Research Article

Incivility, Online Participation, and Message Delivery in the 2019 Hong Kong Protests: Exploring the Relationship

Gregory Gondwe 1 *
More Detail
1 University of Colorado – Boulder, USA* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 10(4), October 2020, e202022, https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/8397
OPEN ACCESS   3334 Views   1561 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study used the 2019 online Hong Kong protests to understand whether negative messages serve as mediators between incivility and civic engagement, and to investigate whether incivility does trivialize the value of information and the message intended. The study sought to examine the impact of two types of incivility in online discourse on online participation and showed that the relationship is mediated by information value and message importance. Through ‘netnographic’ research, quasi-experiments, and online surveys, the findings were able to demonstrate that incivility (good) was necessary for increasing online participation, therefore, allowing negative messages to serve as mediators with indirect effects. The mediating effects were observed in the arousal of emotions that led to participation. Second, findings suggested that (good) incivility defined the importance of information and the content of the message.
Keywords: online protests, Facebook platforms, Hong Kong, information trivialization, incivility

CITATION (APA)

Gondwe, G. (2020). Incivility, Online Participation, and Message Delivery in the 2019 Hong Kong Protests: Exploring the Relationship. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 10(4), e202022. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/8397

REFERENCES

  1. 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
  2. Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  3. Asongu, S. A., & Nwachukwu, J. C. (2016). Revolution empirics: predicting the Arab Spring. Empirical Economics, 51(2), 439-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-015-1013-0
  4. Bentler, P. (1993). EQS Structural equations program manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.
  5. Black, L. W. (2008). Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic Moments: Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments. Communication Theory, 18(1), 93e116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00315.x
  6. Borah, P. (2014). Interaction of incivility and news frames in the Political Blogosphere: Consequences and psychological. Handbook of Research on Political Activism in the Information Age, 407. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6066-3.ch024
  7. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2000). Measuring emotion: Behavior, feeling, and physiology. Cognitive neuroscience of emotion, 25, 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
  8. Calabrese, A. (2015). Liberalism’s disease: Civility above justice. European Journal of Communication, 30(5), 539-553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323115595306
  9. Cantoni, D., Yang, D. Y., Yuchtman, N., & Zhang, Y. J. (2019). Protests as strategic games: experimental evidence from Hong Kong’s antiauthoritarian movement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(2), 1021-1077. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz002
  10. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658e679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
  11. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political communication, 22(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
  12. Druckman, J. N., Gubitz, S. R., Lloyd, A. M., & Levendusky, M. S. (2019). How Incivility on Partisan Media (De) Polarizes the Electorate. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 291-295. https://doi.org/10.1086/699912
  13. Fanon, F. (2004). The Wretched of the Earth. 1961. Trans. Richard Philcox. New York: Grove.
  14. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Rucht, D., & Gerhards, J. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613685
  15. Fok, L. K. (2017). The Polarization and Civility of Hong Kong Political Discourse on Facebook News Pages.
  16. Frazer, E., & Hutchings, K. (2008). On politics and violence: Arendt Contra Fanon. Contemporary political theory, 7(1), 90-108. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300328
  17. Gondwe, G. (2018). News Believability & Trustworthiness on African Online Networks: An Experimental Design. International Communication Research Journal, 53(2), 51-74
  18. Habermas, J. (1997). The public sphere (pp. 105-108). na.
  19. Hirshleifer, J. (1973, May). Where are we in the theory of information? The American Economic Review, 63(2). Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-fifth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (pp. 31–39).
  20. Hopp, T., & Ferrucci, P. (2020). A Spherical Rendering of Deviant Information Resilience. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1077699020916428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020916428
  21. Hopp, T., & Vargo, C. J. (2017). Does negative campaign advertising stimulate uncivil communication on social media? Measuring audience response using big data. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 368-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.034
  22. Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M. M., Mari, W., & Maziad, M. (2011). Opening closed regimes: what was the role of social media during the Arab Spring?. Available at SSRN 2595096. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2595096
  23. Jamieson, K. H., & Hardy, B. (2012). What is civil engaged argument and why does aspiring to it matter? PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(3), 412-415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000479
  24. Khondker, H. H. (2011). Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations, 8(5), 675-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2011.621287
  25. Krugman, P. (2003). Behind the great divide. The New York Times, 18.
  26. Marcuse, H. (1969). An essay on liberation (Vol. 319). Beacon Press.
  27. McHugo, G. J., Lanzetta, J. T., Sullivan, D. G., Masters, R. D., & Englis, B. G. (1985). Emotional reactions to a political leader’s expressive displays. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(6), 1513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1513
  28. McKeown, J., & Ladegaard, H. J. (2020). Exploring the metadiscursive realization of incivility in TV news discourse. Discourse, Context & Media, 33, 100367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100367
  29. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259e283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
  30. 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
  31. Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media—sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of management information systems, 29(4), 217-248. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408
  32. Tandoc Jr, E. C., Ferrucci, P., & Duffy, M. (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is Facebooking depressing?. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053
  33. Vieweg, S. (2010). Microblogged contributions to the emergency arena: Discovery, interpretation and implications. CSCW, February 6–10 (pp. 515–516). Savanah, GA: ACM. Retrieved from http://www.citeulike.org/user/ChaTo/article/6761693 [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, M. Y., & Silva, D. E. (2018). A slap or a jab: An experiment on viewing uncivil political discussions on Facebook. Computers in human behavior, 81, 73-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.041