Journalistic counter-voices in comment sections: Patterns, determinants, and potential consequences of interactive moderation of uncivil user comments

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 7 (2018), Issue 4
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 7 (2018), Issue 4

Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2018
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Volume 7 (2018), Issue 4

Journalistic counter-voices in comment sections: Patterns, determinants, and potential consequences of interactive moderation of uncivil user comments

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Preview:

Incivility in online user discussions is discussed as a significant challenge for democratic societies. Interactive journalistic moderation is seen as a promising strategy to deal with and prevent online incivility. Such moderation occurs, for example, when journalists publicly respond to uncivil comments and ask their authors to discuss more civilly. This study, based on a quantitative content analysis of 9,763 user and moderation comments on the Facebook sites of 15 German news outlets, investigated the patterns, determinants, and potential effects of interactive moderation. Results show that so-called public-level incivility (e.g., stereotypes, threats of violence) in users’ initial comments was associated with more interactive journalistic moderation, and that journalists used different styles when responding to these comments. Different moderation styles of initial comments were then related to the presence of incivility in users’ subsequent reply comments in opposite directions: A sociable moderation style decreased, and a regulative style increased the level of incivility in the reply comments.

Bibliography

  1. Appel, M. (2012). Anti-immigrant propaganda by radical right parties and the intellectual performance of adolescents. Political Psychology, 33(4), 483–493. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00902.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  2. Baldauf, J., Ebner, J., & Guhl, J. (Eds.) (2018). Hassrede und Radikalisierung im Netz—der OCCI Forschungsbericht [Hate speech and radicalization in the Internet—the OCCI research report] London, UK: Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  3. Benesch, S. (2012). Dangerous speech: A proposal to prevent group violence. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y8nqmpxj. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  4. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  5. Bloom, M., Tiflati, H., & Horgan, J. (2017). Navigating ISIS’s preferred platform: Telegram. Terrorism and Political Violence, 6553, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546 553.2017.1339695 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  6. Boberg, S., Schatto-Eckrott, T., Frischlich, L., & Quandt, T. (2018). The moral gatekeeper? Moderation and deletion of user-generated content in a leading news forum. Media and Communication, 6(4), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1493 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  7. Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2014.01.016 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  8. Chatfield, A. T., Reddick, C. G., & Brajawidagda, U. (2015). Tweeting propaganda, radicalization and recruitment: Islamic State supporters multi-sided Twitter networks. In J. Zhang & Y. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Digital Government and Wicked Problems: Climate Change, Urbanization, and Inequality (pp. 239–249). New York, NY: USA: ACM Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  9. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  10. Corcoran, H., & Smith, K. (2016). Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2015/16. London, UK: Home Office. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y9km7fqo. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  11. Dieckmann, J., Geschke, D., & Braune, I. (2018). Diskriminierung und ihre Auswirkungen für Betroffene und die Gesellschaft [Discrimination and its effects for victims and society]. Jena, Germany. Retrieved from https://www.idz-jena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ PDFS_WsD2/Diskriminierung_und_ihre_Auswirkungen.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  12. Engesser, S., Fawzi, N., & Larsson, A. O. (2017). Populist online communication: introduction to the special issue. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1279–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328525 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  13. Erjavec, K., & Kovačič, M. P. (2012). “You don’t understand, this is a new war!” Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Communication and Society, 15(6), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.619679 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  14. Ernst, J., Schmitt, J. B., Rieger, D., Beier, A. K., Bente, G., & Roth, H. (2017). Hate beneath the counter speech? A qualitative content analysis of user comments on YouTube related to counter speech videos. Journal for Deradicalization, 10, 1–49. http://journals. sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/91 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  15. Farkas, J., Schou, J., & Neumayer, C. (2018). Cloaked facebook pages: Exploring fake Islamist propaganda in social media. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1850–1867. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1461444817707759 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  16. Fawzi, N., Obermeier, M., Reinemann, C., Alberg, T., Esser, F., Reinemann, C., … de Vreese, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  17. C. H. (2017). Germany: Is the Populism Laggard Catching Up? In Toril Aalberg, F. Esser, C. Reinemann, J. Stromback, & C. H. de Vreese (Eds.), Populist communication in Europe (pp. 111–126). New York, NY: USA: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  18. Frees, B., & Koch, W. (2018). ARD / ZDF-Onlinestudie 2018: Zuwachs bei medialer Internetnutzung und Kommunikation [ARD/ZDF online-study 2018: Increase in mediated Internet usage and communication]. Media Perspektiven, 9, 398–413. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  19. Frischlich, L., Boberg, S., & Quandt, T. (2017). Unmenschlicher Hass: Die Rolle von Empfehlungsalgorithmen und Social Bots für die Verbreitung von Cyberhate [Inhuman hate: The role of recommendation algorithms and social bots for the dissemination of cyberhate]. In K. Kaspar, L. Gräßer, & A. Riffi (Eds.), Online Hate Speech—Perspektiven auf eine Form des Hasses (pp. 71–80.). München: kopaed. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  20. Frischlich, L., Rieger, D., Hein, M., & Bente, G. (2015). Dying the right-way? Interest in and perceived persuasiveness of parochial extremist propaganda increases after mortality salience. Frontiers in Psychology: Evolutionary Psychology and Neuroscience, 6(1222). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01222 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  21. Frischlich, L., Rieger, D., Morten, A., & Bente, G. (2017). Wirkung [Effect]. In L. Frischlich, D. Rieger, A. Morten, & G. Bente (Eds.), Videos gegen Extremismus? Counter-Narrative auf dem Prüfstand (in cooperation with the research unit Terrorism/Extremism (FTE) of the federal crime police; pp. 81–140). Wiesbaden: Germany: Griebsch und Rochol Druck GmbH, Hamm. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  22. George, C. (2016). Regulating “hate spin”: The limits of law in managing religious incitement and offense. International Journal of Communication, 10, 2955–2972. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  23. Gollatz, K., Riedl, M. J., & Pohlmann, J. (2018). Removals of online hate speech in numbers. HIIG Science Blog. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1342325 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  24. Gowen, A., & Bearak, M. (December 8, 2017). Fake news on Facebook fans the flames of hate against the Rohinga in Burmar. Washington Post. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  25. Harrell, J. P., Hall, S., & Taliaferro, J. (2003). Physiological responses to racism and discrimination: An assessment of the evidence. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.2.243 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  26. Hensel, A. (August 21, 2018). Facebook now gives users who flag fake news a credibility score. Venturebeat.com. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  27. Hohnstein, S., & Glaser, M. (2017). Wie tragen digitale Medien zu politisch-weltanschaulichem Extremismus im Jugendalter bei und was kann pädagogische Arbeit dagegen tun? Ein Überblick über Forschungsstand, präventive und intervenierende Praxis im Themenfeld [How do digital media contribute to political-ideological extremism during adolescence and what can educational science do against it? An overview about researcj, preventive and interventive practice in the area]. In S. Hohnstein & M. Herding (Eds.), Digitale Medien und politisch-weltanschaulicher Extremismus im Jugendalter. Erkenntnisse aus Wissenschaft und Praxis (pp. 243–281). Halle a.d. Saale, Germany: Deutsches Jugendinstitut. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  28. Hsueh, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Malinen, S. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors? Human Communication Research, 41(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12059 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  29. Jablonska, M. R., & Kozak, B. (2017). Digital natives towards sponsored online hate speech. PRZEDSIĘBIORCZOŚĆ I ZARZĄDZANIE, 18(4), 261–273. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  30. Kaakinen, M., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2018). Did the risk of exposure to online hate increase after the November 2015 Paris attacks? A group relations approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2017.09.022 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  31. Kim, Y. (2015). Exploring the effects of source credibility and others’ comments on online news evaluation. Electronic News, 9(3), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1931243115593318 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  32. Lee, E.-J. (2012). That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 32– 45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  33. 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(6), 825–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  34. 0093650210376189 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  35. Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to anti-semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/15404560.00264 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  36. Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2011). Ironic effects of antiprejudice messages: How motivational interventions can reduce (but also increase) prejudice. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1472–1477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611427918 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  37. Levin, B., & Grisham, K. E. (2017). Final U.S. status report: Hate crime analysis & forecast 2016/2017. San Bernadino, CA, USA: Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  38. Marwick, A., Blackwell, L., & Lo, K. (2016). Best practices for conducting risky research and protecting yourself from online harassment. Data & Society. New York, NY: USA: Data & Society Institute. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  39. Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data & Society. New York, NY: USA: Data & Society Institute. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  40. Meleagrou-Hitchens, A., & Kaderbhai, N. (2017). Perspectives on online radicalization, Literature review 2006–2016. London, UK: Vox Pol. Retrieved from https://tinyurl. com/yb57o9fk Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  41. Morin, D. T., & Flynn, M. A. (2014). We are the Tea Party! The use of Facebook as an online political forum for the construction and maintenance of in-group identification during the “GOTV” weekend. Communication Quarterly, 62(1), 115–133. https://doi. org/10.1080/01463373.2013.861500 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  42. Morten, A., Frischlich, L., Rieger, D., & Bente, G. (2017). Wirksamkeit [Efficacy]. In L. Frischlich, D. Rieger, A. Morten, & G. Bente (Eds.), Videos gegen Extremismus? Counter-Narrative auf dem Prüfstand (in cooperation with the research unit Terrorism/ Extremism (FTE) of the federal crime police; pp. 161–224). Wiesbaden, Germany: Griebsch und Rochol Druck GmbH. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  43. Muddiman, A. (2017). Personal and public levels of political incivility. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3182–3202. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6137 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  44. Musgrave, S. (August 9, 2017). The secret Twitter rooms of Trump nation. Politica. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  45. Näsi, M., Räsänen, P., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., & Oksanen, A. (2015). Exposure to online hate material and social trust among Finnish youth. Information Technology & People, 28(3), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0198 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  46. Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) (2017). Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken [Networkenforcement act]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  47. Neumann, K., Arendt, F., & Baugut, P. (2017). News and Islamist radicalization processes: Investigating muslims’ perceptions of negative news coverage of Islam. Paper presented at 67th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego, USA. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  48. Neumann, K., & Baugut, P. (2016). Neonazis im Scheinwerferlicht der Medien-Eine Analyse reziproker Medieneffekte innerhalb der Neonazi-Szene in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Germany: Springer, VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  49. O’Sullivan, P. B., & Flanagin, A. J. (2003). Reconceptualizing “flaming” and other problematic messages. New Media & Society, 5(2), 1461–4448. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444803005001908 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  50. Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., Näsi, M., & Räsänen, P. (2014). Exposure to online hate among young social media users. In N. M. Warehime (Ed.), Soul of society: A focus on the lives of children & youth. Oklahoma City: Emerald Books. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  51. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  52. Preuß, M., Tetzlaff, F., & Zick, A. (2017). “Publizieren wird zur Mutprobe”: Studie zur Wahrnehmung von und Erfahrung mit Angriffen unter Journalist_innen [“Publishing becomes a dare“: A study on the perception and experience with attacks among journalists]. Bielefeld, Germany. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  53. Reinemann, C., Ninierza, A., Fawzi, N., Riesmeyer, C., & Neumann, K. (2019). Jugend— Medien—Extremismus [Youth – Media – Extremism]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  54. Rieger, D., Frischlich, L., & Bente, G. (2013). Propaganda 2.0: Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist internet videos. Cologne, Germany: Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  55. Rieger, D., Frischlich, L., & Bente, G. (2017). Propaganda in an insecure, unstructured world: How psychological uncertainty and authoritarian attitudes shape the evaluation of right-wing extremist internet propaganda. Journal for Deradicalization, 10, 203–229. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  56. Rösner, L., Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.022 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  57. Ross, B., Rist, M., Carbonell, G., Cabrera, B., Kurowsky, N., & Wojatzki, M. (2016). Measuring the reliability of hate speech annotations: The case of the European refugee crisis. In Beißwenger, M., & Wojatzek, M. (Eds.), NLP4CMC III: 3rd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Computer-Mediated Communication, September 2016. Bochum: Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  58. Schindler, F., Glaser, S., Herzog, H., & Özkilic, M. in collaboration with the team of jugendschutz.net (2015). Protection of minors on the Internet –Annual Report 2015. Mainz, Germany: Jugendschutz.net. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  59. Schmitt, J. B., Ernst, J., Frischlich, L., & Rieger, D. (2017). Rechtsextreme und islamistische Propaganda im Internet: Methoden, Auswirkungen und Präventionsmöglichkeiten [Rightwing extremist and Islamist extremist propaganda in the internet: Methods, effects and possibilities for prevention]. In R. Altenhof, S. Bunk, & M. Piepenschneider (Eds.), Politischer Extremismus im Vergleich (pp. 171-210). Münster, Germany: LIT Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  60. Schmitt, J. B., Rieger, D., Rutkowski, O., & Ernst, J. (2018). Counter-messages as prevention or promotion of extremism?! The potential role of YouTube recommendation algorithms. Journal of Communication, 68(4), 780–808. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/ jqy029 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  61. Sikorski, C. von, & 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, 93(3), 551–571. https://doi. org/10.1177/1077699016628822 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  62. Soral, W., Bilewicz, M., & Winiewski, M. (2018). Exposure to hate speech increases prejudice through desensitization. Aggressive Behavior, 44(2), 136–146. https://doi. org/10.1002/ab.21737 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  63. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  64. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813495165 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  65. Winter, C. (2018). Apocalypse, later: a longitudinal study of the Islamic State brand. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 35(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/152950 36.2017.1393094 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  66. Yayla, A. S., & Speckhard, A. (2017). Telegram: the mighty application that ISIS loves. ICSVE Brief Reports. International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism. Retrieved from https://www.voxpol.eu/telegram-mighty-application-isis-loves/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  67. Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.12512. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.12512.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-459
  68. Alvares, C., & Dahlgren, P. (2016). Populism, extremism and media: Mapping an uncertain terrain. European Journal of Communication, 31(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0267323115614485 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  69. Aly, A., Macdonald, S., Jarvis, L., & Chen, T. M. (2016). Introduction to the special issue: Terrorist online propaganda and radicalization. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 40(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2016.1157402 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  70. Ambrose, E. & Mudde, C. (2015). Canadian multiculturalism and the absence of the far right. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 21(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537 113.2015.1032033 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  71. Backes, U. (2018). The radical right in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. In J. Rydgren (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the radical right (pp. 452–477). New York City: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  72. Baym, G. (2007). Representation and the politics of play: Stephen Colbert’s better Know a District. Political Communication, 24(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10584600701641441 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  73. Beaufort, M. (2018). Digital media, political polarization and challenges to democracy. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 915–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/136 9118X.2018.1451909 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  74. Becker, A. B. (2014). Playing with politics: Online political parody, affinity for political humor, anxiety reduction, and implications for political efficacy. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 424–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891134 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  75. Behrmann, S. (2002). Politische Satire im deutschen und französischen Rundfunk [Political satire in German and French broadcasting]. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  76. Ben-David, A., & Matamoros-Fernandez, A. (2016). Hate speech and covert discrimination on social media: Monitoring the Facebook pages of extreme-right political parties in Spain. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1167–1193. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  77. Bessant, J. (2016). New politics and satire: The Euro financial crisis and the one-finger salute. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7), 1057–1072. https://doi.org/10.10 80/1369118X.2016.1206138 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  78. Betz, H.-G. (2018). The radical right and populism. In J. Rydgren (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the radical right (pp. 86–104). New York City: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  79. Block, E., & Negrine, R. (2017). The populist communication style: Toward a critical framework. International Journal of Communication, 11, 178–197. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  80. Bornschier, S. (2018). Globalization, cleavages, and the radical right. In J. Rydgren (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the radical right (pp. 212–238). New York City: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  81. Brummack, J. (1971). Zu Begriff und Theorie der Satire [On the term and theory of satire]. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 45(S1), 275–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03376186 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  82. Caiani, M. (2017). Radical right-wing movements: Who, when, how and why? Sociopedia. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  83. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/205684601761 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  84. Caiani, M., & Della Porta, D. (2018). The radical right as social movement organizations. In J. Rydgren (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the radical right (pp. 327–347). New York City: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  85. Cammaerts, B. (2018). The mainstreaming of extreme right-wing populism in the Low Countries: What is to be done? Communication, Culture and Critique, 11(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcx002 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  86. Chen, H.-T., Gan, C., & Sun, P. (2017). How does political satire influence political participation? Examining the role of counter- and proattitudinal exposure, anger, and personal issue importance. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3011–3029. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  87. Crittenden, V. L., Hopkins, L. M., & Simmons, J. M. (2011). Satirists as opinion leaders: Is social media redefining roles? Journal of Public Affairs, 11(3), 174–180. https://doi. org/10.1002/pa.400 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  88. Doerr, N. (2017). Bridging language barriers, bonding against immigrants: A visual case study of transnational network publics created by far-right activists in Europe. Discourse & Society, 28(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516676689 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  89. Dörner, A., & Vogt, L. (Eds.). (2017). Wahlkampf mit Humor und Komik—Selbst- und Fremdinszenierung politischer Akteure in Satiretalks des deutschen Fernsehens [Election campaign with humor and comedy—self-staging and extraneous staging of political actors in German satirical TV talk shows]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  90. Downing, J. (2001). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  91. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  92. Drüeke, R. & Zobl, E. (2016). Online feminist protest against sexism: the Germanlanguage hashtag #aufschrei. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14680777.2015.1093071 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  93. Ellinas, A. A. (2018). Media and the radical right. In J. Rydgren (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the radical right (pp. 269–284). New York City: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  94. Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., & Büchel, F. (2016). Populism and social media: How politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1109–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1207697 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  95. Ernst, N., Engesser, S., Büchel, F., Blassnig, S., & Esser, F. (2017). Extreme parties and populism: An analysis of Facebook and Twitter across six countries. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1347–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1329333 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  96. Feldman, L. (2016). The news about comedy. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 8(4), 406–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884907078655 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  97. Ferrari, E. (2017). Fake accounts, real activism: Political faking and user-generated satire as activist intervention. New Media & Society, 1(1), 146144481773191. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444817731918 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  98. Forchtner, B., Krzyzanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2013). Mediatisation, right-wing populism and populist campaigning: The case of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ). In M. Ekström & A. Tolson (Eds.), Media talk and political elections in Europe and America (pp. 205–228). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  99. Fuchs, C. (2016). Racism, nationalism and rightwing extremism online: The Austrian Presidential Election 2016 on Facebook. Momentum Quarterly, 5(3), 172–196. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  100. Hameleers, M., Bos, L., & Vreese, C. H. de. (2017). The appeal of media populism: The media preferences of citizens with populist attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 20(4), 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1291817 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  101. Han, K. J. (2015). The impact of radical right-wing parties on the positions of mainstream parties regarding multiculturalism. West European Politics, 38(3), 557–576. https://doi. org/10.1080/01402382.2014.981448 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  102. Hasebrink, U., & Domeyer, H. (2012). Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments. Participations – Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 9(2), 757–779. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  103. Hasebrink, U., & Hepp, A. (2017). How to research cross-media practices? Investigating media repertoires and media ensembles. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 23(4), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1354856517700384 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  104. Higgie, R. (2017). Under the guise of humour and critique: The political co-option of popular contemporary satire. In J. M. Davis (Ed.), Satire and politics: The interplay of heritage and practice (pp. 73–102). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  105. Hylton, K. (2017). I’m not joking! The strategic use of humour in stories of racism. Ethnicities, 18(3), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796817743998 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  106. Johnson, J. (2018). The self-radicalization of white men: “Fake News” and the affective networking of paranoia. Communication, Culture and Critique, 11(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcx014 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  107. Jones, M. O. (2017). Satire, social media and revolutionary cultural production in the Bahrain uprising: From utopian fiction to political satire. Communication and the Public, 2(2), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317706372 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  108. Kallis, A. (2013). Far-right “contagion” or a failing “mainstream”? How dangerous ideas cross borders and blur boundaries. Democracy and Security, 9(3), 221–246. https://doi. org/10.1080/17419166.2013.792251 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  109. Koehler, D. (2014). The radical online: Individual radicalization processes and the role of the internet. Journal for Deradicalization, 1, 116–134. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  110. Krämer, B. (2014). Media populism: A conceptual clarification and some theses on its effects. Communication Theory, 24(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12029 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  111. Krämer, B. (2017). Populist online practices: The function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1293–1309. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328520 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  112. Landreville, K. D., Holbert, R. L., & LaMarre, H. L. (2010). The influence of late-night TV comedy viewing on political talk: A moderated-mediation model. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(4), 482–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161210371506 Lee, H., & Jang, S. M. (2016). Talking about what provokes us. American Politics Re- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  113. search, 45(1), 128–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X16657805 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  114. Lewis, R., & Marwick, A. E. (2017). Taking the red pill: Ideological motivations for spreading online disinformation. In Annenberg School for Communication (Ed.), Understanding and Addressing the Disinformation Ecosystem (pp. 18–22). Retrieved from https://firstdraftnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Disinformation-Ecosystem-20180207-v2.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  115. Meleagrou-Hitchens, A. & Kaderbhai, N. (2017). Research perspectives on online radicalization: A literature review, 2006–2016. King’s College London (pp. 1–74). Retrieved from https://icsr.info/2017/05/03/icsr-vox-pol-paper-research-perspectives-online-radicalisation-literature-review-2006-2016-2/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  116. Önnerfors, A. (2017). Moving the mainstream: Radicalization of political language in the German PEGIDA movement. In K. Steiner & A. Önnerfors (Eds.), Expressions of radicalization: Global politics, processes and practices (pp. 87–119). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  117. Pérez, R. (2017). Racism without hatred? Racist humor and the myth of “Colorblindness.” Sociological Perspectives, 60(5), 956–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417719699 Pisoiu, D., & Ahmed, R. (2015). Capitalizing on fear: The rise of right-wing populist movements in Western Europe. In Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  118. the University of Hamburg (Ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2015 (pp. 165–176). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  119. Punathambekar, A. (2015). Satire, elections, and democratic politics in digital India. Television & New Media, 16(4), 394–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476415573953 Rahimi, B. (2015). Satirical cultures of media publics in Iran. International Communica- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  120. tion Gazette, 77(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048514568761 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  121. Rolfe, M. (2017). The populist elements of Australian political satire and the debt to the Americans and the Augustans. In J. M. Davis (Ed.), Satire and politics: The interplay of heritage and practice (pp. 37–71). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  122. Salmela, M., & Scheve, C. von. (2017). Emotional roots of right-wing political populism. Social Science Information, 56(4), 567–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417734419 Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. MIT press essential knowledge series. Cam- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  123. bridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  124. Simpson, P. (2003). On the discourse of satire: Towards a stylistic model of satirical humor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  125. Taneja, H., Webster, J. G., Malthouse, E. C., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). Media consumption across platforms: Identifying user-defined repertoires. New Media & Society, 14(6), 951–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811436146 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  126. Topinka, R. J. (2017). Politically incorrect participatory media: Racist nationalism on r/ImGoingToHellForThis. New Media & Society, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817712516 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  127. Wagner, A. J. M. & Schwarzenegger, C. (2018). It’s funny cause it’s hate: Political satire as right wing propaganda—A study on activism in disguise. Paper presented at the 68th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), Prague Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  128. (Czech Republic). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  129. Waisanen, D. (2012). Bordering populism in immigration activism: Outlaw–civic discourse in a (counter)public. Communication Monographs, 79(2), 232–255. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03637751.2012.673230 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  130. Waisbord, S. (2003). Media populism: Neo-populism in Latin America. In G. Mazzoleni, J. Stewart, & B. Horsfield (Eds.), The media and neo-populism: A contemporary comparative analysis (pp. 198–216). Westport: Praeger. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  131. Waisbord, S. (2018). Why populism is troubling for democratic communication. Communication, Culture and Critique, 11(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcx005 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  132. Witteveen, D. (2017). The rise of mainstream nationalism and xenophobia in Dutch politics. Journal of Labor and Society, 20(3), 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/wusa.12290 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  133. Wodak, R. (2017). The “establishment,” the “elites,” and the “people”: Who’s who? Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 551–565. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  134. Wodak, R. (2018). Vom Rand in die Mitte – “Schamlose Normalisierung” [From the margins to the center – “Shameless normalization”]. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 59, 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-018-0079-7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  135. Wodak, R., & Krzyżanowski, M. (2017). Right-wing populism in Europe & USA. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17042.krz Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  136. Wright, S., Graham, T., & Jackson, D. (2016). Third space, social media and everyday political talk. In A. Bruns, E. Skogerbø, C. Christensen, A. O. Larsson, & G. Enli (Eds.), The Routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 74–88). New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473
  137. Bard, M., & Sangrey, D. (1986). The crime victim’s book. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  138. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037// 1089-2680.5.4.323 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  139. Benight, C. C. (2012). Understanding human adaptation to traumatic stress exposure. Beyond the medical model. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026245 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  140. Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery. The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1129−1148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  141. Binns, A. (2017). Fair game? Journalists’ experiences of online abuse. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 6, 183–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/ajms.6.2.183_1 Buchanan, M., & Keats, P. (2011). Coping with traumatic stress in journalism. A critical Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  142. ethnographic study. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 127–135. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00207594.2010.532799 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  143. Chen, G. M., & Pain, P. (2017). Normalizing online comments. Journalism Practice, 11, 876–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1205954 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  144. Chen, G. M., Pain, P., Chen, V. Y., Mekelburg, M., Springer, N., & Troger, F. (2018). ‘You really have to have a thick skin.’ A cross-cultural perspective on how online harassment influences female journalists. Journalism. Advance online publication. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884918768500 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  145. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  146. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2004). Understanding words that wound. Boulder: Westview Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  147. Domingo, D. (2008). Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms. Dealing with an uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 680–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00415.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  148. Erjavec, K., & Kovačič, M. (2012). ‘You don’t understand, this is a new war!’ Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 899– 920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.619679 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  149. European Federation of Journalists (EFJ). (2017). There can be no press freedom where journalists work in fear, end impunity! Retrieved from http://europeanjournalists.org/ blog/2017/10/31/there-can-be-no-press-freedom-where-journalists-work-in-fear-end-impunity/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  150. Fedler, F. (2004). Insiders’ stories. Coping with newsroom stress. An historical perspective. American Journalism, 21, 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08821127.2004.10677596 Fischer, A. H., & Roseman, I. J. (2007). Beat them or ban them: The characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  151. 93, 103–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.103 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  152. Flanders, C. E. (2015). Bisexual health. A daily diary analysis of stress and anxiety. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 319–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533. 2015.1079202 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  153. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 2136617 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  154. Freedom House. (2018a). Freedom in the world 2018. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2018_Final_SinglePage.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  155. Freedom House. (2018b). Freedom in the world 2018. Germany profile. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/germany Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  156. Fries, S. (2018). Hass und Hetze. Bedrohte Journalisten vermissen Solidarität [Hate and agitation. Threatened journalists miss solidarity]. deutschlandfunk.de. Retrieved from https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/hass-und-hetze-bedrohte-journalisten-vermissen-solidaritaet.2907.de.html?dram:article_id=427133 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  157. Frieze, I., Hymer, S., & Greenberg, M. (1987). Describing the crime victim. Psychological reactions to victimization. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 299– 315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.4.299 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  158. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212– 228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  159. Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016). The dark side of Guardian comments. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  160. Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2017). Exposure to online hate in four nations. A cross-national consideration. Deviant Behavior, 38, 254–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.108 0/01639625.2016.1196985 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  161. Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Zapf, D. (2002). Workplace bullying and stress. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Historical and current perspectives on stress and health (pp. 293–333). Oxford: Elsevier. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  162. Hülsen, I. (2018). Misstrauen gegen Medien. „… dass ich ständig belehrt werden, was ich zu denken habe“ [Distrust of the media. „… that I am constantly taught what to think”]. Spiegel Online. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/journalismuskrise-warum-viele-leser-den-medien-misstrauen-a-1195175.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  163. Jandura, O. (2011). Fehler durch Nichtmessen in der Journalismusforschung [Errors due to non-measurement in journalism research]. In O. Jandura, T. Quandt & J. Vogelgesang (Eds.), Methoden der Journalismusforschung [Methods of journalism research] (pp. 189–202). Wiesbaden: VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  164. Klein, C. T., & Helweg-Larsen, M. (2002). Perceived control and the optimistic bias. A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Health, 17, 437–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 0887044022000004920 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  165. Kobilke, L. (2017). Lügenpresse: Über die Verbreitung und Verwendung eines umstrittenen Begriffs im Onlinenetzwerk von PEGIDA [Lying Press. On the distribution and use of a controversial term in PEGIDA’s online network]. Unpublished Master Thesis: LMU Munich. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  166. Kühne, R., Weber, P., & Sommer, K. (2015). Beyond cognitive framing processes: anger mediates the effects of responsibility framing on the preference for punitive measures: beyond cognitive framing processes. Journal of Communication, 65, 259–279. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12151 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  167. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  168. Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing hate speech. Perceptions and responses to anti-Semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 341–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/15404560.00264 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  169. Lilienthal, V., & Neverla, I. (Eds). (2017). Lügenpresse – Anatomie eines politischen Kampfbegriffs [Lying Press – Anatomy of a political battle term]. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  170. Löfgren Nilsson, M., & Örnebring, H. (2016). Journalism under threat. Intimidation and harassment of Swedish journalists. Journalism Practice, 10, 880–890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1164614 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  171. Luszczynska, A., Benight, C. C., & Cieslak, R. (2009). Self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of collective trauma. A systematic review. European Psychologist, 14, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.51 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  172. Matsuda, M. J. (1989). Public response to racist speech. Considering the victim’s story. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  173. Michigan Law Review, 87, 2320–2381. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1289306 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  174. Nielsen, L. B. (2002). Subtle, pervasive, harmful. Racist and sexist remarks in public as hate speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 265–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/15404560.00260 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  175. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying. A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26, 309–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267837 3.2012.734709 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  176. Norris, F. H., & Kaniasty, K. (1996). Received and perceived social support in times of stress. A test of the social support deterioration deterrence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 498–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.498 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  177. Novak, R. J., & Davidson, S. (2013). Journalists reporting on hazardous events. Constructing protective factors within the professional role. Traumatology, 19, 313–322. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534765613481854 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  178. Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects. Advances in theory and research (pp. 252– 268). New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  179. Preuß, M., Tetzlaff, F., & Zick, A. (2017). “Publizieren wird zur Mutprobe.” Studie zur Wahrnehmung von und Erfahrung mit Angriffen unter Journalist_innen [“Publishing becomes a test of courage.” Study on the perception and experience of attacks among journalists]. Retrieved from https://mediendienst-integration.de/fileadmin/Dateien/ Studie-hatespeech.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  180. Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2016). Effects of incivility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalism quality. Journalism Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  181. Reporter ohne Grenzen (Reporters without Borders, RwB). (2016). Rangliste der Pressefreiheit 2017. Nahaufnahme Deutschland [Ranking of the Freedom of the Press 2017. Close-up Germany]. Retrieved from https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/uploads/ tx_lfnews/media/ROG-Nahaufnahme_Deutschland_2017_03.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  182. Roseman, I. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system. Integrating research, theory, and applications. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: theory, methods, research (pp. 68–91). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  183. Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44, 695–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  184. 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, 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08900520802644345 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  185. Smith, A. J., Felix, E. D., Benight, C. C., & Jones, R. T. (2017). Protective factors, coping appraisals, and social barriers predict mental health following community violence. A prospective test of social cognitive theory. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22197 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  186. Springer, N., & Kümpel, A. S. (2018). User-generated (dis)content. Eine Literatursynopse zur Nutzung der Kommentarfunktion auf Online-Nachrichtenseiten [User-generated (dis)content. A literary synopsis for the use of commentary functions on online news pages]. In C. Nuernbergk & C. Neuberger (Eds.), Journalismus im Internet: Profession – Partizipation – Technisierung [Journalism on the Internet: Profession – participation – technology] (pp. 241–271). Wiesbaden: VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  187. Steindl, N., Lauerer, C., & Hanitzsch, T. (2017). Journalismus in Deutschland. Aktuelle Befunde zu Kontinuität und Wandel im deutschen Journalismus [Journalism in Germany. Current findings on continuity and change in German journalism]. Publizistik, 62, 401–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11616-017-0378-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  188. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school. A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277– 287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  189. Torres, L., & Ong, A. D. (2010). A daily diary investigation of Latino ethnic identity, discrimination, and depression. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 561–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020652 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  190. Weischenberg, S., Malik, M., & Scholl, A. (2006). Die Souffleure der Mediengesellschaft: Report über die Journalisten in Deutschland [The prompters of media society: A report on journalists in Germany]. Germany: UVK. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  191. Worlds of Journalism (WJS). (2018). Aggregated data on key variables. Journalists in the newsroom. Years of professional experience website. Retrieved from http://www.worldsofjournalism.org/research/2012-2016-study/data-and-key-tables/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  192. Young, M. J., Tiedens, L. Z., Jung, H., & Tsai, M.-H. (2011). Mad enough to see the other side. Anger and the search for disconfirming information. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 10–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930903534105 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  193. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650216671854 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  194. Ziegele, M., Springer, N., Jost, P., & Wright, S. (2017). Online user comments across news and other content formats. Multidisciplinary perspectives, new directions. Studies in Communication and Media, 6, 315–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  195. Zerback, T., & Fawzi, N. (2017). Can online exemplars trigger a spiral of silence? Examining the effects of exemplar opinions on perceptions of public opinion and speaking out. New Media & Society, 19, 1034–1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625942 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-499
  196. 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/10.1111/jcc4.12009 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  197. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  198. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114559378 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  199. Bodie, G. D., & Burleson, B. R. (2008). Explaining variations in the effects of supportive messages: A dual-process framework. In C. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 32 (pp. 355–398). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  200. Chen, G. M. (2017). Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  201. Chen, G. M., Riedl, M. J., & Huang, Q. E. (2018, November). Taming incivility in online comment streams. Paper presented at the 104th annual conference of the National Communication Association, Salt Lake City, US. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  202. Cheng, J., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Leskovec, J. (2014, June). How community feedback shapes user behavior. Paper presented at the 8. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Retrieved from http://www. aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/view/8066 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  203. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  204. 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. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1958824.1958844 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  205. Eilders, C. (2002). Conflict and consonance in media opinion. European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 25–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323102017001606 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  206. 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. https://doi. org/10.1002/poi3.154 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  207. euro I topics (2018a). Berliner Morgenpost. Retrieved from https://www.eurotopics.net/ de/148419/berliner-morgenpost Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  208. euro I topics (2018b). Der Tagesspiegel. Retrieved from https://www.eurotopics.net/ de/148489/der-tagesspiegel Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  209. Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  210. Garton Ash, T. (2016). Free speech: Ten principles for a connected world. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  211. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  212. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.997416 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  213. Goodman, E., Cherubini, F., & Waldhorn, A. (2013). Online comment moderation: emerging best practices. A guide to promoting robust and civil online conversation. World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, 1–71. Retrieved from http://www. wan-ifra.org/private-download/wan-ifra-online-commenting Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  214. Grimmelmann, J. (2015). The virtues of moderation. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 17(1), 42–109. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  215. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Mit Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  216. Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  217. Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 338–376). New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  218. Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd rev. ed.). New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  219. Hsueh, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Malinen, S. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors? Human Communication Research, 41(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12059 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  220. Hwang, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. (2016). Influence of discussion incivility on deliberation: An examination of the mediating role of moral indignation. Communication Research, 45(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215616861 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  221. Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40(3), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500115 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  222. Kalch, A., & Naab, T. K. (2017). Replying, disliking, flagging: How users engage with uncivil and impolite comments on news sites. Studies in Communication and Media (SCM), 6(4), 397–419. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  223. Kraut, R. E., Resnick, P., & Kiesler, S. (2011). Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design. Cambridge, Mass: Mit Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  224. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  225. Ksiazek, T. B. (2016). Commenting on the news. Journalism Studies, 1–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1461670X.2016.1209977 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  226. Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  227. Loke, J. (2012). Old turf, new neighbors. Journalism Practice, 6(2), 233–249. https://doi. org/10.1080/17512786.2011.616649 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  228. Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  229. Manosevitch, E. & Walker, D. M. (2009, April). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX. Retrieved from https://online.journalism. utexas.edu/2009/papers/ManosevitchWalker09.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  230. Massaro, T. M., & Stryker, R. (2012). Freedom of speech, liberal democracy, and emerging evidence on civility and effective democratic engagement. Arizona Law Review, 54, 375–441. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  231. Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2006). Medieninhalte: Eine Einführung. [Media content: An introduction]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-531-90179-4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  232. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  233. Meedia (2016). Überfordert vom Leser-Hass: Zeitungsredaktionen schränken Kommentarfunktion ein [Overwhelmed by readers’ hatred: Newspaper editors restrict the comment function]. Retrieved from http://meedia.de/2016/03/01/ueberfordert-vom-leser-hass-zeitungsredaktionen-schraenken-kommentarfunktion-ein/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  234. Meyer, H. K., & Carey, M. C. (2014). In moderation: Examining how journalists’ attitudes toward online comments affect the creation of community. Journalism Practice, 8, 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.859838 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  235. Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reactance theory—40 years later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  236. Muddiman, A. (2017). Personal and public levels of political incivility. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3182–3202. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  237. Muddiman, A., & Stroud, N. J. (2017). News values, cognitive biases, and partisan incivility in comment sections. Journal of Communication, 67(4), 586–609. https://doi. org/10.1111/jcom.12312 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  238. Mutz, D. C. (2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  239. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute. politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital%20News%20Report%202017%20web_0. pdf?utm_source=digitalnewsreport.org&utm_medium=referral Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  240. Nielsen, C. E. (2014). Coproduction or cohabitation: Are anonymous online comments on newspaper websites shaping news content? New Media & Society, 16(3), 470–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487958 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  241. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(6), 259–283. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  242. Pertsch, S. (2016). Social media-charts of German media outlets [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.sebastian-pertsch.de/6488/socialmedia-charts-der-medien.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  243. Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2018). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies, 19 (1), 62–78. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  244. Reuter, M. (2016). Moderation bleibt Handarbeit: Wie große Online-Medien Leserkommentare moderieren [Moderation remains manual: How big online media moderate reader comments]. netzpolitik.org. Retrieved from https://netzpolitik.org/2016/moderation-bleibt-handarbeit-wie-tageszeitungen-leserkommentare-moderieren/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  245. Ross, B., Rist, M., Carbonell, G., Cabrera, B., Kurowsky, N., & Wojatzki, M. (2016). Measuring the reliability of hate speech annotations: The case of the European refugee crisis. In NLP4CMC III: 3rd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Computer-Mediated Communication, September 2016. Bochum, Germany. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  246. Rösner, L., Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.022 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  247. Rowe, I. (2015a). Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  248. /1369118X.2014.940365 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  249. Rowe, I. (2015b). 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  250. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1940161211415849 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  251. 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. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17512786.2013.813194 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  252. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  253. Springer, N., Engelmann, I., & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 798–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.997268 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  254. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 12. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  255. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  256. Stroud, N. J., van Duyn, E., & Peacock, C. (2016). News commenters and news comment readers. Retrieved from http://engagingnewsproject.org/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  257. Stryker, R., Conway, B. A., & Danielson, J. T. (2016). What is political incivility? Communication Monographs, 83(4), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1201207 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  258. Weber Shandwick, Powell Tate, & KRC Research. (2017). Civility in America VII: The state of incivility. Retrieved from http://www.webershandwick.com/uploads/news/files/Civility_in_America_the_State_of_Civility.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  259. Wise, K., Hamman, B., & Thorson, K. (2006). Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: Features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 24–41. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00313.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  260. Wright, S. (2006). Government-run online discussion fora: Moderation, censorship and the shadow of control. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(4), 550–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2006.00247.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  261. Wüllner, D. (2015). Lassen Sie uns diskutieren [Let’s discuss]. Retrieved from http://www. sueddeutsche.de/kolumne/ihre-sz-lassen-sie-uns-diskutieren-1.2095271 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  262. 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  263. Ziegele, M., & Jost, P. B. (2016). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research, 1–30. https://doi. org/10.1177/0093650216671854 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  264. Ziegele, M., Köhler, C., & Weber, M. (2017). Socially destructive! Effects of hateful user comments on recipients’ prosocial behavior. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), San Diego, USA. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  265. Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K., & Friess, D. (2018). Linking news value theory with online deliberation: How news factors and illustration factors in news articles affect the deliberative quality of user discussions in SNS’ comment sections. Communication Research, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  266. Ziegele, M., Weber, M., Quiring, O., & Breiner, T. (2018). 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, 21(10), 1419–1435. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1324505 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-525
  267. Act to Improve Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks (Network Enforcement Act) (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  268. Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  269. Bartlett, J., & Krasodomski-Jones, A. (2015). Counter-speech. Examining content that challenges extremism online. Retrieved from http://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Counter-speech.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  270. Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2014). Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.036 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  271. Benesch, S. (2014). Countering dangerous speech: New ideas for genocide prevention. Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved from https:// www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20140212-benesch-countering-dangerous-speech.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  272. Blair, C. A., Foster Thompson, L., & Wuensch, K. L. (2005). Electronic helping behavior: The virtual presence of others makes a difference. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 27(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2702_8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  273. Boeckmann, R. J., & Liew, J. (2002). Hate speech: Asian American students’ justice judgments and psychological responses. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 363–381. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00265 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  274. Costello, M., Hawdon, J., Ratliff, T., & Grantham, T. (2016). Who views online extremism? Individual attributes leading to exposure. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(Supplement C), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.033 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  275. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  276. Dickter, C. L., & Newton, V. A. (2013). To confront or not to confront: non-targets’ evaluations of and responses to racist comments: Responses to racist comments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, E262–E275. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12022 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  277. Ernst, J., Schmitt, J. B., Rieger, D., Beier, A. K., Vorderer, P., Bente, G., & Roth, H.-J. (2017). Hate beneath the counter speech? A qualitative content analysis of user comments on YouTube related to counter speech videos. Journal for Deradicalization, (10), 1–49. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  278. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023304 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  279. Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2017). Exposure to online hate in four nations: A cross-national consideration. Deviant Behavior, 38(3), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1 080/01639625.2016.1196985 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  280. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  281. Kaspar, K., Gräßer, L., & Riffi, A. (Eds.). (2017). Online Hate Speech: Perspektiven auf eine neue Form des Hasses [Online hate speech: Perspectives on a new form of hatred]. Düsseldorf München: kopaed. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  282. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0026570 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  283. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  284. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  285. Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.308 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  286. Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to anti-semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/15404560.00264 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  287. Leets, L., & Giles, H. (1997). Words as weapons—When do they wound? Investigations of harmful speech. Human Communication Research, 24(2), 260–301. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00415.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  288. Leiner, D. J. (2016). Our research’s breadth lives on convenience samples. A case study of the online respondent pool “SoSci Panel.” Studies in Communication and Media, 5(4), 367–396. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  289. Lin, Y.-F., Chiu, Y.-P., & Luarn, P. (2015). Influence of Facebook brand-page posts on online engagement. Online Information Review, 39(4), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/ OIR-01-2015-0029 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  290. Markey, P. M. (2000). Bystander intervention in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(2), 183–188. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  291. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Naab, T. K., Kalch, A. & Meitz, T. (2018). Flagging uncivil user comments: Effects of inter- Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  292. vention information, type of victim, and response comments on bystander behavior. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  293. New Media & Society, 20(2), 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816670923 Nekmat, E., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2013). Multiple opinion climates in online forums: Role Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  294. of website source reference and within-forum opinion congruency. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(4), 736–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013503162 Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017. Oxford, England: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  295. default/files/Digital%20News%20Report%202017%20web_0.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  296. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  297. Obermaier, M., Fawzi, N., & Koch, T. (2015). Bystanderintervention bei Cybermobbing. Warum spezifische Merkmale computervermittelter Kommunikation prosoziales Eingreifen von Bystandern einerseits hemmen und andererseits fördern [Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Why characteristics of computer-mediated communication both prevent and promote prosocial intervention of bystanders]. Studies in Communication and Media, 4(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2015-1-28 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  298. Obermaier, M., Fawzi, N., & Koch, T. (2016). Bystanding or standing by? How the number of bystanders affects the intention to intervene in cyberbullying. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1491–1507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814563519 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  299. Online Civil Courage Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/OnlineCivilCourage/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  300. Palasinski, M. (2012). The roles of monitoring and cyberbystanders in reducing sexual abuse. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2014–2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2012.05.020 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  301. Ross, B., Rist, M., Carbonell, G., Cabrera, B., Kurowsky, N., & Wojatzki, M. (2016). Measuring the reliability of hate speech annotations: The case of the European refugee crisis. In M. Beißwenger, M. Wojatzki, & T. Zesch (eds.), Proceedings of NLP4CMC III: 3rd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 6–9). Bochum: Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  302. Schenk, M., & Rössler, P. (2009). The rediscovery of opinion leaders. An application of the personality strength scale. Communications, 22(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/ comm.1997.22.1.5 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  303. Schieb, C., & Preuss, M. (2016). Governing hate speech by means of counterspeech on Facebook. Presented at the 66th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Fukuoka, Japan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  304. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the ‘social’ in computermediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 30–65). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  305. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321– 326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  306. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  307. Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of political participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 487–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.021 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  308. Weber, M., Ziegele, M., & Schnauber, A. (2013). Blaming the victim: The effects of extraversion and information disclosure on guilt attributions in cyberbullying. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 16(4), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1089/ cyber.2012.0328 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  309. Weber, M., Köhler, C., & Schnauber-Stockmann, A. (2018). Why should I help you? Man up! Bystanders’gender stereotypic perceptions of a cyberbullying incident. Deviant Behavior, online first. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1431183 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  310. Woong Yun, G., & Park, S.-Y. (2011). Selective posting: Willingness to post a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(2), 201–227. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01533.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  311. Yang, M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2007). The effectiveness of brand placements in the movies: Levels of placements, explicit and implicit memory, and brand-choice behavior. Journal of Communication, 57(3), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14602466.2007.00353.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  312. You, L., & Lee, Y.-H. (2018). Bystander effects in cyberbullying on social network sites: Anonymity, group size, and intervention intentions. Paper presented at the 68th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Prague, Czech Republic. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  313. Zerback, T., & Fawzi, N. (2017). Can online exemplars trigger a spiral of silence? Examining the effects of exemplar opinions on perceptions of public opinion and speaking out. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1034–1051. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625942 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-555
  314. Abdelkader, E. (2014). Savagery in the subways: Anti-muslim ads, the first amendment, and the efficacy of counterspeech. Asian American Law Journal, 21. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  315. Alhabash, S., Baek, J.-H., Cunningham, C., & Hagerstrom, A. (2015). To comment or not to comment? How virality, arousal level, and commenting behavior on Youtube videos affect civic behavioral intentions. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 520–531. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  316. Areni, C. S. (2003). The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 20(4), 349–375. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  317. Awan, I. (2016). Islamophobia on social media: A qualitative analysis of the Facebook’s walls of hate. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 10(1), 1–20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  318. Azriel, J. (2005). The internet and hate speech: An examination of the Nuremberg files case. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  319. Communication Law and Policy, 10(4), 477–497. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  320. Bartlett, J., & Krasodomski-Jones, A. (2015). Counter-speech examining content that challenges extremism online. Retrieved from https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2015/10/Counter-speech.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  321. Benesch, S. (2012). Dangerous speech: A proposal to prevent group violence. Retrieved from https://worldpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Dangerous-Speech-Guidelines-Benesch-January-2012 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  322. Benesch, S. (2014a). Countering dangerous speech: New ideas for genocide prevention. Working paper. Retrieved from https://dangerousspeech.org/countering-dangerous-speech-new-ideas-for-genocide-prevention/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  323. Benesch, S. (2014b). Flower speech: New responses to hatred online. Retrieved from https://thenetmonitor.org/research/2014/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  324. Bernstein, M. S., Monroy-Hernández, A., Harry, D., André, P., Panovich, K., & Vargas, G. (2011). 4chan and/b: An analysis of anonymity and ephemerality in a large online community. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 50–57. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  325. Bitner, M. J., & Obermiller, C. (1985). The elaboration likelihood model: Limitations and extensions in marketing. ACR North American Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 420–425. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  326. Boyd, M. S. (2014). (New) participatory framework on YouTube? Commenter interaction in US political speeches. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 46–58. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  327. Boyle, K. (2001). Hate speech – The United States versus the rest of the world. Maine Law Review, 53, 487–502. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  328. Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2012). A history of attitudes and persuasion research. In A. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 285– 320). New York: Psychology Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  329. Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and individual Differences, 67, 97–102. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  330. Burnap, P., & Williams, M. L. (2015). Cyber hate speech on Twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical modeling for policy and decision making. Policy & Internet, 7(2), 223–242. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  331. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  332. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 805–818. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  333. Cammaerts, B. (2009). Radical pluralism and free speech in online public spaces the case of north Belgian extreme right discourses. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(6), 555–575. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  334. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  335. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  336. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  337. Chandrasekharan, E., Pavalanathan, U., Srinivasan, A., Glynn, A., Eisenstein, J., & Gilbert, E. (2017). You can’t stay here: The efficacy of reddit’s 2015 ban examined through hate speech. Proceedings of the ACM Human-Computer Interaction. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3134666 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  338. Chatzakou, D., Kourtellis, N., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., & Vakali, A. (2017). Measuring #gamergate: A tale of hate, sexism, and bullying. Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion, 1285–1290. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  339. Chen, C., Zhang, J., Chen, X., Xiang, Y., & Zhou, W. (2015). 6 million spam tweets: A large ground truth for timely Twitter spam detection. IEEE International Conference on Communications, 7065–7070. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  340. Cheng, V. T., & Loi, M. K. (2014). Handling negative online customer reviews: The effects of elaboration likelihood model and distributive justice. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(1), 1–15. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  341. Citron, D. K., & Norton, H. L. (2011). Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering digital citizenship for our information age. Boston University Law Review, 91, 1435–1484. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  342. Conte, R., & Paolucci, M. (2014). On agent-based modeling and computational social science. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00668 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  343. Costello, M., Hawdon, J., Ratliff, T., & Grantham, T. (2016). Who views online extremism? Individual attributes leading to exposure. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 311–320. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  344. Crowley, J. P. (2014). Expressive writing to cope with hate speech: Assessing psychobiological stress recovery and forgiveness promotion for lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer victims of hate speech. Human Communication Research, 40(2), 238–261. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  345. Delgado, R. (1993). Words that wound. A tort action for racial insults, epithets, and name calling. In M. J. Matsuda, C. R. Lawrence III, R. Delgado, K. W. Crenshaw (Eds.), Words that wound. Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the First Amendment (pp. 89-110). New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  346. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2014). Hate speech in cyberspace. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 1–20. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  347. Deuze, M. (1999). Journalism and the web. An analysis of skills and standards in an online environment. International Communication Gazette, 61(5), 373–390. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  348. Douglas, K. M., McGarty, C., Bliuc, A.-M., & Lala, G. (2005). Understanding cyberhate: Social competition and social creativity in online white supremacist groups. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), 68–76. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  349. Douglas, S. C., Kiewitz, C., Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Kim, Y., & Chun, J. U. (2008). Cognitions, emotions, and evaluations: An elaboration likelihood model for workplace aggression. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 425–451. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  350. Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2002). Utilizing need for cognition and perceived self-efficacy to predict academic performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(8), 1687– 1702. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  351. Elin, L., & Davis, S. (2002). Click on democracy: The internet’s power to change political apathy into civic action. Westview Press, Inc. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  352. Epstein, J. M. (1999). Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  353. Complexity, 4(5), 41–60. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  354. Erjavec, K., & Kovačič, M. P. (2012). “You don’t understand, this is a new war!” Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Communication and Society, 15(6), 899–920. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  355. Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2013). Social relations and cyberbullying: The influence of individual and structural attributes on victimization and perpetration via the internet. Human Communication Research, 39(1), 101–126. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  356. Foubert, J. D., & Perry, B. C. (2007). Creating lasting attitude and behavior change in fraternity members and male student athletes the qualitative impact of an empathy-based rape prevention program. Violence Against Women, 13(1), 70–86. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  357. Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  358. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  359. Gagliardone, I., Pohjonen, M., Beyene, Z., Zerai, A., Aynekulu, G., Bekalu, M., … Teferra, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  360. Z. (2016). Mechachal. Online debates and elections in Ethiopia. From hate speech to engagement in social media. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2831369 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  361. Gee, G. (2002). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between institutional and individual racial discrimination and health status. American Journal of Public Health 92(4), 615–623. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  362. Gelber, K., & McNamara, L. (2016). Evidencing the harms of hate speech. Social Identities, 22(3), 324–341. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  363. George, C. (2015). Hate speech law and policy. In R. Mansell & P. H. Ang (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society (pp. 305–314). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  364. Gerstenfeld, P. B., Grant, D. R., & Chiang, C.-P. (2003). Hate online: A content analysis of extremist internet sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), 29–44. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  365. Glaser, J., Dixit, J., & Green, D. P. (2002). Studying hate crime with the internet: What makes racists advocate racial violence? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 177–193. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  366. Groshek, J., & Cutino, C. (2016). Meaner on mobile: Incivility and impoliteness in communicating contentious politics on sociotechnical networks. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1–10. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  367. Hanzelka, J., & Schmidt, I. (2017). Dynamics of cyber hate in social media: A comparative analysis of anti-muslim movements in the Czech Republic and Germany. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(1), 143–160. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  368. Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 239–260. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  369. Heath, B., Hill, R., & Ciarallo, F. (2009). A survey of agent-based modeling practices. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(4), 9. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  370. Henry, J. S. (2009). Beyond free speech: Novel approaches to hate on the Internet in the United States. Information & Communications Technology Law, 18(2), 235–251. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  371. Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing” trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18(5), 371–384. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  372. Hine, G. E., Onaolapo, J., De Cristofaro, E., Kourtellis, N., Leontiadis, I., Samaras, R., ... Blackburn, J. (2017). Kek, Cucks, and God Emperor Trump: A measurement study of 4chan’s politically incorrect forum and its effects on the web. Proceedings of the 11th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 92–101. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  373. Jane, E. A. (2014). Your a ugly, whorish, slut. Understanding E-bile. Feminist Media Studies, 14(4), 531–546. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  374. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 290–314. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  375. Johnson, B. T., Maio, G. R., & Smith-McLallen, A. (2005). Communication and attitude change: Causes, processes, and effects. In M. Albarracin & B. T. Johnson (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes. Basic Principles (pp. 617–669). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  376. King, R. D., & Sutton, G. M. (2013). High times for hate crimes: Explaining the temporal clustering of hate-motivated offending. Criminology, 51(4), 871–894. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  377. Kitchen, P. J., Kerr, G., Schultz, D. E., McColl, R., & Pals, H. (2014). The elaboration likelihood model: Review, critique and research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2033–2050. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  378. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480– 498. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  379. Laineste, L. (2012). Verbal expressions of aggressiveness in Estonian internet. In L. Laineste, D. Brzozowska, & W. Chłopicki (Eds.) Estonia and Poland. Creativity and tradition in cultural communication (pp. 205–220). Tartu: ELM Scholarly Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  380. Lange, P. G. (2014). Commenting on YouTube rants: Perceptions of inappropriateness or civic engagement? Journal of pragmatics, 73, 53–65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  381. Lawrence III, C. R. (1990). If he hollers let him go: Regulating racist speech on campus. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  382. Duke Law Journal, 39(3), 431–483. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  383. Lee, E., & Leets, L. (2002). Persuasive storytelling by hate groups online examining its effects on adolescents. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(6), 927–957. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  384. Lee, W.-K. (2012). An elaboration likelihood model based longitudinal analysis of attitude change during the process of its acceptance via education program. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(12), 1161–1171. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  385. Leets, L. (2001). Responses to internet hate sites: Is speech too free in cyberspace? Communication Law & Policy, 6(2), 287–317. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  386. Lodge, M. & Taber, C. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason, cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 183-213). Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  387. Malthouse, E. C., Calder, B. J., Kim, S. J., & Vandenbosch, M. (2016). Evidence that user-generated content that produces engagement increases purchase behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 427–444. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  388. Maynard, J. L., & Benesch, S. (2016). Dangerous speech and dangerous ideology: An integrated model for monitoring and prevention. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 9(3), 8. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  389. Megarry, J. (2014). Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualising women’s experiences in the digital age. In Women’s Studies International Forum, 47, 46–55. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  390. Mohan, S., Guha, A., Harris, M., Popowich, F., Schuster, A., & Priebe, C. (2017). The impact of toxic language on the health of reddit communities. In M. Mouhoub & P. Langlais (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Volume 10233 (pp. 51-56). Cham: Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  391. Mondal, M., Silva, L. A., & Benevenuto, F. (2017). A measurement study of hate speech in social media. Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078714.3078723 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  392. Mosler, H.-J., Schwarz, K., Ammann, F., & Gutscher, H. (2001). Computer simulation as a method of further developing a theory: Simulating the elaboration likelihood model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 201–215. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  393. Müller, F., van Zoonen, L., & Hirzalla, F. (2014). Anti-Islam propaganda and its effects. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  394. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 7(1), 82–100. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  395. Nemes, I. (2002). Regulating hate speech in cyberspace: Issues of desirability and efficacy. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  396. Information & Communications Technology Law, 11(3), 193–220. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  397. Orizio, G., Rubinelli, S., Schulz, P. J., Domenighini, S., Bressanelli, M., Caimi, L., & Gelatti, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  398. U. (2010). ‘‘Save 30% if you buy today’’. Online pharmacies and the enhancement of Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  399. peripheral thinking in consumers. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 19(9), 970–976. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  400. Parekh, B. (2006). Hate speech. Public policy research, 12(4), 213–223. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  401. Perry, B., & Olsson, P. (2009). Cyberhate: the globalization of hate. Information & Communications Technology Law, 18(2), 185–199. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  402. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 124–205. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  403. Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  404. Petty, R., & Wegener, D. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  405. D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.). The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 323–390). New York: McGraw-Hill. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  406. Pollock, E. (2009). Researching white supremacists online: methodological concerns of researching hate ‘speech’. Internet Journal of Criminology, 1–19. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  407. Quandt, T., & Festl, R. (2017). Cyberhate. In P. Rössler (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 336-344). Malden, Oxford, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  408. Räsänen, P., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., Keipi, T., Näsi, M., & Oksanen, A. (2016). Targets of online hate: Examining determinants of victimization among young Finnish Facebook users. Violence and Victims, 31(4), 708–726. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  409. Richards, R. D., & Calvert, C. (2000). Counterspeech 2000: A new look at the old remedy for bad speech. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2, 553–586. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  410. Rösner, L., Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461–470. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  411. SanJosé-Cabezudo, R., Gutiérrez-Arranz, A. M., & Gutiérrez-Cillán, J. (2009). The combined influence of central and peripheral routes in the online persuasion process. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 299–308. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  412. Schieb, C., & Preuss, M. (2016). Governing hate speech by means of counter-speech on Facebook. Presentation at the 66th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. Fukuoka, Japan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  413. Schmitt, J. B., Rieger, D., Rutkowski, O., & Ernst, J. (2018). Counter-messages as prevention or promotion of extremism?! The potential role of YouTube recommendation algorithms. Journal of Communication, 68(4), 780–808. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  414. Schumann, D. W., Kotowski, M. R., Ahn, H., & Haugtvedt, C. P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In S. Rodgers & E. Thorson (Eds.) Advertising theory (pp. 51–68). New York & London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  415. Shane, P. M. (2004). Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the internet. New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  416. Shepherd, T., Harvey, A., Jordan, T., Srauy, S., & Miltner, K. (2015). Histories of hating. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  417. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–10. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  418. Soral, W., Bilewicz, M., & Winiewski, M. (2018). Exposure to hate speech increases prejudice through desensitization. Aggressive behavior, 44(2), 136–146. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  419. Stephenson, M. T., Benoit, W. L., & Tschida, D. A. (2001). Testing the mediating role of cognitive responses in the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Studies, 52(4), 324–337. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  420. Stiff, J. B. (1986). Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta-analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Communications Monographs, 53(1), 75–89. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  421. Tsesis, A. (2001). Hate in cyberspace: Regulating hate speech on the internet. San Diego Law Review, 38, 817–874. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  422. Voinea, C. F. (2016). Political attitudes: Computational and simulation modelling. West-Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  423. Vollhardt, J., Coutin, M., Staub, E., Weiss, G., & Deflander, J. (2007). Deconstructing hate speech in the DRC: A psychological media sensitization campaign. Journal of Hate Studies, 5(15), 15–35. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  424. Waldherr, A. (2014). Emergence of news waves: A social simulation approach. Journal of Communication, 64(5), 852–873. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  425. Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  426. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  427. Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  428. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441–458. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  429. Withers, G. F., Twigg, K., Wertheim, E. H., & Paxton, S. J. (2002). A controlled evaluation of an eating disorders primary prevention videotape using the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53(5), 1021–1027. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  430. Withers, G. F., & Wertheim, E. H. (2004). Applying the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion to a videotape-based eating disorders primary prevention program for adolescent girls. Eating Disorders, 12(2), 103–124. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  431. Zerback, T., & Fawzi, N. (2016). Can online exemplars trigger a spiral of silence? Examining the effects of exemplar opinions on perceptions of public opinion and speaking out. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1034–1051. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580
  432. Ziegele, M., & Jost, P. B. (2016). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0093650216671854 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-580

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media