Negativity Wins at Last
How Presentation Order and Valence of User Comments Affect Perceptions of Journalistic Quality
Abstract
Abstract. A number of studies show that user comments on news websites can affect news-related judgments and perceptions. However, with news organizations increasingly shifting their comment sections to social network sites (SNS), questions arise about whether this alters previously observed effects. Instead of encountering comments “below the line,” SNS provoke a reversed direction of exposure, suggesting that comments might be read before the news article. Addressing the implications of this shift in direction of exposure, we conducted a preregistered experiment with German participants (N = 630), in which we varied comment presentation order (before vs. after the article) and comment valence (positive vs. negative) and assessed how these factors influence the way individuals perceive the journalistic quality of commented news articles. The data provide evidence for a negativity bias and presentation order effects, with negative comments showing distinct effects on quality perceptions, particularly when presented after the article.
References
2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
(2010). The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. Cognition and Emotion, 24(4), 561–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903132496
(2015). Aggressive priming online: Facebook adverts can prime aggressive cognitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.072
(1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
(2016). Third-person perception of online comments: Civil ones persuade you more than me. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 736–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.014
(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
(2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251
(2018). Recipients’ assessment of journalistic quality. Do online user comments or the actual journalistic quality matter? Digital Journalism, 6(5), 563–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1388748
(2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x
(2016). Social clicks: What and who gets read on Twitter? Presented at the ACM SIGMETRICS/IFIP Performance 2016, Antibes Juan-les-Pins, France. https://doi.org/10.1145/2964791.2901462
(2013). Primacy versus recency effects in extended service encounters. Journal of Service Management, 24(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231311304198
(1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1086/209393
(2009). Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 983–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.012
(1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1086/209062
(1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-J
(1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.887
(2011). Nachrichtenqualität aus Nutzersicht. Ein Vergleich zwischen Leserurteilen und wissenschaftlich-normativen Qualitätsansprüchen
([Quality in news journalism from the point of view of the audience – a comparison of readers’ evaluation and normative quality standards] . Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59(3), 360–378. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2011-3-3602018). The imagined audience for and perceived quality of news comments: Exploring the perceptions of commenters on news sites and on Facebook. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118765741
(2018).
(User comments in digital journalism: Current research and future directions . In S. A. EldridgeB. FranklinEds., The Routledge handbook of developments in digital journalism studies (pp. 475–486). London, UK: Routledge.2012). Media-induced affects and opinion formation: How related and unrelated affects influence political opinions. Living Reviews in Democracy, 3, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-68721
(2016). Commenting quality. Effects of user comments on perceptions of journalistic quality. Studies in Communication and Media, 5(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2016-3-353
(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/10.1177/0093650210376189
(2017). How user comments affect news processing and reality perception: Activation and refutation of regional prejudice. Communication Monographs, 84(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1231334
(2017). When news meets the audience: How audience feedback online affects news production and consumption. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12123
(2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
(2016). Appetizer or main dish? Explaining the use of Facebook news posts as a substitute for other news sources. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.003
(2018). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
(2014). Exemplification 2.0: Roles of direct and indirect social information in conveying health messages through social network sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 26(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000103
(1986).
(The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion . In L. BerkowitzEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York, NY: Academic Press.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
(2009).
(Media Priming: An updated synthesis . In J. BryantM. B. OliverEds., Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 74–93). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203877111-112015). 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
(2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
(2009). The impact of perceived message complexity and need for cognition on information processing and attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 880–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.006
(1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131
(2006). Being bad isn’t always good: Affective context moderates the attention bias toward negative information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.210
(2018). User-Generated (Dis)Content. Eine Literatursynopse zur Nutzung der Kommentarfunktion auf Nachrichtensites im Internet
([A literature review on user comments on online news websites] . In C. NuernbergkC. NeubergerEds., Journalismus im Internet. Profession - Partizipation - Technisierung (2nd ed., 241–271). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.2016).
(The presence and use of interactive features on news websites . Digital Journalism, 4(3) 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2015.10429822018). Uncivil and personal? Comparing patterns of incivility in comments on the Facebook pages of news outlets. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3678–3699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818757205
(2008).
(The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility . In M. J. MetzgerA. J. FlanaginEds., Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.0732008). Effects of design in web surveys: Comparing trained and fresh respondents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 985–1007. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn060
(1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/e301722005-001
(1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1130. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
(2017). The effects of credibility cues on the selection of search engine results. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8), 1850–1862. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23820
(2014). News quality from the recipients’ perspective: Investigating recipients’ ability to judge the normative quality of news. Journalism Studies, 15(6), 821–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2013.856670
(2016). Pre-registration in social psychology – a discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.004
(2016). Nachrichtenqualität aus Sicht der Mediennutzer. Wie Rezipienten die Leistung des Journalismus beurteilen können
([News quality from the recipients’ perspective. How recipients are able to evaluate journalistic efforts] . Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.2016). The effects of reader comments on the perception of personalized scandals: Exploring the roles of comment valence and commenters’ social status. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4480–4501.
(2018). What does the crowd think? How online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance. New Media & Society, 20(8), 3068–3083. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817742905
(2017). #thisshowsucks! The overpowering influence of negative social media comments on television viewers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1309414
(2019). Why user comments affect the perceived quality of journalistic content. The role of judgment processes. Journal of Media Psychology, 31(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000217
(2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(8), 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0005
(1998). Informational influence and the ambiguity of product experience: Order effects on the weighting of evidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(1), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0701_04
(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
(2016). Not funny? The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216671854
(