi:10.1111/ jcom.12156. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  53. Weaver, D. H., Zhu, J.-H., & Willnat, L. (1992). The bridging function of interpersonal communication in agenda-setting. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 856–867. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  54. Weber, P. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16(6), 941–957. doi:10.1177/1461444813495165 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  55. Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., Bronner, F., & de Ridder, J. A. (2011). “Highly Recommended!” The Content Characteristics and Perceived Usefulness of Online Consumer Reviews. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 19–38. doi:10.1111/ j.1083-6101.2011.01551.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  56. Winter, S. (2013). Lost in Information? Sozialpsychologische Aspekte der Selektion und Rezeption von journalistischen Online-Angeboten. [Lost in information? Socialpsychological aspects of selection and reception of journalism online.]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  57. Wright, S. (2012). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society, 14, 244–261. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  58. Wright, S., Graham, T. & Jackson, D. (2016). Third spaces and everyday political talk. In Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  59. A. Bruns, E. Skogerbø, C. Christensen, A-O Larsson & E. Gunn (Eds). Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics (pp. 74–88). London: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  60. Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation. Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten. [User comments as media-stimulated interpersonal communication. Theory and qualitative analysis of the discussion value of online news]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  61. Ziegele, M., & Jost, P. B. (2016). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research, 1–30. doi:10.1177/0093650216671854 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  62. Ziegele, M., Bickler, A., Schnauber, A., Johnen, M., Setzer, T., & Jakobs, I. (2013). Male, hale, comments? Factors influencing the activity of commenting users on online news websites. Studies in Communication | Media, 2(1), 110-114 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  63. Ziegele, M., Breiner, T., & Quiring, O. (2014). What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on mass media websites. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1111–1138. doi:10.1111/jcom.12123 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  64. Ziegele, M., Weber, M., Quiring, O., & Breiner, T. (2017). The dynamics of online news discussions: Effects of news articles and reader comments on users’ involvement, willingness to participate, and the civility of their contributions. Information, Communication & Society, 7, 1–17. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1324505 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  65. Ziegele, M., Weber, M., & Köhler, C. (forthcoming). Comment readers and writers in Germany. Results of a representative survey. Manuscript in preparation. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
  66. Alkadhi, R., Laţa, T., Guzman, E., & Bruegge, B. (2017). Rationale in development chat messages: an exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM 14th international conference on mining software repositories (MSR 2017) (pp. 436–446). Piscataway: IEEE Press. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSR.2017.43 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  67. Almgren, S. M., & Olsson, T. (2015). ‘Let’s get them involved’ ... to some extent: analyzing online news participation. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2056305115621934 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  68. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect:” online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.1111/jcc4.12009 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  69. Bergström, A., & Wadbring, I. (2015). Beneficial yet crappy: journalists and audiences on obstacles and opportunities in reader comments. European Journal of Communication, 30(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114559378 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  70. Binns, A. (2012). Don’t feed the trolls! Managing troublemakers in magazines’ online communities. Journalism Practice, 6(4), 547–562. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  71. 17512786.2011.648988 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  72. Boltuzic, F., & Šnajder, J. (2016). Fill the gap! Analyzing implicit premises between claims from online debates. In Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on argument mining (pp. 124–133). Stroudsburg: ACL. Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/ W16/W16-28.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  73. Braun, J., & Gillespie, T. (2011). Hosting the public discourse, hosting the public: When online news and social media converge. Journalism Practice, 5(4), 383–398. https://doi. org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2011.557560 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  74. Carreño, L. V. G., & Winbladh, K. (2013). Analysis of user comments: an approach for software requirements evolution. In Notkin, D., Cheng, B. H. C., Pohl, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2013) (pp. 582–591). Piscataway: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606604 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  75. Chen, G., & Pain, P. (2017). Normalizing online comments. Journalism Practice, 11(7), 876–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1205954 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  76. Chen, N., Lin, J., Hoi, S. C., Xiao, X., & Zhang, B. (2014). AR-miner: mining informative reviews for developers from mobile app marketplace. In Jalote, P., Briand, L., & van der Hoek, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2014) (pp. 767–778). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568263 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  77. Cision, & Canterbury Christ Church University. (2015). 2015 global social journalism study. Retrieved from http://cision-wp-files.s3.amazonaws.com/de/wp-content/ uploads/2015/09/Cision-SJS-2014-15-International.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  78. Collins, L., & Nerlich, B. (2015). Examining user comments for deliberative democracy: a corpus-driven analysis of the climate change debate online. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.981560 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  79. Davies, T., & Chandler, R. (2012). Online deliberation design: choices, criteria, and evidence. In T. Nabatchi, J. Gastil, M. Leighninger, & G. Weiksner (Eds.), Democracy in motion: evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement (pp. 103– 131). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  80. de-la-Peña-Sordo, J., Pastor-López, I., Santos, I., & Bringas, P. G. (2015). Using compression models for filtering troll comments. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 10th conference on industrial electronics and applications (ICIEA) (pp. 655–660). Piscataway: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIEA.2015.7334191 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  81. Diakopoulos, N. (2015a). Picking the NYT Picks: editorial criteria and automation in the curation of online news comments. #ISOJ, 5(1), 147–166. Retrieved from https://isoj-journal.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/picking-the-nyt-picks-editorial-criteria-and-automation-in-the-curation-of-online-news-comments/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  82. Diakopoulos, N. A. (2015b). The editor’s eye: curation and comment relevance on the new york times. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (CSCW ’15) (pp. 1153–1157). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675160 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  83. Diakopoulos, N., & Naaman, M. (2011). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’11) (pp. 133–142). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1958824.1958844 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  84. Diplaris, S., Papadopoulos, S., Kompatsiaris, I., Heise, N., Spangenberg, J., Newman, N., & Hacid, H. (2012). “Making sense of it all”: an attempt to aid journalists in analysing and filtering user generated content. In WWW 2012 companion. Proceedings of the 21st international conference on world wide web (pp. 1241–1246). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2187980.2188267 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  85. Eckle-Kohler, J., Kluge, R., & Gurevych, I. (2015). On the role of discourse markers for discriminating claims and premises in argumentative discourse. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP ’15) (pp. 2249–2255). Stroudsburg: ACL. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  86. Finkelstein, A., Harman, M., Jia, Y., Martin, W., Sarro, F., & Zhang, Y. (2014). App store analysis: mining app stores for relationships between customer, business and technical characteristics. (Research note RN/14/10). London: University College London, Department of Computer Science. Retrieved from http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/fileadmin/UCL-CS/research/RN_14_10.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  87. Graham, T., & Wright, S. (2015). A tale of two stories from ‘below the line’ comment fields at the guardian. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(3), 317–338. https://doi. org/10.1177/1940161215581926 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  88. Guzman, E., & Maalej, W. (2014). How do users like this feature? A fine grained sentiment analysis of app reviews. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE 2014) (pp. 153–162). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  89. Harman, M., Jia, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2012). App store mining and analysis: msr for app stores. In Gorschek, T., & Lutz, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th IEEE working conference on mining software repositories (MSR 2012) (pp. 108–111). Piscataway: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSR.2012.6224306 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  90. Heise, N., Loosen, W., Reimer, J., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2014a). Including the audience. Comparing the attitudes and expectations of journalists and users towards participation in German TV news journalism. Journalism Studies, 15(4), 411–430. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1461670X.2013.831232 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  91. Heise, N., Reimer, J., Loosen, W., Schmidt, J.-H., Heller, C., & Quader, A. (2014b). Publikumsinklusion bei der Süddeutschen Zeitung. Fallstudienbericht aus dem DFG-Projekt “Die (Wieder-)Entdeckung des Publikums” [Audience inclusion at the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Case study report from the DFG-funded project “(Re-)Discovering the Audience”] (Hans Bredow Institute working papers no. 31). Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung an der Universität Hamburg. Retrieved from http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/webfm_send/1050 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  92. Hoon, L., Vasa, R., Schneider, J. G., & Grundy, J. (2013) An analysis of the mobile app review landscape: Trends and implications. Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  93. Houston, J. B., Hansen, G. J., & Nisbett, G. S. (2011). Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News, 5(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243111407618 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  94. Kramp, L., & Loosen, W. (2018). The transformation of journalism: from changing newsroom cultures to a new communicative orientation? In A. Hepp, A. Breiter, & U. Hasebrink (Eds.), Communicative figurations: transforming communications in times of deep mediatization (pp. 205–239). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  95. Ksiazek, T. B. (2016). Commenting on the news. Explaining the degree and quality of user comments on news websites. Journalism Studies, online first. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1461670X.2016.1209977 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  96. Ksiazek, T. B., Peer, L., & Zivic, A. (2015). Discussing the news. Civility and hostility in user comments. Digital Journalism, 3(6), 850–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811. 2014.972079 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  97. Kurtanovic, Z., & Maalej, W. (2017). Mining user rationale from software reviews. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering (RE 2017) (pp. 61–70). Piscataway: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.86 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  98. Lewis, S. C. (2012). The tension between professional control and open participation: journalism and its boundaries. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 836–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.674150 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  99. Lewis, S. C., Holton, A. E., & Coddington, M. (2014). Reciprocal journalism: a concept of mutual exchange between journalists and audiences. Journalism Practice, 8(2), 229– 241. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.859840 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  100. Li, H., Zhang, L., Zhang, L., & Shen, J. (2010). A user satisfaction analysis approach for software evolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on progress in informatics and computing (PIC 2010) (pp. 1093–1097). Piscataway: IEEE. https://doi. org/10.1109/PIC.2010.5687999 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  101. Loke, J. (2012). Old turf, new neighbors: journalists’ perspectives on their new shared space. Journalism Practice, 6(2), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2011.61 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  102. 6649 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  103. Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2012). (Re-)Discovering the audience. The relationship between journalism and audience in networked digital media. In: Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 867–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  104. 665467 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  105. Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2016). Multi-method approaches. In T. Witschge, C. W. Anderson, D. Domingo, & A. Hermida (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital journalism (pp. 562–575). London et al.: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  106. Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2017). Between proximity and distance: including the audience in journalism (research). In B. Franklin & S. Eldridge II (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital journalism studies (pp. 354–363). Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  107. Loosen, W., Schmidt, J.-H., Heise, N., & Reimer, J. (2013a). Publikumsinklusion bei einem ARD-Polittalk. Fallstudienbericht aus dem DFG-Projekt “Die (Wieder-)Entdeckung des Publikums” [Audience inclusion at an ARD political TV talk. Case study report from the DFG-funded project “(Re-)Discovering the Audience”] (Hans Bredow Institute working paper No. 28). Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung an der Universität Hamburg. Retrieved from http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/webfm_send/739 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  108. Loosen, W., Schmidt, J.-H., Heise, N., Reimer, J., & Scheler, M. (2013b). Publikumsinklusion bei der Tagesschau. Fallstudienbericht aus dem DFG-Projekt “Die (Wieder-)Entdeckung des Publikums” [Audience inclusion at the Tagesschau. Case study report from the DFG-funded project “(Re-)Discovering the Audience”] (Hans Bredow Institute working paper No. 26). Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung an der Universität Hamburg. Retrieved from http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/webfm_send/709 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  109. Maalej, W., Kurtanovic, Z., Nabil, H., & Stanik, C. (2016a). On the automatic classification of app reviews. Requirements Engineering, 21(3), 311–331. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00766-016-0251-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  110. Maalej, W., Nayebi, M., Johann, T., & Ruhe, G. (2016b). Toward data-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Software, 33(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2015.153 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  111. Maalej, W., & Pagano, D. (2011). On the socialness of software. In Proceedings of the IEEE ninth international conference on dependable, autonomic and secure computing (DASC 2011) (pp. 864–871). Piscataway: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2011.146 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  112. Mandya, A., Siddharthan, A., & Wyner, A. (2016). Scrutable feature sets for stance classification. In Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on argument mining (pp. 60–69). Stroudsburg: ACL. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W16/ W16-28.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  113. McCluskey, M., & Hmielowski, J. (2012). Opinion expression during social conflict: comparing online reader comments and letters to the editor. Journalism, 13(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911421696 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  114. McElroy, K. (2013). Where old (gatekeepers) meets new (media). Herding reader comments into print. Journalism Practice, 7(6), 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/1751278 6.2013.774117 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  115. Neuberger, C., Langenohl, S., & Nuernbergk, C. (2014). Social Media und Journalismus [Social media and journalism] (LfM Dokumentationen Band 50). Düsseldorf: Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen (LfM). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  116. Pagano, D., & Maalej, W. (2013). User feedback in the app store: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 21st IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE 2013) (pp. 125–134). Piscataway: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2013.6636712 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  117. Park, D., Sachar, S., Diakopoulos, N., & Elmqvist, N. (2016). Supporting comment moderators in identifying high quality online news comments. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’16) (pp. 1114–1125). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858389 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  118. Pantti, M. (2016). “Despicable, disgusting, repulsive!!!” Public emotions and moralities in online discussions about violence towards refugees. Javnost – The Public, 23(4), 363– 381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2016.1248099 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  119. Peacock, C., Scacco, J. M., & Stroud, N. J. (2017). The deliberative influence of comment section structure. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1464884917711791 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  120. Pohl, K. (2010). Requirements engineering: fundamentals, principles, and techniques. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  121. Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2016). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  122. Reich, Z. (2011). User comments: the transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  123. A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, Z. Reich, & M. Vujnovic (Eds.), Participatory journalism. Guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 96–117). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  124. Reimer, J., Heise, N., Loosen, W., Schmidt, J.-H., Klein, J., Attrodt, A., & Quader, A. (2015). Publikumsinklusion beim Freitag. Fallstudienbericht aus dem DFG-Projekt “Die (Wieder-)Entdeckung des Publikums” [Audience inclusion at Der Freitag. Case study report from the DFG-funded project “(Re-)Discovering the Audience”] (Hans Bredow Institute working papers no. 36). Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung an der Universität Hamburg. Retrieved from http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/webfm_send/1115 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  125. Reimer, J., Loosen, W., Heise, N., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2014). Erwartungen und Erwartungserwartungen an Publikumsbeteiligung bei der Tagesschau [Expectations and expected expectations towards audience participation at the Tagesschau]. In B. Stark, O. Quiring, & N. Jackob (Eds.), Von der Gutenberg-Galaxis zur Google-Galaxis. Alte und neue Grenzvermessungen nach 50 Jahren DGPuK [From the Gutenberg galaxy to the Google galaxy. Old and new boundary surveys after 50 years of DGPuK] (pp. 135– 150). Konstanz: UVK. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  126. Robinson, S. (2010). Traditionalists vs. convergers. Textual privilege, boundary work, and the journalist-audience relationship in the commenting policies of online news sites. Convergence, 16(1), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856509347719 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  127. Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539– 555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  128. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1940161211415849 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  129. Scharkow, M. (2013). Thematic content analysis using supervised machine learning: an empirical evaluation using German online news. Quality & Quantity, 47(2), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9545-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  130. Schmidt, J.-H., Loosen, W., Heise, N., & Reimer, J. (2013). Journalism and participatory practices – blurring or reinforcement of boundaries between journalism and audiences? Recherches en Communication, 39, 91–109. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  131. Schmidt, J.-H., & Loosen, W. (2015). Both sides of the story. Assessing audience participation in journalism through the concept of inclusion distance. Digital Journalism, 3(2), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.930243 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  132. Somasundaran, S., & Wiebe, J. (2010). Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 workshop on computational approaches to analysis and generation of emotion in text (CAAGET ‘10) (pp. 116–124). Stroudsburg: ACL. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  133. Sood, S. O., Churchill, E. F., & Antin, J. (2012) Automatic identification of personal insults on social news sites. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21690 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  134. von Sikorski, C. (2016). The effects of reader comments on the perception of personalized scandals: exploring the roles of comment valence and commenters’ social status. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4480–4501. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/ index.php/ijoc/article/view/5748 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  135. von Sikorski, C., & Hänelt, M. (2016). Scandal 2.0. How valenced reader comments affect recipients’ perception of scandalized individuals and the journalistic quality of online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016628822 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  136. Wiegers, K., & Beatty, J. (2013). Software requirements. New York: Pearson Education. Xiao, L., Stromer-Galley, J., & Sándor, Á. (2017). Toward the automated detection of indi- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  137. viduals’ rationales in large-scale online open participative activities: a conceptual framework. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(5), 891–910. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10726-016-9516-4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  138. Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [User comments as follow-up communication: theory and quantitative analysis of the discussion value of online news]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333
  139. Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Steiner, J. (2010). Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  140. Berg, J. (2015). The impact of anonymity and issue controversiality on the quality of online discussion. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 37–51. doi:10.10 80/19331681.2015.1131654 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  141. boyd, d. (2010). Social Network Sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self. Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  142. Cho, D., & Kwon, K. H. (2015). The impacts of identity verification and disclosure of social cues on flaming in online user comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 363–372. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.046 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  143. 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 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  144. D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  145. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 133–156. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x da Silva, M. T. (2013). Online forums, audience participation and modes of political discussion: readers’ comments on the Brazilian presidential election as a case study. Com- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  146. munication & Society, 26(4), 175–193. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  147. Dahlberg, L. (2000). The Internet and the public sphere: A critical analysis of the possibility of online discourse enhancing deliberative democracy. Ph. D. dissertation, Massey University. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  148. Dahlberg, L. (2001). The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615–633. doi:10.1080/13691180110097030 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  149. Diakopoulos, N., & Naaman, M. (2011). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In P. Hinds, J. C. Tang, J. Wang, J. Bardram, & N. Ducheneaut (Eds.), the ACM 2011 conference (p. 133). doi:10.1145/1958824.1958844 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  150. Eberl, J.-M., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Wagner, M. (2015). One bias fits all? Three types of media bias and their effects on party preferences. Communication Research, 1–24. doi:10.1177/0093650215614364 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  151. Eilders, C. (2008). Massenmedien als Produzenten öffentlicher Meinungen — Pressekommentare als Manifestation der politischen Akteursrolle [Mass media as producers of public opinion – press comments as manifestation of the role of political actors]. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Eds.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure. Konzepte und Analysen (pp. 27–51). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-90843-4_2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  152. Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  153. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (4th edition). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  154. Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–1190. doi:10.1177/1461444809357927 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  155. Freelon, D. G. (2015). Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion. New Media & Society, 17(5), 772–791. doi:10.1177/1461444813513259 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  156. Fretwurst, B. (2008). Nachrichten im Interesse der Zuschauer: Eine konzeptionelle und empirische Neubestimmung der Nachrichtenwerttheorie [News serving the interests of viewers: a conceptual and empirical redefinition of news value theory]. Konstanz: UVK. Retrieved from http://deposit.d-nb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?id=3116917&prov=M&-dok_var=1&dok_ext=htm Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  157. Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. doi:10.1002/poi3.95 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  158. Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016, April 12). The dark side of Guardian comments. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  159. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles: Sage Publ. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0808/2007025410-b.html Groeling, T. (2013). Media bias by the numbers: Challenges and opportunities in the em- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  160. pirical study of partisan news. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 129–151. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  161. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung [The theory of communicative action. Reason and the rationalization of society]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  162. Habermas, J. (1984). Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns [Pre-studies on and supplements to the theory of communicative action]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  163. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Communication, society, and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2003069684.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  164. Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). 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 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  165. Hayes, A. F. (2005). Statistical methods for communication science. Routledge Communication Series, 10. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  166. Heinonen, A. (2011). The journalist’s relationship with users. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  167. D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt,. . . M. Vujnovic (Eds.), Participatory Journalism (pp. 34–55). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444340747.ch3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  168. Hille, S., & Bakker, P. (2014). Engaging the social news user. Journalism Practice, 8(5), 563–572. doi:10.1080/17512786.2014.899758 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  169. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  170. Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40(S3), 317–335. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500115 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  171. Jensen, J. L. (2003). Public spheres on the internet: Anarchic or government-sponsored – a comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(4), 349–374. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2003.00093.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  172. Keyling, T., & Jünger, J. (2013). Facepager (Version, f.e. 3.3). An application for generic data retrieval through APIs. Source code available from https://github.com/strohne/ Facepager. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  173. Klinger, U., & Russmann, U. (2015). The sociodemographics of political public deliberation: Measuring deliberative quality in different user groups. Communications, 40(4). doi:10.1515/commun-2015-0017 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  174. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd edition). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  175. Ksiazek, T. B. (2015, May). Civil interactivity: Discouraging hostility in user comments on news websites. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association 65th Annual Conference, Puerto Rico, San Juan. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  176. Ksiazek, T. B. (2016). Commenting on the news. Journalism Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1209977 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  177. Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. M. (2009, April). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A Space of Public Deliberation. Paper prepared for presentation at the 10th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, Texas. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  178. Maurer, T., Vogelgesang, J., Weiβ, M., & Weiβ, H.-J. (2008). Aktive oder passive Berichterstatter? Die Rolle der Massenmedien während des Kosovo-, Afghanistan- und Irakkriegs [Active or passive reporting? The role of mass media during the Kosovo War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War]. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Eds.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure. Konzepte und Analysen (pp. 144–167). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-90843-4_7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  179. McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest. London: Sage. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/ fy0656/92050228-d.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  180. Neuberger, C., Langenohl, S., & Nuernbergk, C. (2014). Social Media und Journalismus. LfM-Dokumentation, Band 50 [Social media and journalism. LfM-Documentation, Vol. 50]. Düsseldorf. Retrieved from http://lfmpublikationen.lfm-nrw.de/modules/pdf_ download.php?products_id=360 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  181. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (Eds.). (2016). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016. Oxford University: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Digital%2520News%2520Report%25202016.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  182. Newman, N., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (Eds.). (2015). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2015. Oxford University: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Reuters%2520Institute%2520Digital%2520News%2520Report%25202015_ Full%2520Report.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  183. Peacock, C., Scacco, J. M., & Jomini Stroud, N. (2017). The deliberative influence of comment section structure. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 33(4), 146488491771179. doi:10.1177/1464884917711791 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  184. Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 381. doi:10.1086/209405 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  185. Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2016). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  186. Rojas, H. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(3), 343–363. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq018 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  187. Romano, A. R. (Ed.). (2010). International journalism and democracy: Civic engagement models from around the world. Routledge research in cultural and media studies: Vol. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  188. 25. New York NY u.a.: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  189. Rössler, P. (2010). Das Medium ist nicht die Botschaft [The medium is not the message]. In Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  190. M. Welker & C. Wünsch (Eds.), Neue Schriften zur Online-Forschung: Vol. 8. Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse. Forschungsobjekt Internet (pp. 31–43). Köln: Herbert von Halem. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  191. Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539– 555. doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  192. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Mico, J. L., Diaz-Noci, J., Masip, P., & Meso, K. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1940161211415849 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  193. Sampaio, R. C., & Barros, S. A. R. (2012). Can news-sites stimulate online deliberation? A study of readers’ comments posted on folha.com. Brazilian Journalism Research, 8(2), 188–205. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  194. Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33. doi:10.1080/ 17512786.2013.813194 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  195. Schönbach, K. (1977). Trennung von Nachricht und Meinung: Empirische Untersuchung eines journalistischen Qualitätskriteriums [The separation of news and opnion. Empirical investigation of a journalistic quality criterion]. Freiburg im Breisgau, München: Alber. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  196. Schultz, T., Jackob, N., Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., & Schemer, C. (2017). Erosion des Vertrauens zwischen Medien und Publikum? Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage [Erosion of trust between media and audience? Results of a representative study]. Media Perspektiven. (5), 246–272. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  197. Schweiger, W. (2014). Reader discussions on news websites and Facebook. How do platform characteristics influence deliberativeness? Paper presented to the 5th European Communication Conference (ECREA), Lisboa 2014. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  198. Schweiger, W. (2017). Der (des)informierte Bürger im Netz: Wie soziale Medien die Meinungsbildung verändern [The (dis-)informed citizen on the net. How social media affect the formation of opinion]. Wiesbaden: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-16058-6. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  199. Semaan, B. C., Robertson, S. P., Douglas, S., & Maruyama, M. (2014). Social media supporting political deliberation across multiple public spheres. In S. Fussell, W. Lutters, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  200. M. R. Morris, & M. Reddy (Eds.), the 17th ACM conference (pp. 1409–1421). doi:10.1145/2531602.2531605 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  201. Singer, J. B., & Ashman, I. (2009). “Comment is free, but facts are sacred”: User-generated content and ethical constructs at the Guardian. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24(1), 3–21. doi:10.1080/08900520802644345 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  202. Singer, J. B., Hermida, A., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T.,. . . Vujnovic, M. (Eds.). (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  203. Springer, N., Engelmann, I., & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 798–815. doi:1 0.1080/1369118X.2014.997268 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  204. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  205. Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  206. Stroud, N. J., van Duyn, E., Alizor, A., Alibhai, A., & Lang, C. (2016). Comment section survey across 20 news sites. Engaging News Project. Retrieved from https://engaging-newsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Comment-Section-Survey-Across-20-News-Sites.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  207. Stryker, R., Conway, B. A., & Danielson, J. T. (2016). What is political incivility? Communication Monographs, 83(4), 535–556. doi:10.1080/03637751.2016.1201207 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  208. Stryker, R., & Danielson, J. T. (2013). Deliberative democracy and civil discourse. Retrieved from http://nicd.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/research_briefs/NICD%20Research%20Brief%2010%20FINAL%20for%20web%20posting.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  209. Stryker, R., & Massaro, T. (2012). Freedom of speech, liberal democracy and emerging evidence on effective democratic engagement. Arizona Law Review, 54, 375–441. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  210. Toepfl, F., & Piwoni, E. (2015). Public spheres in interaction: Comment sections of news websites as counterpublic spaces. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 465–488. doi:10.1111/jcom.12156 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  211. Trost, K. E., & Schwarzer, B. (2012). Social Web auf Online-Portalen deutscher Zeitungen: Eine empirische Untersuchung des Nutzungsverhaltens [Social web on German newspapers’ web portals: An empirical investigation of user behaviour]. Baden-Baden: Nomos. doi:10.5771/9783845232942. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  212. Vujnovic, M. (2011). Participatory journalism in the marketplace. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt,. . . M. Vujnovic (Eds.), Participatory Journalism (pp. 139–154). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444340747.ch8 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  213. Weber, P. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16(6), 941–957. doi:10.1177/1461444813495165 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  214. Weber, P. (2012). Nachrichtenfaktoren & User Generated Content: Die Bedeutung von Nachrichtenfaktoren für Kommentierungen der politischen Berichterstattung auf Nachrichtenwebsites [News factors & user generated content. The importance of news Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  215. factors for commenting on political reporting on news websites]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 60(2), 218–239. doi:10.5771/1615-634x-2012-2-218 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  216. Wessler, H. (1999). Öffentlichkeit als Prozeß: Deutungsstrukturen und Deutungswandel in der deutschen Drogenberichterstattung [Public as a process. Interpretive frames and interpretive changes in the German reporting on drugs]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-663-10932-7. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  217. Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating deliberativeness comparatively. Political Communication, 25(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/10584600701807752 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  218. Wessler, H., & Rinke, E. M. (2016). Journalismus und Politik [Journalism and politics]. In Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  219. M. Löffelholz & L. Rothenberger (Eds.), Handbuch Journalismustheorien (pp. 639– 653). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-18966-6_39 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  220. Wessler, H., & Schultz, T. (2007). Can the mass media deliberate? Insights from print media and political talk shows. In R. Butsch (Ed.), Media and public spheres (pp. 15–27). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  221. Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869. doi:10.1177/1461444807081230 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  222. Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [User comments as media-stimulated communication. Theory and qualitative analysis of online news’ discussion value]. Wiesbaden: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  223. Ziegele, M., Breiner, T., & Quiring, O. (2015). Nutzerkommentare oder Nachrichteninhalte – Was stimuliert Anschlusskommunikation auf Nachrichtenportalen? [User comments or news content. What encourages users to comment on news websites?]. In O. Hahn, R. Hohlfeld, & T. Knieper (Eds.), Digitale Öffentlichkeit(en) (S. 249–266). Konstanz: UVK. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  224. Ziegele, M., & Jost, P. B. (2016). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650216671854 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-365
  225. Abbott, N., & Cameron, L. (2014). What makes a young assertive bystander? The effect of intergroup contact, empathy, cultural openness, and in-group bias on assertive bystander intervention intentions. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 167–182. doi:10.1111/ josi.12053 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  226. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). 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 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  227. Ballantine, P. W., Lin, Y., & Veer, E. (2015). The influence of user comments on perceptions of Facebook relationship status updates. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 50–55. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.055 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  228. Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2016). How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science, 354(6309), 217–222. doi:10.1126/science.aag2147 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  229. Baumeister, R. F., Chesner, S. P., Senders, P. S., & Tice, D. M. (1988). Who’s in charge here? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(1), 17–22. doi:10.1177/0146167288141002 Benson, T. W. (1996). Rhetoric, civility, and community: Political debate on computer bulletin Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  230. boards. Communication Quarterly, 44(3), 359–378. doi:10.1080/01463379609370023 Borah, P. (2014). Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivility Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  231. and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research, 41(6), 809– 827. doi:10.1177/0093650212449353 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  232. Brooks, D. J., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cam- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  233. bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  234. 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 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  235. Crawford, K., & Gillespie, T. (2016). What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society, 18(3), 410–428. doi:10.1177/ 1461444814543163 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  236. Downs, D. M., & Cowan, G. (2012). Predicting the importance of freedom of speech and the perceived harm of hate speech. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1353– 1375. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00902.x. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  237. Engelmann, I., & Marzinkowski, H. (2017, May). Most regularly used online news outlets (widest reach per country) and their platform characteristics. Presentation at the International Communication Association pre-conference “Comments, anyone? Multidisciplinary approaches for analyzing online user comments across news and other content formats”, May 25, 2017, San Diego, CA, USA. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  238. Eranti, V., & Lonkila, M. (2015). The social significance of the Facebook like button. First Monday, 20(6). doi:10.5210/fm.v20i6.5505 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  239. Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., . . . Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: a meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537. doi:10.1037/a0023304 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  240. Gervais, B. T. (2015). Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 167–185. doi:10.1080/19331681.2014.997416 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  241. Gibbs, J. L., Kim, H., & Ki, S. (2016). Investigating the role of control and support mechanisms in members’ sense of virtual community. Communication Research, advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650216644023 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  242. Goodman, E. (2013). Online comment moderation: emerging best practices. Retrieved from http://www.wan-ifra.org/reports/2013/10/04/online-comment-moderation-emerging-best-practices Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  243. Graham, T., & Witschge, T. (2003). In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions. Communications, 28(2), 173–204. doi:10.1515/comm.2003.012 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  244. Graham, T., & Wright, S. (2015). A tale of two stories from “below the line”. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(3), 317–338. doi:10.1177/1940161215581926 Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  245. category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: Polity. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  246. Hölig, S. & Hasebrink, U. (2015). Reuters digital news survey 2015. Retrieved from http:// www.hans-bredow-institut.de/webfm_send/1095 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  247. Hong, J., & Park, H. S. (2011). User ratings and willingness to express opinions online. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  248. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 3(2), 2–15. doi:10.5539/ijms.v3n2p2 Hwang, H., & Kim, Y. (2016). Influence of discussion incivility on deliberation: An exami- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  249. nation of the mediating role of moral indignation. Communication Research, advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650215616861 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  250. Ikeda, K., & Boase, J. (2011). Multiple discussion networks and their consequence for political participation. Communication Research, 38(5), 660–683. doi:10.1177/0093650210395063 Imhoff, R., & Recker, J. (2012). Differentiating Islamophobia: Introducing a new scale to measure Islamoprejudice and secular Islam critique. Political Psychology, 33(6), 811– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  251. 824. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00911. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  252. Jensen, E. (2016, August 17). NPR website to get rid of comments. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/08/17/489516952/npr-website-to-get-ridof-comments Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  253. Kenski, K., Coe, K., & Rains, S. A. (2017). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650217699933 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  254. Kim, N. (2016). Beyond rationality: The role of anger and information in deliberation. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  255. Communication Research, 43(1), 3–24. doi:10.1177/0093650213510943 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  256. Kühl, E. (2015). Melden, anzeigen, anprangern [Flagging, reporting, denouncing]. ZEIT Online. Retrieved from http://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2015-08/facebook-kommentare-hass-hetze-anzeige Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  257. Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: how social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1429–1439. doi:10.1037/a0012634 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  258. Moor, P. J., Heuvelman, A., & Verleur, R. (2010). Flaming on YouTube. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1536–1546. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.023 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  259. Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is deliberative theory a falsifiable theory? Annual Review of Political Sciences, 11, 521–538. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  260. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1). doi:10.1017/S0003055405051452 Naab, T. K. (2012). The relevance of people’s attitudes towards freedom of expression in a changing media environment. ESSACHESS – Journal for Communcation Studies, 5(1). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  261. Retrieved from http://www.essachess.com/index.php/jcs/issue/view/10 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  262. Naab, T. K. (2016). Der Sanktionsbedarf von Facebook-Inhalten aus Sicht von NutzerInnen und seine Determinanten [The need for penalties against Facebook content and its determinants. A users’ perspective]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 64(1), 56-73. doi:10.5771/1615-634X-2016-1-56. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  263. Naab, T. K., Kalch, A., & Meitz, T. G. K. (2016). Flagging uncivil user comments: Effects of intervention information, type of victim, and response comments on bystander behavior. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1461444816670923 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  264. 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(3). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00252.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  265. Noci, J. D., Domingo, D., Masip, P., Micó, J. L., & Ruiz, C. (2010). Comments in news, democracy booster or journalistic nightmare: Assessing the quality and dynamics of citizen debates in Catalan online newspapers. International Symposium on Online Journalism, 2(1), 46–64. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  266. Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Chew-Sanchez, M. I., Harris, R., Wilcox, R., & Stumpf, S. (2003). Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings: A cross-cultural comparison of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, and U.S. Americans. Journal of Family Communication, 3(2), 67–93. doi:10.1207/S15327698JFC0302_01 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  267. Ogan, C., Willnat, L., Pennington, R., & Bashir, M. (2014). The rise of anti-Muslim prejudice: Media and Islamophobia in Europe and the United States. International Communication Gazette, 76(1), 27–46. doi:10.1177/1748048513504048 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  268. Oozeer, A. (2014). Internet and social networks: freedom of expression in the digital age. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  269. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 40(2), 341–360. doi:10.1080/03050718.2014.909129 Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic poten- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  270. tial of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  271. Reich, Z. (2011). User comments. The transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  272. A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, . . . M. Vujnovic (Eds.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 6–117). Chichester, UK: Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  273. Rossini, P. (2017). It’s not deliberation (but that’s okay)! Uncivil discourse, intolerance, and political talk. Presentation at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, May 26–29, 2017, San Diego, CA, USA. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  274. Rowe, I. (2014). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  275. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Mico, J. L., Diaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463–487. doi:10.1177/1940161211415849 Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33. doi:10.1080/175 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  276. 12786.2013.813194 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  277. Sarapin, S., & Morris, P. (2014). When “like”-minded people click: Facebook interaction conventions, the meaning of “speech” online, and Bland v. Roberts. First Amendment Studies, 48(2), 131–157. doi:10.1080/21689725.2014.962557 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  278. von Sikorski, C. (2016). The effects of reader comments on the perception of personalized scandals: Exploring the roles of comment valence and commenters’ social status. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4480–4501. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  279. Singer, J. B. (2009). Separate spaces: Discourse about the 2007 Scottish elections on a national newspaper web site. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(4), 477–496. doi:10.1177/1940161209336659 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  280. Springer, N., Engelmann, I., & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society 18(7), 798–815. doi:1 0.1080/1369118x.2014.997268 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  281. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(2), 1–35. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  282. Stroud, N. J., Muddiman, A., & Scacco, J. M. (2016). Like, recommend, or respect? Altering political behavior in news comment sections. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1461444816642420 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  283. Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  284. Stryker, R., Conway, B. A., & Danielson, J. T. (2016). What is political incivility? Communication Monographs, 83(4), 535–556. doi:10.1080/03637751.2016.1201207 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  285. Sukumaran, A., Vezich, S., McHugh, M., & Nass, C. (2011). Normative influences on thoughtful online participation. In D. Tan (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3401–3410). New York, NY: ACM. Thorson, K., Vraga, E., & Ekdale, B. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13(3), 289– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  286. 313. doi:10.1080/15205430903225571 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  287. Zick A., Küpper B., & Hövermann A. (2011). Intolerance, prejudice and discrimination. A European report. Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Retrieved from http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/do/07908-20110311.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  288. Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation. Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [User comments as follow-up communication. Theory and qualitative analysis of the discussion value of online news]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  289. Ziegele, M., Johnen, M., Bickler, A., Jakobs, I., Setzer, T., & Schnauber, A. (2013). Mänlich, rüstig, kommentiert. Einflussfaktoren auf die Aktivität kommentierender Nutzer von Online-Nachrichtenseiten [Male, hale, comments? Factors influencing the activity of commenting users on online news websites]. Studies in Communication | Media, 2(1), 67–114. doi:10.5771/2192-4007-2013-1-67 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-395
  290. Allen, M., Bruflat, R., Fucilla, R., Kramer, M., McKellips, S., Ryan, D.J., & Spiegelhoff, M. (2000). Testing the persuasiveness of evidence: Combining narrative and statistical forms. Communication Research Reports, 17, 331–336. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  291. Aronson, E., Wilson, T., Akert, R., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (2004). Sozialpsychologie [Social psychology]. München, GER: Pearson Studium. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  292. Arpan, L. M. (2009). The effects of exemplification on perceptions of news credibility. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  293. Mass Communication & Society, 12, 249–270. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  294. Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgements. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211–233. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  295. Baumann, E., & Czerwinski, F. (2015). Erst mal Doktor Google fragen? Nutzung neuer Medien zur Information und zum Austausch über Gesundheitsthemen [Firstly ask Doctor Google? Use of new media for information seeking and communication about health-related topics]. In J. Böcken, B. Braun, & R. Meierjürgen (Eds.), Gesundheitsmonitor 2015: Bürgerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen [Health monitor 2015: Citizen orientation in the healthcare sector] (pp. 57–79). Gütersloh, GER: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  296. Betsch, C., Brewer, N. T., Brocard, P., Davies, P., Gaissmaier, W., Haase, N., . . ., Stryk, M. (2012). Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. Vaccine, 30, 3727–3733. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  297. Betsch, C., Renkewitz, F., & Haase, N. (2013). Effect of narrative reports about vaccine adverse events and bias-awareness disclaimers on vaccine decisions: A simulation of an online patient social network. Medical Decision Making, 33, 14–25. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  298. Betsch, C., & Sachse, K. (2012). Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde? (How) the Internet influences vaccination decisions: Recent evidence and tentative guidelines for online vaccine communication. Vaccine, 30, 3723–3726. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  299. Betsch, C., Ulshöfer, C., Renkewitz, F., & Betsch, T. (2011). The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Medical Decision Making, 31, 742–753. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  300. Birnbaum, M. (1972). Morality judgements: Tests of an averaging model. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 35–42. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  301. Bosch, B. (2014). Beyond Vox Pop: The role of news sourcing and political beliefs in exemplification effects. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 217–235. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  302. Boyson, A. R., Zimmerman, R. S., & Shoemaker, S. (2015). Exemplification of HAART and HIV/AIDS: a news experiment. Health Communication, 30, 901–910. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  303. Brosius, H.-B. (1995). Alltagsrationalität in der Nachrichtenrezeption [Everyday rationalities in news reception]. Opladen, GER: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  304. Brosius, H.-B. (1996). Der Einfluss von Fallbeispielen auf Urteile der Rezipienten. Die Rolle der Ähnlichkeit zwischen Fallbeispiel und Rezipient [The impact of exemplars on recipients’ judgments. The role of similarity between exemplar and recipient]. Rundfunk und Fernsehen, 44, 51–69. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  305. Brosius, H.-B. (2003). Exemplars in the news: A theory of the effects of political communication. In J. Bryant, D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and Emotion. Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillmann (pp. 179–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  306. Brosius, H.-B., & Peter, C. (2017). Exemplification theory. In P. Rössler (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (pp. 1–9). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  307. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  308. Chang, C. (2008). Increasing mental health literacy via narrative advertising. Journal of Health Communication, 13, 37–55. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  309. Cox, D., & Cox, A.D. (2001). Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. Journal of Marketing, 65, 91–103. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  310. Daschmann, G. (2001). Der Einfluss von Fallbeispielen auf Leserurteile. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Medienwirkung [The impact of exemplars on readers’ judgments: Experimental studies on media effects]. Konstanz, GER: UVK. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  311. Daschmann, G., & Brosius, H.-B. (1999). Can a single event create an issue? Journalism and Mass Communication Quaterly, 76, 35–51. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  312. De Wit, J. B., Das, E., & Vet, R. (2008). What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychology, 27, 110–115. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  313. Emmert, M., Meier, F., Pisch, F., & Sander, U. (2013). Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15, 1–22. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  314. Emmert, M., Sander, U., & Pisch, F. (2013). Eight questions about physician-rating websites: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15, e24. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  315. Eysenbach, G. (2003). The impact of the Internet on cancer outcomes. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 53, 356–371. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  316. Fagerlin, A., Chang, C., & Ubel, P. A. (2005). Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decision: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Medical Decision Making, 25, 398–405. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  317. Feldman-Stewart, D., Kocovski, N., McConnell, B. A., Brundage, M. D., & Mackillop, W. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  318. J. (2000). Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Medical Decision Making, 20, 228–238. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  319. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  320. Fischer, S., & Emmert, M. (2015). A review of scientific evidence for public perspectives on online rating websites of healthcare providers. In S. Gurtner & K. Soyez (Eds.), Challenges and opportunities in health care management (pp. 279–290). Wiesbaden, GER: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  321. Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889–906. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  322. ForwardAdGroup (2015). Social trends: Health 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.forward-adgroup.de/fileadmin/customer_files/public_files/downloads/studien/FORAG_SocialTrends_Gesundheit_2.0.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  323. Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, 163–183. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  324. Greene, K., & Brinn, L. S. (2003). Message influencing college women´s tanning bed use: statistical versus narrative evidence format and a self-assessment to increase perceived susceptibility. Journal of Health Communication, 8, 443–461. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  325. Griffin, J. L., & Stevenson, R. L. (1996). The influence of statistical graphics on newspaper reader recall. Visual Communication Quarterly, 3, 9–11. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  326. Heller, E. (1997). Wie Farben wirken [How colors work]. Reinbek, GER: Rohwolt. Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L. (2009). When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evi- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  327. dence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35, 491–510. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  328. Hoeppner, B. B., Kelly, J. F., Urbanoski, K. A., & Slaymaker, V. (2012). Comparative utility of a single-item vs. multiple-item measure of self-efficacy in predicting relapse among young adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41, 305–312. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  329. Horton, W. (1994). Designing and writing online documentation. New York, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  330. Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887–900. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  331. Kim, H. S., Bigman, C. A., Leader, A. E., Lerman, C., & Cappella, J. N. (2012). Narrative health communication and behavior change: The influence of exemplars in the news on intention to quit smoking. Journal of Communication, 62, 473–492. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  332. Krämer, B. (2015). Fallbeispieleffekte [Exemplification effects]. Baden-Baden, GER: Nomos. Lee, E. J., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality per- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  333. ception. Communication Research, 37, 825–846. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  334. Mazur, D.J, & Merz, J.F. (1993). How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences. American Geriatrics Society, 41, 223–228. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  335. MSLGroup Germany (2012). Wie sozial ist das Gesundheits-Web? Die MSL-Gesundheitsstudie 2012 [How social is the Health-Web? The MSL-Health-Study 2012]. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/NI0049/mslgesundheitsstudie-2012 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  336. Müller, P., Scherr, S., & Fast, V. (2013). Der Einfluss wahrgenommener Medienwirkungen auf die Verarbeitung von Fallbeispielen [The impact of perceived media influence on processing exemplars]. In O. Jandura, A. Fahr, & H.-B. Brosius (Eds.), Theorieanpassungen in der digitalen Medienwelt [Theory adaptations in the world of digital media] (pp. 141–158). Baden-Baden, GER: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  337. Nan, X., Dahlstrom, M. F., Richards, A., & Rangarajan, S. (2015). Influence of evidence type and narrative type on HPV risk perception and intention to obtain the HPV vaccine. Health Communication, 30, 301–308. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  338. Peter, C. (2013). Quo vadis Fallbeispielforschung? Aktuelle Befunde und zukünftige Herausforderungen an ein Forschungsfeld [Quo vadis exemplification theory? Current research and future challenges of a research field]. In O. Jandura, A. Fahr, & H.-B. Brosius (Eds.), Theorieanpassungen in der digitalen Medienwelt [Theroy adaptations in a world of digital media] (pp. 123–140). Baden-Baden, GER: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  339. Peter, C. (2017). Fallbeispiele in der Gesundheitskommunikation [Exemplars in health communication]. In C. Rossmann & M. R. Hastall (Eds.), Handbuch Gesundheitskommunikation [Handbook health communication] (pp. 1–12). Wiesbaden, GER: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  340. Peter, C., & Brosius, H.-B. (2010). Grenzen der Wirksamkeit von Fallbeispielen? [Limits of effectiveness of exemplars?]. Publizistik, 55, 275–288. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  341. Peter, C., Rossmann, C., & Keyling, T. (2014). Exemplification 2.0: Roles of direct and indirect social information in conveying health messages through social network sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 26, 19–28. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  342. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York. NY: Springer. Pfaff, H., & Freise, D. C. (2003). Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen (KPF): Skalen und Indizes [The Cologne patient questionnaire (CPQ): scales and indexes]. In H. Pfaff, D. C. Freise, G. Mager, & M. Schrappe (Eds.), Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen (KPF): Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Einbindung des Patienten als Kotherapeuten [The Cologne patient questionnaire (CPQ): Development and validation of a questionnaire for measurement of integration of a patient as co-thera- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  343. pist] (pp. 101–135). Sankt Augustin, GER: Asgard-Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  344. Pfister, T. (2012). Mit Fallbeispielen und Furchtappellen zu erfolgreichen Gesundheitsbotschaften? [Lead exemplars and fear appeals to succesfull health messages?]. Dissertation, LMU München: Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  345. Rossmann, C., & Pfister, T. (2008). Zum Einfluss von Fallbeispielen und furchterregenden Bildern auf die Wirksamkeit von Gesundheitsflyern zum Thema Adipositas [The impact of exemplars and fearsome pictures on the effectiveness of health brochures about obesity]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 56, 368–391. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  346. Schenk, M. (2007). Medienwirkungsforschung. Tübingen, GER: Mohr Siebeck. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  347. Scherr, S., Müller, P., & Fast, V. (2013a). Do third-person perceptions amplify exemplification effects? International Journal of Communication, 7, 1603–1621. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  348. Scherr, S., Müller, P., & Fast, V. (2013b). Single comments or average ratings: Which elements of RateMyProfessors.com™ shape university students’ judgments and course choice intentions? Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 25, 131–141. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics. London, UK: Pearson. Tran, H. (2012). Exemplification effects of multimedia enhancements. Media Psychology, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  349. 15, 396–419. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  350. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  351. Ubel, P. A., Jepson, C., & Baron, J. (2001). The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids effects on treatment choices. Medical Decision Making, 21, 60–68. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  352. Winter S., Brückner, C., & Krämer, N. C. (2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 431–436. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  353. Winterbottom, A., Bekker, H. L., Conner, M., & Mooney, A. (2008). Does narrative information bias individual’s decision making? A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2079–2088. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  354. Ziegler, L., Pfister, T., & Rossmann, C. (2013). Fallbeispiele und Furchtappelle in der Gesundheitskommunikation: Eine Inhaltsanalyse von Zeitschriften, Flyern und Internetportalen [Exemplars and fear appeals in health communication: A content-analysis of journals, brochures and online portals]. In M. Hastall & C. Rossmann (Eds.), Medien und Gesundheitskommunikation [Media and health communication] (pp. 65–81). Baden-Baden, GER: Nomos Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  355. Zillmann, D. (2006). Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. Journal of Communication, 56, 221–S237. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  356. Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420
  357. Zillmann, D., Perkins, J. W., & Sundar, S. S. (1992). Impression-formation effects of printed news varying in descriptive precision and exemplifications. Medienpsychologie, 4, 168–185. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-420

Zitation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download Kapitel (PDF)

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Per E-Mail teilen

Medien