When we tolerate online incivility: Dual-Process Effects of Argument Strength and Heuristic Cues in Uncivil User Comments

Online comment streams today are often vigorous, even violent places of public engagement. This study uses the Sociotechnical Influence Model (SIM; Van Der Heide & Schumaker, 2013), a dual-process approach to the study of computer-mediated persuasion and compliance gaining, to examine how argument strength and heuristic cues associated with uncivil user comments generate different attitudinal, cognitive, and behavioral responses from readers. In a web-based experiment, participants (N = 205) read a political news article followed by uncivil comments that present either strong or weak arguments and different proportions of like/dislike feedback cues. Consistent with the model, strong arguments in uncivil comments elicited more favorable evaluation of comment content, more thought generation pertaining to news content (i.e., news elaboration), and more corrective action against incivility. More likes than dislikes of incivility further enhanced news elaboration when comments contained strong arguments, while the absence of any like nor dislike cues led to increased corrective action against incivility accompanying weak arguments. Findings validate novel operationalizations of the SIM framework and suggest practical strategies for mitigating online incivility. •Argument strength of uncivil comments boosts cognitive elaboration of news content.•Positive heuristic cues enhance the effect of argument strength on news elaboration.•Uncivil comments containing stronger arguments lead to more favorable evaluation.•Readers intervene more against online incivility accompanying stronger arguments.•Bystander intervention is more likely to occur in the absence of any heuristic cues.