The impact of anonymity and issue controversiality on the quality of online discussion

References

• Aiken, M., & Waller, B. (2000). Flaming among first-time group support system users. Information & Management, 37(2), 95–100. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(99)00036-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and representation in political debates on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9(1), 62–82. doi:10.1080/13691180500519548
   Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A. (2011). Contestatory deliberation. Paper presented at the Epistemic Democracy Conference, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
   Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A., & Hangartner, D. (2010). When deliberative theory meets empirical political science: Theoretical and methodological challenges in political deliberation. Political Studies, 58(4), 609–629. doi:10.1111/post.2010.58.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). The real world of deliberation: A comparative study of its favorable conditions in legislatures. IUE Working Paper SPS No. 2004/17. Badia Fiesolana, San Domenico, Italy: European University Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, J. (2010). Artikelkommentarer som demokratiska samtal ( Unpublished master’s thesis). Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, W., Graeffe, L., & Holden, C. (2003). Teaching controversial issues: A European perspective. London, England: Children’s Identity and Citizenship in Europe, CiCe.
   Google Scholar
• Burkell, J. (2006). Anonymity in behavioural research: Not being unnamed, but being unknown. University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal, 3(1), 189–203.
   Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19(1), 73–93. doi:10.1080/105846002317246498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A. (2008). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. Isjlp, 5, 9.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2004). Behind closed doors: Publicity, secrecy, and the quality of deliberation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4), 389–410. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00206.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 4(3): 9–42.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2012). When, why, and how controversy causes conversation. Journal of Consumer Research 40(3), 580–593.
   Google Scholar
• Clabough, J., Philpott, S., McConkey, L., & Turner, T.N. (2011). Teachers' struggles with controversial issues: Facing the demon. National Social Science Journal, 38(2), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Moss, G. (2012). Under construction: The field of online deliberation research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/19331681.2011.635957
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1). Retrieved from http://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2012/ZURs203/um/Literatura/Dahlberg_-_Computer-Mediated_Communication_and_the_Public_Sphere.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Darabi, A., & Jin, L. (2013). Improving the quality of online discussion: The effects of strategies designed based on cognitive load theory principles. Distance Education, 34(1), 21–36. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.770429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, T., & Chandler, R. (2011). Online deliberation design: Choices, criteria, and evidence. In T. Nabatchi, M. Weiksner, J. Gastil, & M. Leighninger (Eds.), Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T., & Gangadharan, S. P. (2009). Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information/SRI.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, R. (2005). Politics online: Blogs, chatrooms, and discussion groups in American democracy. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., & Bos, A. E. (2008). The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 766–785. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, K. M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self‐presentation: Computer‐mediated communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 399–416. doi:10.1348/014466601164894
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumoulin, M. (2003). Les forums électroniques: Délibératifs et démocratiques? In D. Monière (Ed.), Internet et la démocratie (pp. 141–157). Québec, Canada: Monière et Wollank Editeurs.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Kaltenbrunner, A., & Banchs, R. E. (2010). The structure of political discussion networks: A model for the analysis of online deliberation. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 230–243. doi:10.1057/jit.2010.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, T. (2009). What’s wife swap got to do with it? ( Doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam. The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/record/1/317838
   Google Scholar
• Graham, T. (2012). Beyond “political” communicative spaces: Talking politics on the wife swap discussion forum. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 31–45. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.635961
   Google Scholar
• Hagemann, C. (2002). Participation in and contents of two Dutch political party discussion lists on the Internet. Javnost—The Public, 9(2), 61–76. doi:10.1080/13183222.2002.11008800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35(2), 190–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jankowski, N., & Martine, V. S. (2000). The promise and practice of public debate in cyberspace. In K. L. Hacker & J. Van Dijk (Eds.), Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice (pp. 149–165). London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Jankowski, N. W., & van Os, R. (2004). Internet-based political discourse: A case study of electronic democracy in Hoogeveen. In P. M. Shane (Ed.), Democracy online: The prospect for political renewal through the Internet (pp. 181–194). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40(3), 317–335. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, J. L. (2003). Public spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or government‐sponsored–A comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(4), 349–374. doi:10.1111/scps.2003.26.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahai, S. S. (2009). Anonymity and counter-normative arguments in computer-mediated discussions. Group & Organization Management, 34(4), 449–478. doi:10.1177/1059601108330064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsson, M. (2012). Understanding divergent patterns of political discussion in online forums—Evidence from the European citizens’ consultations. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 64–81. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.635965
   Google Scholar
• Kayany, J. M. (1998). Contexts of uninhibited online behavior: Flaming in social newsgroups on Usenet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(12), 1135–1141. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-4571
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kies, R. (2010). Promises and Limits of Web-deliberation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kilner, P. G., & Hoadley, C. M. (2005). Anonymity options and professional participation in an online community of practice. In T. Koschmann, T. W. Chan, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 272–280). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. (2006). The impact of Internet use patterns on political engagement: A focus on online deliberation and virtual social capital. Information Polity, 11(1), 35–49.
   Google Scholar
• Kraemer, H. C., & Thiemann, S. (1987). How many subjects? Statistical power analysis in research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushin, M. J., & Kitchener, K. (2009). Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday, 14(11). doi:10.5210/fm.v14i11.2645
   Google Scholar
• Lainiala, L. (2010). Perhepolitiikan uudet tuulet – Perheen paluu. Perhebarometri 2010 [A fresh breeze in family politics - The return of the family. The family barometer 2010]. Katsauksia E 39/2010. Helsinki, Finland: Väestöliitto, Väestöntutkimuslaitos. Retrieved from http://vaestoliitto-fi-bin.directo.fi/@Bin/983962aea94c3449d5f45df567dabadf/1454671024/application/pdf/4921275/Perhebarometri%202010_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434–443. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. (2005). Behavioral strategies for dealing with flaming in an online forum. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(2), 385–403. doi:10.1111/tsq.2005.46.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leshed, G. (2009). Silencing the clatter: Removing anonymity from a corporate online community. In T. Davis & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research and practice (pp. 243–251). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lombard, M., Snyder–Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. doi:10.1111/hcre.2002.28.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. (2009, April). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Online Journalism. Retrieved from http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2009/papers/ManosevitchWalker09.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Marx, G. T. (1999). What’s in a name? Some reflections on the sociology of anonymity. The Information Society, 15(2), 99–112. doi:10.1080/019722499128565
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Min, S. J. (2007). Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 12(4), 1369–1387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misnikov, Y. (2012). How to read and treat online public discussions among ordinary citizens beyond political mobilisation. Digital Icons: Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media, 7, 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Moor, P. J. (2007). Conforming to the flaming norm in the online commenting situation ( Unpublished bachelor’s thesis). Twente, The Netherlands: University of Twente, Twente.
   Google Scholar
• Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2010). Experimental political science and the study of causality: From nature to the lab. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mungeam, F. (2011). Commenting on the news: How the degree of anonymity affects flaming online ( Master’s thesis). Spokane, Washington: Gonzaga University. Retrieved from http://web02.gonzaga.edu/comltheses/proquestftp/Mungeam_gonzaga_0736M_10111.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nagar, N. (2011). The loud public: The case of user comments in online news media ( Doctoral dissertation). State University of New York, Albany.
   Google Scholar
• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1989). Advances in spiral of silence research. KEIO Communication Review, 10, 3–34.
   Google Scholar
• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion—Our social skin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhee, J. W., & Kim, E. (2009). Deliberation on the Net: Lessons from a field experiment. In T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 223–232). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. E., & Stanyer, J. (2011). Reader opinion in the digital age: Tabloid and broadsheet newspaper websites and the exercise of political voice. Journalism, 12(8), 983–1003. doi:10.1177/1464884911415974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruesch, M. A., & Märker, O. (2013, May). Real name policy in E-participation. Paper presented at the CeDEM12: International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, Danube University, Krems, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuel, A. W. (2004). Hacktivism and the future of political participation ( Doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33. doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
   Google Scholar
• Scheufle, D. A., & Moy, P. (2000). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12(1), 3–28. doi:10.1093/ijpor/12.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, S. J., Kerwin, J., Frechtling, J., & Vivari, B. A. (2002). Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 31–42. doi:10.1177/089443930202000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, S. M. (1997). Expanding the public sphere through computer-mediated communication: Political discussion about abortion in a Usenet newsgroup ( Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, C. R. (2004). Benefits and drawbacks of anonymous online communication: Legal challenges and communicative recommendations. Free Speech Yearbook, 41(1), 127–141. doi:10.1080/08997225.2004.10556309
   Google Scholar
• Short, K. (2012). Hiding behind the small screen: Investigating levels of anonymity when managing online hostile commentary ( Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://mail.american.edu/soc/communication/upload/Kimberly-Short.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stasavage, D. (2007). Polarization and publicity: Rethinking the benefits of deliberative democracy. The Journal of Politics, 69(1), 59–72. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00494.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenberger, M., Bächtiger, A., Spröndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spürndli, M., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative politics in action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strandberg, K. (2008). Public deliberation goes on-line? An analysis of citizens’ political discussions on the Internet prior to the Finnish parliamentary elections in 2007. Javnost—The Public, 15(1), 71–89. doi:10.1080/13183222.2008.11008965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2003). Diversity of political conversation on the Internet: Users’ perspectives. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 8(3). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00215.x
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., & Wichowski, A. (2011). Political discussion online. The Handbook of Internet Studies, 11, 168.
   Google Scholar
• Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. doi:10.1089/1094931041291295
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sundström, M. (2002). Demokratiska avatarer. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 105(3), 214–217.
   Google Scholar
• Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2007). Two faces of anonymity: Paradoxical effects of cues to identity in CMC. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(2), 955–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucey, C. B. (2010, April). Online vs. face-to-face deliberation on the global warming and stem cell issues. Paper presented at the Western Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting.
   Google Scholar
• Trénel, M. (2004). Measuring the quality of online deliberation. Coding scheme 2.2. Unpublished paper, Social Science Research Center Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.wzberlin.de/~trenel/tools/qod_2_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• van Gelder, T. (2012). Cultivating deliberation for democracy. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1), 12.
   Google Scholar
• van Voorhis, C. R. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50.
   Google Scholar
• Wales, C., Cotterill, S., & Smith, G. (2010, September). Do citizens “deliberate” in on-line discussion forums? Preliminary findings from an Internet experiment Paper presented at the ECPR general conference. Potsdam, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, K. A. (2008). Online anonymity. In K. E. Himma & H. T. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 165–190). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Wellington, J. J. (1986). Controversial issues in the curriculum. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Wilhelm, A. (2000). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, L., & Lahman, M. (2011). Online discussion, student engagement, and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(2), 143–162. doi:10.1080/15512169.2011.564919
   Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M. E., & Price, V. (2012). Perceived versus actual disagreement: Which influences deliberative experiences? Journal of Communication, 62(3), 418–436. doi:10.1111/jcom.2012.62.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869. doi:10.1177/1461444807081230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yle. (2008). Enemmistö suomalaisista ei kannata homoparien adoptio-oikeutta [The majority of the Finnish population does not support adoption for same-sex couples]. Retrieved from http://yle.fi/uutiset/enemmisto_suomalaisista_ei_kannata_homoparien_adoptio-oikeutta/5852001
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, W., Cao, X., & Tran, M. N. (2013). The structural features and the deliberative quality of online discussions. Telematics and Informatics, 30(2), 74–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar