Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: The mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion

an article by Yonghwan Kim (Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea) and Youngju Kim (Konkuk University-Glocal campus, South Korea) published in Computers in Human Behavior Volume 99 (October 2019)

Highlights

• Exposure to uncivil disagreeing comments reduces one's willingness to read more comments.
• Exposure to uncivil disagreeing comments induces negative emotions. .
• Willingness to read more comments mediates the effect of uncivil disagreeing comments on attitude polarization.
• Negative emotion mediates the effect of uncivil disagreeing comments on attitude polarization.

Abstract

This study examined whether and how (in)civility and the presence of supporting evidence in disagreeing comments influence individuals' attitude polarization.

The study used a 2 (civility vs. incivility) × 2 (evidence vs. no evidence) factorial design involving reading dissimilar viewpoints in Facebook comments. The results showed that exposure to uncivil opposing comments, compared to exposure to civil disagreeing comments, led to lower levels of willingness to read more comments and greater levels of negative emotions and attitude polarization.

However, the presence or absence of supporting evidence in comments did not have any significant effect on the outcome variables.

The findings suggest that it is the civility or incivility of information that influences whether exposure to dissimilar perspectives either mitigates or reinforces individuals’ attitude polarization.

This study also suggested willingness to read more comments and negative emotions as two mediating factors between exposure to uncivil/civil disagreeing comments and attitude polarization.

---

Public Spaces Protection Orders: a critical policy analysis

an article by Vicky Heap and Jill Dickinson (Sheffield Hallam University, UK) published in Safer Communities Volume 17 Issue 3 (2018)

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to critically appraise the Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) policy that was introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014). Within a designated area assigned by the local council, PSPOs can prohibit or require specific behaviours to improve the quality of life for people inhabiting that space. Those who do not comply face a fixed penalty notice of £100 or a fine of £1,000 on summary conviction. However, the practical and theoretical impact associated with the development of these powers has yet to be fully explored.

Design/methodology/approach
Using Bannister and O’Sullivan’s (2013) discussion of civility and anti-social behaviour policy as a starting point, the authors show how PSPOs could create new frontiers in exclusion, intolerance and criminalisation, as PSPOs enable the prohibition of any type of behaviour perceived to negatively affect the quality of life.

Findings
Local councils in England and Wales now have unlimited and unregulated powers to control public spaces. The authors suggest that this has the potential to produce localised tolerance thresholds and civility agendas that currently target and further marginalise vulnerable people, and the authors highlight street sleeping homeless people as one such group.

Originality/value
There has been little academic debate on this topic. This paper raises a number of original, conceptual questions that provide an analytical framework for future empirical research. The authors also use original data from Freedom of Information requests to contextualise the discussions.

---