Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

The Effect of Streaming Chat on Perceptions of Political Debates

Bibliographic Data

ID22693236
AuthorsVictoria S Asbury-Kimmel (0000-0003-1717-1730, Harvard University), Victoria Asbury-Kimmel (Harvard University), Keng-Chi Chang (0000-0002-3545-5553, University of California San Diego), K T Mccabe (0000-0001-9183-2918, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, corresponding author), Kevin Munger (0000-0002-4399-5250, Pennsylvania State University), Tiago Ventura (0000-0003-2162-814X, Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA)
Year2021
Volume71
Issue6
Pages947-974
Publication date2021-12-14
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Communication (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0021-9916 • E-ISSN: 1460-2466
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/joc/jqab041
OpenAlexW3208551447
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited56

Broadcast media consumption is becoming more social. Many online video “livestreams” come with embedded livestreaming chatboxes, uniting the on-screen and social components. We investigate how streaming chat shapes perceptions of political events. We conducted a field experiment during the September 2019 Democratic Primary Debate where subjects were assigned to view the debate with or without streaming chat. We use text analyses to characterize the frequency, toxicity, and tone of comments in the chat. Our experimental findings indicate that Democratic subjects assigned to the Facebook (social) chat condition reported lower affect toward Democrats and a worse viewing experience, aligned with the toxic and overwhelming nature of the chat. The polarity of candidate-directed comments also influenced candidate evaluations and perceived performance in the polls. This suggests that consumers of mass media will be both more immediately affected by social feedback and likely to make inferences about the experiences of their fellow consumers.

Advertising · Affect (linguistics) · Business · Democracy · Perception · Political science · Politics · Social media · Tone (literature) · World Wide Web · Communication · Computer Science · Law · Media Studies and Communication · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Psychology · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology

  • Affective Publics in the YouTube Live Chat

    Open Access•Sungwon Jung, Zhi Lin et al.•Political Communication•2026

  • The Democratic Value of Strategic Game Reporting and Uncivil Talk

    Open Access•Lindita Camaj, Lea Hellmueller et al.•Journalism & Mass Communication…•2024

  • Toxicity and Moral Rhetoric in Video- and Text-Based Digital Platforms

    Y Hsiao, Chingching Chang et al.•Political Communication•2025

  • Second screening and trust in professional and alternative media

    Open Access•Z Cheng, Yin Yang et al.•Human Communication Research•2024

  • Frenemies

    Jaime E Settle•Frenemies•2018

  • Incivility on Facebook and political polarization

    Open Access•Yonghwan Kim, Youngju Kim•Computers in Human Behavior•2019

  • The Distorting Prism of Social Media

    Open Access•Jin Woo Kim, Allison M Gue et al.•Journal of Communication•2021

  • Learning from Presidential Debates

    Open Access•Freddie J Jennings, Benjamin R Warner et al.•Communication Studies•2020

  • Moderate amounts of media multitasking are associated with optimal task performance and minimal mind wandering

    Open Access•Myoungju Shin, Astrid Linke et al.•Computers in Human Behavior•2020

  • WhatsApp political discussion, conventional participation and activism

    Homero Gil De Zúñiga, Alberto Ardèvol-Abreu et al.•Information Communication & Society•2021

  • What Is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and Its Effect on Online Political Participation

    Open Access•Homero Gil De Zúñiga, Víctor García‐perdomo et al.•Journal of Communication•2015

  • Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments

    Open Access•Kevin Coe, Kate Kenski et al.•Journal of Communication•2014

  • A Bad Workman Blames His Tweets

    Open Access•Yannis Theocharis, Pablo Barberá Aresté et al.•Journal of Communication•2016

  • A “Mix of Attributes” Approach to the Study of Media Effects and New Communication Technologies

    Open Access•W P Eveland•Journal of Communication•2003

  • Dual Screening the Political

    Open Access•C Vaccari, Andrew Chadwick et al.•Journal of Communication•2015

  • The Logic of Political Coverage on Twitter

    Open Access•Andreas Jungherr•Journal of Communication•2014

  • The “Myth” of Media Multitasking

    Open Access•Zheng Wang, John M Tchernev•Journal of Communication•2012

  • Overconfidence in Political Behavior

    Pietro Ortoleva, Erik Snowberg•American Economic Review•2015

  • Spinning Debates

    Open Access•Kim Fridkin, Patrick J Kenney et al.•The International Journal of…•2008

  • Incivility Online

    Bryan T Gervais•Journal of Information Technology…•2014

  • Virtuous or Vitriolic

    Arthur D Santana•Journalism Practice•2013

  • Studying political microblogging

    Open Access•Anders Olof Larsson, Hallvard Moe•New Media & Society•2011

  • A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates

    William L Benoit, Glenn J Hansen et al.•Communication Monographs•2003

  • Changing Minds or Changing Channels

    Kevin Arceneaux, Martin Johnson•Changing Minds or Changing…•2013

  • Angry, frustrated, and overwhelmed

    Open Access•María Celeste Wagner, Pablo J Boczkowski•Journalism•2019

  • Democracy online

    Open Access•Zizi Papacharissi•New Media & Society•2004

  • What to Believe? Social Media Commentary and Belief in Misinformation

    Open Access•Nicolas M Anspach, Taylor N Carlson•Political Behavior•2018

  • Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk

    Open Access•Alexander Coppock•Political Science Research and…•2018

  • Who Watches Presidential Debates

    M Prior, M H Prior•Public Opinion Quarterly•2012

  • (Re)Claiming Our Expertise

    Ashley Muddiman, Shannon C Mcgregor et al.•Political Communication•2019

  • Identifying Media Effects Through Low-Cost, Multiwave Field Experiments

    Kimberly Gro, Ethan Porter et al.•Political Communication•2019

  • The Changing Nature of Political Debate Consumption

    Jeffrey A Gottfried, Bruce W Hardy et al.•Political Communication•2017

  • How a Presidential Primary Debate Changed Attitudes of Audience Members

    Open Access•Mike Yawn, Kevin Ellsworth et al.•Political Behavior•1998

  • Political Learning from Presidential Debates

    Open Access•Thomas M Holbrook•Political Behavior•1999

  • Tweeting Presidential Primary Debates

    Open Access•Freddie J Jennings, Calvin R Coker et al.•American Behavioral Scientist•2017

  • Voters' Perceptions of Trust in 2016 Presidential Candidates, Clinton and Trump

    Open Access•Pamela S Shockley-Zalabak, Pamela Shockley‐Zalabak et al.•American Behavioral Scientist•2019

  • Will the "Real" Candidates for President and Vice President Please Stand Up? 2008 Pre- and Post-Debate Viewer Perceptions of Candidate Image

    Open Access•Benjamin R Warner, Diana B Carlin et al.•American Behavioral Scientist•2011

  • Dual Screening During Presidential Debates

    Open Access•Dhavan V Shah, Alex Hanna et al.•American Behavioral Scientist•2016

  • The Dynamics of Political Incivility on Twitter

    Open Access•Yannis Theocharis, Pablo Barberá Aresté et al.•SAGE Open•2020

  • Television News and Citizens' Explanations of National Affairs

    Open Access•Sharad Iyengar, Shanto Iyengar•American Political Science Review•1987

  • Tweeting Along Partisan Lines

    Open Access•Freddie J Jennings, Josh C Bramlett et al.•Social Media + Society•2020

  • We Should Not Get Rid of Incivility Online

    Open Access•Gina M Masullo, Ashley Muddiman et al.•Social Media + Society•2019

  • The Limited Value of Non-Replicable Field Experiments in Contexts With Low Temporal Validity

    Open Access•Kevin Munger•Social Media + Society•2019

  • Do Televised Debates Affect Image Perception More Than Issue Knowledge? A Study of the First 1992 Presidential Debate

    Open Access•Jian-Hua Zhu, Jonathan J H Zhu et al.•Human Communication Research•1994

Unique citing works4
Citations per year2
Citation span2024 - 2026 (3)
Citation velocitycurrent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 4

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae