Jcom 12123

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
What Creates Interactivity in Online News

Discussions? An Exploratory Analysis
of Discussion Factors in User Comments
on News Items
Marc Ziegele, Timo Breiner, & Oliver Quiring
Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, 55128 Mainz, Germany
While the social, political, and journalistic relevance of user comments on online news items
has been discussed intensively, no study has tried to examine why some online news dis-
cussions are more interactive than others. Based on the rationale of news value theory,
this study argues that so-called discussion factors in user comments indicate general rele-
vance to later users to respond to them. Qualitative interviews with users who comment
on news stories online and a quantitative content analysis of 1,580 user comments showed
that the discussion factors uncertainty, controversy, comprehensibility, negativity, and per-
sonalization can explain interactivity in news discussions. Further, different technological
implementations of the comment function seem to have a limited influence on the effects
of these discussion factors.
Keywords: Online News Discussions, User-generated Content, User Comments,

Interactivity, Discussion Factors, Discourse Architecture.
doi:10.1111/jcom.12123
Many news media allow users to comment on the news stories published either
on their websites or on related presences on social network sites (Diakopoulos &
Naaman, 2011; Reich, 2011; Ruiz et al., 2011). These comments usually appear below
the news items. In recent years, user comments have evolved into a standard feature
of online news (Walther, & Jang, 2012; Weber, 2013). They are often considered as
the most popular form of public online participation (e.g., Reich, 2011; Weber, 2013).
According to Reich (2011), news stories without user comments “are becoming rare
and starting to look awkward, even suspicious” (p. 97). With regard to actual partic-
ipation, a survey of the Pew Research Center found that 25% of adult U.S. Internet
users have already commented on online news or news blogs at least once, and that
Corresponding author: Marc Ziegele; e-mail: ziegele@uni-mainz.de
Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 1

What Creates Interactivity in Online News Discussions? M. Ziegele et al.
37% appreciated the comment function (Purcell, Rainie, Mitchell, Rosenstiel, &
Olmstead, 2010).
Owing to their large reach and their potential effects on the audiences’ perceptions
of online news, it is important to explore the dynamics of user comments (e.g., Ander-
son, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2013; Diakopoulos & Naaman, 2011; Lee
& Jang, 2010; Reich, 2011; Ruiz et al., 2011; Singer, 2009; Weber, 2013). For example,
various characteristics of news articles have been found to affect the total number of
comments posted (Weber, 2013). Studies have also reported that between 20 and 50%
of the comments analyzed contain responses to the comments posted by other users
(e.g., Ruiz et al., 2011; Singer, 2009). Such user-to-user interactions have been theo-
rized as desirable from both a journalistic and a deliberation perspective because they
could contribute to shaping a democratically valuable and vivid interpersonal dis-
course on topics of public interest (Boczkowski & Mitchelstein, 2012; Freelon, 2010;
Ruiz et al., 2011).
However, little is known about why users respond to the comments of other users.
Research on the effects of user comments has primarily analyzed cognitive responses
of users who are exposed to other users’ comments (e.g., Anderson et al., 2013; Lee &
Jang, 2010).1 Moreover, studies analyzing posting behavior have largely neglected the
influence of previous comments (e.g., Boczkowski & Mitchelstein, 2012; Weber, 2013).
Hence, our exploratory investigation aims at identifying so-called discussion factors
in user comments that help to explain why certain comments receive response com-
ments (i.e., feedback2 ) from other users. As a theoretical starting point, we use news
value theory, which states that journalists and media users select news items depend-
ing on news factors such as controversy, negativity, and personalization (Eilders, 2006;
Galtung & Ruge, 1965). We assume that users reading comments behave similarly
and respond in particular to comments that include specific discussion factors. Such
user comments are more likely to receive response comments than comments that do
not include these specific factors. However, research on news value theory has shown
that secondary factors—such as the visibility of news items—moderate the influence
of news factors on the news selection of media users (Eilders, 2006). Thus, we have
assumed that the frequency of user-to-user-interactions also depends on the technical
implementation of the comment function.
In the following sections, we first provide a brief summary of our understanding
of interactivity in online (news) discussions before outlining the theoretical approach
that leads from news value theory to our idea of discussion factors. We then describe
our two-step empirical approach to (a) identify discussion factors in Study 1 (explo-
rative) and (b) test their effects on the behavior of users of different news platforms in
Study 2 (confirmative).
Interactivity in online (news) discussions

We define online user comments as a subcategory of media-stimulated interpersonal
communication that is published directly below news items on news websites or on
2 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

M. Ziegele et al. What Creates Interactivity in Online News Discussions?
news media presences within other online communication services (Ziegele & Quir-
ing, 2013). Further, an online news discussion is defined as a sequence of user com-
ments on a particular news item (cf. Ruiz et al., 2011).
Because different scholars pay attention to different aspects of interactivity (cf.
Quiring, 2009; Rafaeli & Ariel, 2007), the concept of interactivity can be defined from
three different perspectives: (1) as an attribute of technical media systems (e.g., Sun-
dar, 2004), (2) as an attribute of the communication process (e.g., Rafaeli & Sudweeks,
1997), and (3) as an attribute of the perceptions of users (e.g., Quiring, 2009). Con-
cerning perspective 1 (structure), studies have found that the technical/structural
attributes of online services (CMC settings) determine to a certain degree the num-
ber of interactions and guide the way in which they take place (e.g., Jones & Rafaeli,
2000; Preece, 2001; Wright & Street, 2007). In this context, Jones and Rafaeli (2000)
have coined the term “discourse architecture,” which describes “the way in which
a virtual public’s technology structures discourse” (p. 217). User comment sections
vary with regard to several features, for example, with regard to how many com-
ments are displayed per page and how these comments are sorted. In addition, the
providers of comment sections apply different policies with regard to how extensively
they moderate discussions or whether they require users to register, among other
things (e.g., Reich, 2011; Ruiz et al., 2011). Within the news value framework, dif-
ferent discourse architectures can be seen as secondary factors that have been found
to affect the news selection of media users in traditional news value research (Eilders,
2006; Weber, 2013). Thus, when analyzing interaction structures in user comments,
it seems important to consider the respective platform’s discourse architecture as a
moderating influence.
Concerning perspective 2 (process), scholars often distinguish between inter-
actions between users and systems on one hand and between users themselves on
the other hand (e.g., Bucy, 2004; Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997). We have concentrated
on user-to-user interactions and have looked at the degree to which different user
messages are interconnected. We assume messages to be interconnected when
they address at least one previously posted user message, that is, contain recip-
rocal communication (Walther, & Jang, 2012). Hence, user-to-user-interactions
occur when a user writes a response comment to a message previously posted by
another user.
Both perspectives (structure and process) are linked by the perceptions of users
(perspective 3). That is, users have to perceive the interactive potential offered by a
CMC setting (perspective 1) to make full use of the technical structure and enter
interactions with other users (perspective 2).
Theoretical approach: From news factors to discussion factors

Although user-to-user interactions are highly prevalent in some news discussions
(Ruiz et al., 2011; Singer, 2009), little is known about the reasons why users interact by
writing response comments to previous posts. In the following text, we hypothesize

that specific message characteristics in user comments stimulate response comments

from subsequent users. These message characteristics are referred to as discussion fac-
tors because responding to a user comment can be considered as the first necessary
step to initiate an interpersonal discussion.
News value theory provides a promising starting point for identifying the discus-
sion factors in user comments. The roots of this theory can be found in journalism
studies and in journalists’ handbooks (e.g., Lippmann, 1922; Warren, 1934). Accord-
ing to news value theory, journalists select events for news production that contain
so-called news factors (Galtung & Ruge, 1965). These news factors vary according
to different authors, but most of them analyze an event’s proximity (geographical,
cultural, or economic distance between an event and the country in which it is
reported), continuity (duration of news coverage), prominence/influence (publicity
and/or power of persons, groups, or institutions), personalization (portrayal of single
persons), reach (number of persons affected), unexpectedness (unpredictability),
damage (negative consequences), and controversy (portrayal of disagreement) (for
exhaustive taxonomies cf. Galtung & Ruge, 1965; Schulz, 1982). Taken together,
these news factors establish the news value of an event, which in turn determines its
probability of being reported (Galtung & Ruge, 1965).
Beyond its original focus on journalists (for a review, see Staab, 1990), research on
news value theory has shown that media users apply similar selection criteria (a) when
choosing between different news items, and (b) when talking about them in interper-
sonal communication (Deutschmann & Danielson, 1960; Eilders, 2006; Galtung &
Ruge, 1965; Shoemaker & Cohen, 2006). As a consequence, news factors have been
discussed as universal relevance3 indicators (Eilders, 2006; Galtung & Ruge, 1965;
Weber, 2013) that trigger both cognitive and behavioral responses of journalists and
media users. Arguments supporting this claim have been derived from evolutionary
theory, general perception psychology, and social psychology. These different perspec-
tives share the common assumption that news factors activate pre-existing cognitive
schemes and thereby facilitate the process of recognizing and categorizing important
incidents. For example, it can be argued that individuals automatically assign rele-
vance to the news factors damage and unexpectedness because they have learned in
the course of evolution that these factors constitute events that might threaten their
life or well-being (Eilders, 2006; Shoemaker, 1996). Other factors—such as promi-
nence or controversy—generate relevance primarily by suggesting social significance
(Shoemaker & Cohen, 2006). That is, these factors activate cognitive schemes related
to an individual’s position in the society or his/her shared norms and values (Eilders,
2006; Weber, 2013). Finally, messages indicative of news factors such as continuity
can be processed more easily because they activate schemes that are based on prior
(factual) knowledge (Eilders, 2006). Of course, these explanations are not indepen-
dent from each other (Shoemaker & Cohen, 2006). All of them suggest that news
factors can increase a user’s involvement. High involvement, in turn, can be linked
to an increased willingness to express one’s opinion (Diakopoulos & Naaman, 2011;
Weber, 2013).

On the basis of news value theory, recent research has begun to analyze links
between news characteristics and participatory online behavior (e.g., Weber, 2013;
Ziegele & Quiring, 2013). Ziegele and Quiring (2013) have suggested a model of
online discussion value which posits that message factors from both news items
and previously posted user comments affect the involvement of users and ulti-
mately increase their willingness to engage in online news discussions. Focusing on
news factors in news items, Weber (2013) reported that some factors (i.e., impact,
frequency, facticity, and proximity) significantly affect the aggregate number of com-
ments posted on news items. However, between 20 and 50% of the comments do
not respond to the journalistic news article but rather to a previously posted user
comment (Ruiz et al., 2011; Singer, 2009). These user-to-user-interactions—which
we define in terms of news value theory as a behavioral response to a message
stimulus—cannot be explained by news factors in news items alone (Ziegele &
Quiring, 2013). Rather, it can be hypothesized that user comments themselves con-
tain factors that, in part, may resemble news factors and that explain an additional
share of the interactivity in online news discussions. Transferring the aforementioned
arguments of news value theory to user comments, it can be assumed that users
preferably read high-involving comments that can be processed easily and efficiently.
Such comments should include factors that affect personal well-being (evolutionary
argument), challenge personal identity within a broader societal context (social-
ization argument), and/or activate prior (factual) knowledge (cognitive argument).
Ultimately, comments including such factors may not only increase the probability of
generating a cognitive response (i.e., paying attention to the respective comments),
but they may also stimulate a behavioral response (i.e., replying to the respective
comments).
Previous studies on online participation only provide hints on what discussion fac-
tors might look like. For example, various studies have investigated the prevalence and
users’ perception of conflict, incivility, and impoliteness in public discussions (e.g.,
Ng & Detenber, 2005; Papacharissi, 2004; Stromer-Galley, 2003). Such variables can
be seen as interpersonal indicators for the news factor controversy (Eilders, 2006) or
aggression (Schulz, 1982). Research on online deliberation has emphasized the sig-
nificance of well-argued contributions in discussion processes (e.g., Dahlberg, 2001;
Ruiz et al., 2011). Using arguments can be seen as an indicator of the news factor
facticity (Eilders, 2006). Yet, in both cases, little is known about whether these fac-
tors stimulate or thwart interactivity in online news discussions. For example, uncivil
and impolite comments might challenge a user’s shared norms and ideals and thereby
implicate social significance as the factor that resulted in a response to the comment
(cf. Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler, & Barab, 2002). On the other hand, these com-
ments have also been discussed as inhibitors of participation (e.g., Ng & Detenber,
2005; Papacharissi, 2004).
To summarize, news value theory provides helpful insights into the possible
nature and psychology of discussion factors in user comments. However, it remains
unclear as to whether the crucial factors in user comments are congruent with

the news factors that have been found to be valid for the selection of news items
by both journalists and media users (conflict, controversy, continuity, reach, and
unexpectedness, cf. Eilders, 2006), and whether their effects depend on different tech-
nological implementations of the comment sections. Thus, we think that a two-step
empirical approach is necessary to identify discussion factors in user comments.
In Study 1, we conduct an in-depth analysis of how users perceive and evaluate
online news discussions and the comments of other users. The characteristics of
the user comments that these users perceive as worth responding to will be dis-
cussed in light of news value theory and they will be converted into a catalog of
discussion factors. The influence of these discussion factors on the probability of a
response to a user comment will then be tested for different technical platforms in
Study 2.
Study 1
This study’s primary aim was to identify discussion factors by exploring when and
why users respond to other users’ comments (RQ1). The study also aimed at exploring
between-platform differences in users’ perceptions and evaluations of online discus-
sions (RQ2).
Procedure
During the fall of 2011, 25 respondents from all over Germany agreed to participate in
guided face-to-face interviews. We used purposive sampling to include a broad vari-
ety of “typical” users who comment on news items (Tong, Sainsbury, & Craig, 2007).
The sampling criteria were frequency of commenting (occasionally, regularly4 ), age
(up to 30 years, 30 years and older), sex (male, female), and preferred news sources
(“traditional” news websites and news websites on Facebook). The procedure was as
follows: Initially, 30 students of a master’s level class were asked to recruit participants
in their social networks. The respondents were categorized into the sampling matrix.
Then, “missing cells” of the sampling matrix were filled up by directly writing to com-
menting users on various news websites and on the news companies’ Facebook sites.
Overall, we interviewed 8 female and 17 male participants. The gender distribution
of the sample reflects previously reported findings that people who comment on the
news are predominantly male (e.g., Springer & Pfaffinger, 2012). The sample covered
a wide variety of ages (from 20 to 55 years, M = 30 years) and different commenting
behaviors: Twelve participants commented on news items on a regular basis while 13
did so occasionally. Furthermore, the participants posted comments on different plat-
forms, and eight participants had already discussed news items both on news websites
and on Facebook. Finally, various educational backgrounds were represented in the
sample.
The interview procedure followed the guidelines and recommendations of sev-
eral methodological handbooks (e.g., Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). The interviews were
conducted at different places outside the university, including the homes of the

participants and public facilities (e.g., cafés). The semistructured interview guide-
lines contained open-ended questions on the characteristics of the news items the
participants commented on as well as on the perceived quality of online news
discussions, the characteristics of useful comments, and the reasons for either
responding to other users’ comments or ignoring them. At the beginning of each
interview, the participants were asked to reconstruct the most recent situation in
which they had published a user comment. This narrative was followed by the
question “Please tell me what the comments of other users mean to you.” Addi-
tional questions were asked about the characteristics of the comments that the
participants perceived to be worth responding to. These questions included “Can
you describe the comments you respond to?” and “How would you characterize
your own comments that received a response from other users?” At the end of
each interview, the interviewer handed out a printout of an online news discussion
in which the respective interviewee had participated. Then, the interviewee was
asked to identify the characteristics of the news item and the other comments
that drove his or her decision to participate. Although this kind of retrospective
reasoning might not be adequate to detect the exact reasons for posting a com-
ment, it nevertheless tells a lot about the subjective nature of commenting. These
responses served as the basic material to identify discussion factors. However, only
factors that were mentioned by at least three participants were considered in our
analysis.
Five interviewers were trained regarding the theory and practice of performing
semistructured interviews as well as the details of the guidelines. Prior to the inter-
views, the participants were asked to sign an informed consent form. Interviews with
the participants lasted between 20 and 90 minutes, and the findings were anonymized
and transcribed afterwards for further analysis. Theoretical coding (Strauss & Corbin,
1990) was chosen to systematically screen the material for potential discussion
factors.
Results
Overall, the users we interviewed regarded other users’ comments as an essential
component of online news stories. Not every comment, however, was perceived as
equally valuable. The participants reported various factors that increase or decrease
the overall discussion value of user comments. These factors can, essentially, be classi-
fied within the framework of the original news value theory. However, they have to be
conceptualized from a media user’s perspective in order to serve as discussion factors
(RQ1). Interestingly, the occurrence of specific discussion factors was not always
associated with uniform behavior of the users we interviewed: While some users felt
engaged by certain discussion factors and indicated that they would reply to com-
ments including these factors, other users asserted that they would never respond to
comments containing the same factors. The heterogeneity of the responses indicates
a complex interaction between the users’ personality, their situational motives, and
the message characteristics as already theorized in the model of the online discussion

value (Ziegele & Quiring, 2013). Analyzing the direction of influence of the discussion
factors will be the subject of Study 2. In Study 1, we identified the following discussion
factors:
Aggression
In news items, aggression occurs when an actor threatens others verbally or by
armed force (Staab, 1990). In online news discussions, the users we interviewed
described comments as aggressive when the authors “shouted,” when they insulted
other users or nonpresent others (e. g., a politician or other persons described in
the news item), or when they accused other users or nonpresent others of being
incompetent [ex1 ].
[ex1 ] When you notice that the emotion turns into an aggression, that is, when people are
insulted in discussions about the chancellor and cuss words are used ( … ) then I say, ok, this
does not make any sense and must be ignored. (m, 24, occ.5 )
While most of the users we interviewed agreed that they would not respond
to such aggressive comments, others felt challenged to rebuke the authors of these
postings.
Controversy
The original news factor controversy describes the portrayal of dissent in news items
(Eilders, 2006). With regard to comments, the users we interviewed perceived con-
troversy to stem from a wide range of factors causing dissent, including stereotypes,
polemical statements, unfounded demands, provocative questions, and exaggerations
[ex2 ].
[ex2 ] When someone conjures up ( … ) the total meltdown of the financial system, then ( … )
I’m almost curious about talking him out of this because this is a little too exaggerated and
big. (m, 25, occ.)
Unlike aggression, the participants perceived that controversial statements explic-

itly referred to the topic under discussion. Some of the interviewees welcomed such
provocative statements as an opportunity to join the discussion. Others, however,
were afraid of publicly opposing comments that contradicted their own views and
beliefs.
Facticity
In news stories, high facticity occurs when an article reports concrete actions and
events, while stories that evaluate, interpret, and analyze situations score low on fac-
ticity (Weber, 2013). Similarly, the users we interviewed considered “objective” and
factual comments that show a high level of expertise or include proved additional
factual knowledge to have high facticity [ex3 ].
[ex3 ] Some comments are really useful, for example, when someone knows more than the
journalist and ( … ) posts a link and says ‘look, it’s like that!’ (m, 27, reg.)

Some interviewees preferred responding to factual comments but others perceived

that—due to their high level of objectiveness—such comments leave no room for
discussion.
Unexpectedness
The news factor unexpectedness describes events that are rare and/or contradict exist-
ing expectations (Galtung & Ruge, 1965). In news discussions, the participants of the
current study reported being “surprised” by comments that include topic drifts or a
different perspective of the issue discussed [ex4 ].
[ex4 ] Sometimes, these comments contain surprisingly great new ideas which you had not
considered for yourself. (m, 55, occ.)
Most participants reported that such unexpected comments attracted their atten-
tion and—in the case of perspective changes—extended their understanding of the
issue under discussion. Regarding their response behavior, some interviewees per-
ceived that these comments “supplied” discussions with new aspects that could be
talked about. However, other participants did not feel a need to discuss topic drifts or
to appreciate or criticize new perspectives.
Negativity
Various news value studies have argued that journalists and audiences preferably
select negative news items because negative messages are deviant and represent
potential threats (e.g., Galtung & Ruge, 1965; Shoemaker & Cohen, 2006). In news
discussions, the participants perceived that negativity primarily appeared in com-
ments that universally dismissed a news story’s content or a previous user comment
and thereby emanated a negative overall tone [ex5 ].
[ex5 ] Especially in the case of political news items, most comments concentrate on bashing
everything, very much like you know it from the yellow press. (m, 20, reg.)
With regard to their response behavior, our participants overwhelmingly pre-

ferred comments that were written in a positive and inviting tone. They perceived
that responding to negative comments might not stimulate meaningful discussions
but rather prompt the authors of these comments to dismiss a user’s response
across-the-board as well.
Personalization
Personalized news items portray single persons or report examples of individual expe-
rience (Weber, 2013). With regard to comments, the participants ascribed a “personal
touch” to postings that illustrate how a news story affects the author personally (e.g.,
comments including an exemplar about a user’s personal experience) or that explic-
itly address single or multiple other users to explain why the comment is relevant to
them [ex6 ].
[ex6 ] ( … ) but when I address someone directly, for example, and then comment on his
posting, then I usually get a response. (m, 20, reg.)

Again, the effects of personalization on the participants’ response behavior were

ambiguous. Some users preferred responding to personalized comments, but others
were afraid of getting publicly entangled in personal debates and therefore abstained
from replying to such comments.
Simplification
According to Östgaard (1965), journalists intentionally reduce the complexity of
issues when reporting them in order to make them more easily understandable and
to attract more readers. The participants of the current study reported the authors of
comments to behave similarly—although often unintentionally—by simplifying the
causes of issues or by blanking out complex issue backgrounds [ex7 ].
[ex7 ] Frequently, users claim that they know exactly why something has happened. But their
comment reveals that they neither have read the entire news story to understand the whole
issue, nor did they obviously ever inform themselves about its actual complexity. (m, 26,
occ.)
Regarding their response behavior, some participants felt the need to inform the
authors of these simplified comments about the actual complexity of the issue under
discussion. Others, however, anticipated that such a behavior would result in an
exhausting and unwanted discussion.
Comprehensibility
Although it is not considered as a genuine news factor, Östgaard (1965) refers to com-
prehensibility as the journalistic effort “to use simple words and sentences in order to
get the ‘message across’ more easily” (p. 45). In comments, the interviewees primar-
ily paid attention to characteristics that decrease comprehensibility. More specifically,
they argued that the use of metaphors and irony [ex8 ] made it difficult to grasp the
meaning of comments.
[ex8 ] Some things get lost in written communication ( … ). It’s always difficult to express irony
in your comments in a way that others can understand it. (m, 30, occ.)
Few participants reported that they ask the authors of such inscrutable comments
to clarify their argument. Most of the participants who mentioned this factor, how-
ever, asserted that they ignored incomprehensible comments.
Uncertainty
Early news value research argued that journalists preferably try to provide their
audience with facts and answers and that they therefore select events that are
free from uncertainties (Galtung & Ruge, 1965). In the current study, however,
many users reported that they actively create uncertainty in their comments by
asking questions about additional facts or the possible meaning of news items
[ex9 ].
[ex9 ] Rather than telling my own opinion, I’m asking questions when I think that something
has remained unclear. And I want these questions to be answered, and ( … ) when another
user can answer them, then I’m fine. (f, 21, occ.)

This strategy was generally perceived as a powerful measure to receive feedback.

Participants who encountered questions felt committed or invited to respond to them,
either because they were challenged or because they wanted to demonstrate their
knowledge.
Humor
According to the perception of the interviewees, many news items are not discussed
entirely seriously. Instead, across all news reports, the participants reported that they
occasionally read or write humorous comments [ex10 ].
[ex10 ] Sometimes, more or less, jokes are told, ( … ) and then it’s definitely entertaining. (m,
26, occ.)
For most participants, humorous comments provided some entertainment value.

Only a few interviewees perceived these comments as an opportunity to join in the
discussion with a similar comment. Most participants, however, did not respond to
these comments or discuss them.
Formal descriptors
Many participants reported that reading other users’ comments sometimes is
a time-consuming activity. Both the sheer number of comments to some news
items and the length of single comments exhausted their cognitive resources. With
regard to length, the participants concluded that the readers of their comments
also have limited resources and prefer reading and responding to short comments
[ex11a ].
[ex11a ] I write short ( … ) because I feel that people are hacked off when there is something
lengthier in the discussion. (m, 23, reg.)
On the other hand, some users argued that it requires time and space to contribute
a well-argued comment to the discussion. Furthermore, some participants perceived
that long comments usually include more “contact points” for an interactive discus-
sion. While the length of a comment was judged differently, all of the participants
agreed that the position of a comment determines to a high degree whether it would
receive a response [ex11b ].
[ex11b ] I once wrote a late comment ( … ) and that’s why I didn’t get much feedback. (m, 20,
reg.)
Consistently, the participants perceived that response comments primarily

address comments that appear early in the discussion.
Discourse architecture
When talking about their specific perceptions of online news discussions, the
participants described their own platform-specific discussion behavior (RQ2).
Concerning the sociability of online communication services (Preece, 2001), many
users assumed that their commenting behavior was guided by platform-specific
degrees of anonymity, behavioral rules, or codes of conduct. Most remarkably, some

interviewees claimed to respond to aggressive and controversial comments only on

platforms that grant anonymity [ex12a ].
[ex12a ] I think, if I wanted to comment on something controversial, then I would do that rather
on the websites, where the profile is not visible. (f, 21, occ.)
Differences in the degree of usability between the communication services often

concerned registration rules. These rules were perceived as an inhibitor of responding
to other comments, mainly because of disproportional time and effort requirements.
Furthermore, the participants perceived that their response behavior was affected by
the way comments are sorted on the platforms because this order determines the com-
ments they are confronted with at first [ex12b ].
[ex12b ] On Facebook, you usually see the latest two comments of a discussion ( … ), and,
personally, I mostly ( … ) refer to the most recent ten comments. (m, 26, occ.)
In summary, the participants’ responses indicate that the sociability of a commu-

nication service primarily affects whether or not they reply to comments with specific
discussion factors, while the usability primarily affects their general response behav-
ior and the overall number of comments they perceive as relevant (cf. also Preece,
2001).
Discussion
On the basis of the perceptions and statements of 25 users who comment on
news items, Study 1 generated a catalog of discussion factors. Many of these fac-
tors are consistent with traditional news factors, although some of their specific
characteristics resemble “quality factors” from online deliberation research (e.g.,
questions, expertise) (Papacharissi, 2004; Ruiz et al., 2011) and “usefulness factors”
from research on user-generated product reviews (e.g., additional factual infor-
mation) (Walther, & Jang, 2012; Willemsen, Neijens, Bronner, & de Ridder, 2011).
Our findings underpin the assumption that users consider factors on multiple
message dimensions when thinking about whether or not to reply to a previous
comment. One remarkable finding is that the users we interviewed differentiated
between aggressive behavior and controversial statements. The discussion factor
aggression primarily refers to hostile comments that solely aim at inflicting harm
to the discussants and thus resembles the phenomenon of “flaming” (e.g., Alonzo
& Aiken, 2004) or what Papacharissi (2004) calls “impoliteness.” In contrast, the
factor controversy includes topic-related statements that are very likely to stimulate
disagreement, some of them resembling what scholars have described as “incivility”
or “trolling” (e.g. Herring et al., 2002; Papacharissi, 2004). Regarding the effects of
the discussion factors, our results can again be linked to news value theory: Contro-
versy, for example, challenged the normative beliefs of some of the participants and
thereby suggested the social significance of “balance” in the public sphere by voicing
another (opposing) viewpoint (cf. also Price, Nir, & Cappella, 2006; Shoemaker
& Cohen, 2006). Other discussion factors, such as uncertainty, primarily seem to
activate a reader’s prior (factual) knowledge and thereby increase the probability of

stimulating responses. Finally, the effect of factors such as humor can be linked to
an individual’s personal well-being because it creates a sense of hedonic enjoyment.
Yet, a limitation of Study 1 is that it could only extract perceived discussion factors
that were salient to the participants. While this approach can be interpreted as an
alternative to normative and deductive analyses, additional factors might guide
user behavior. Future research might want to complement our approach by asking
users to take the researcher through their preferred platform and to talk aloud
about the characteristics of news items and user comments that increase their need
to comment on them. With this limitation in mind, Study 1 has provided some
insights into why some comments receive response comments from other users (i.e.,
create interactivity). Regarding the direction of influence of the extracted discussion
factors and the effects of different discourse architectures on the structure of the
discussions, it has generated ambivalent results. Therefore, we conducted a second
study with the aim of quantifying the effects of the discussion factors identified in
Study 1.
Study 2
The aim of the content analysis of Study 2 was to analyze which of the discussion
factors identified in Study 1 determine whether a user comment receives response
comments (i.e., feedback) from other users (RQ3).
Additionally, we aimed at providing preliminary insights into the interplatform
validity of the discussion factors. In particular, the results from our qualitative study
suggested that some users respond to aggressive and controversial comments only
on platforms that grant anonymity. Likewise, previous research has shown that
anonymity can be linked to a more unconcerned or uninhibited opinion expression
behavior (e.g., Suler, 2004; Yun & Park, 2011). On the basis of these findings, we
hypothesized that aggressive and controversial comments would be more likely to
receive response comments on platforms that allow anonymous or pseudonymous
commenting than on platforms that require real-name registration (H1).
Furthermore, the respondents of our qualitative study had emphasized that the
visibility of comments affects their response behavior: Comments appearing late in
a discussion were likely to be overlooked on platforms where comments are sorted
chronologically. In keeping with this, for traditional news items too, formal message
components, such as its position, have also repeatedly been found to guide readers’
selection behavior and the amount of importance they assign to them (cf. Eilders,
2006). Based on these findings, we hypothesized that comments that appear late in a
discussion would be more likely to receive responses on platforms where comments
are sorted in reverse chronological order than on platforms where comments are
sorted in chronological order (H2).
To answer the research question and determine the validity of the two hypotheses,
we conducted a content analysis of user comments on two German news websites and
on their respective Facebook pages.

Sample
The websites analyzed were Spiegel Online (www.spiegel.de), Bild.de (www.bild.de),
and their respective Facebook pages. Both websites were chosen (a) because of the
large number of users who had “liked” their Facebook pages and (b) because of their
high popularity in Germany. At the time of data collection, the two websites were the
most visited German news-only websites (Alexa, 2013). Furthermore, at the time of
data collection, the discourse architectures of Bild.de and Spiegel Online were similar
on the web platforms (users could register with a pseudonym, comments were pre-
moderated and sorted chronologically, with 10 comments appearing per page), but
they differed from their Facebook pages (users were asked to disclose their real name,
comments were postmoderated and sorted in reverse chronological order, with the
latest two comments displayed). However, both platforms provided only one response
level (i.e., users had to cite other comments manually in order to respond to them).
Altogether, 1,580 user comments on 18 political news articles were coded on
Spiegel Online, Bild.de, and on their respective Facebook pages. The procedure was as
follows: Starting from the Facebook pages, a sample of news articles was randomly
selected during 2 weeks in late October 2011. The news articles on the Facebook pages
referred to the respective articles on the news websites. Hence, for each Facebook
news article in our sample, the respective article on the news website was included.
Website and Facebook news articles that were not published in the “politics” section
on the news websites were excluded from the sample. We decided to analyze only
political news items because our interviews in Study 1 and previous research have
shown that users comment on political issues most frequently (e.g., Boczkowski &
Mitchelstein, 2012; Ruiz et al., 2011). However, a news item was included in the final
sample only when the respective user discussions included at least 20 comments
each on the Facebook page and on the respective news website. We decided in
favor of a minimum of 20 comments per discussion because previous research has
shown that between 20 and 50% of user comments receive response comments
(Ruiz et al., 2011; Singer, 2009). In a sample of at least 20 comments, we expected
to find sufficient user-to-user-interactions to answer our research question and
validate the hypotheses. In order to capture a greater variety of discussion topics, the
number of comments analyzed per news item had to be restricted to 100. Therefore,
discussions with more comments were not analyzed completely. Each discussion
was saved in a text file to guarantee that there were no changes during the coding
process.
Coding
The coding scheme for the content analysis included 10 discussion factors (cf. Table 1),
four formal descriptors (position, length, medium, and platform for user comments),
and several other categories such as a comment’s publishing time and the number of
response comments it had received. The category descriptions were adopted from the
participants’ perceptions of the discussion factors in Study 1 (cf. Table 1). The cod-
ing was based on a procedure suggested by Papacharissi (2004): For most discussion

Table 1 Coding Scheme, Intercoder Agreements, and Frequency of the Variables Used in the
Analysisa
Discussion
Factor b Coding Scheme Frequency PA α
Aggression (1) Using derogatory language and cuss 10% .95 .76
words (insults)
(2) Accusing others of lacking competency
in doing something (accusation of
incompetence)
(3) Using all-caps (“shouting”)
Facticity (1) Claiming to be an expert or insider 4% 1 —c
(expertise)
(2) Including proved (i.e., linked) factual
knowledge (factual knowledge)
Uncertainty Including questions that visibly aim at 9% .98 .80
closing the author’s information or
knowledge gaps
Controversy (1) Reflecting the author’s generalized 34% .89 .78
beliefs about the members of specific
groups (stereotypes)
(2) Including unfounded demands
(3) Asking provocative—often
rhetorical—questions (e.g., “Who cares
for this irrelevant news?”). Expected
responses to these questions are more in
the form of agreement or denial, and less
information transfer
(4) Extensively using superlatives or making
things seem bigger, more important, or
worse than they are (exaggerations)
Unexpectednessd Providing a different perspective on the 23% .86 .63
issue under discussion that was neither
mentioned in the news article nor in the
previous comments (e.g., offering
alternative interpretations,
re-contextualizing an issue, etc.)
Personalizatione Directly addressing one or more 24% .99 .90
participants of the discussion
Simplification (1) Assuming the consequences of an event 6% .94 .71
to stem from only one definite cause
(2) Stating that an issue is less complex than
described in the news article
Humor Making jokes or using smileys so as to 9% 1 1
clarify that the statement is meant to be a
joke

Table 1 Continued
Discussion
Factor b Coding Scheme Frequency PA α
Comprehensibility (1) Substituting a word with an expression 40% .86 .72

from another subject area. The expression
has a meaning that is assigned to the
original word (metaphor)
(2) Meaning the opposite of what is said
(irony)
Negativity Writing in an exclusively negative tone 40% .87 .74
Length Number of words of the comment without — .94 .99
counting direct quotations. Comments
were divided into four categories: very
short (max. 10 words), short (max. 20
words), medium (max. 47 words), long
(more than 47 words).
Position Position of the comment in the discussion — 1 1
in chronological order. The comments
were recoded into three categories:
beginning, middle, end.
a Due to a lack of space, the full coding scheme cannot be presented here in detail. However, it
can be provided by the authors on request.
b All discussion factors were coded dichotomously, unless otherwise noted.
c Facticity showed no variation in the results for intercoder agreement.
d The indicator ‘topic drifts’ was defined too imprecisely and thus had to be dropped.
e Due to an error in the coding scheme, only the addresses made by other users could be coded.
The coding of whether a user was concerned personally by a news item was not included in the
variable.
factors, a multiterm index was used to code for the presence or absence of the respec-
tive discussion factor. For example, if there was at least one controversial statement
in a user comment (i.e., unfounded demands, provocative questions, exaggerations,
or stereotypes), then this was considered sufficient for it to be coded as controversy
(cf. coding scheme in Table 1). The multiterm indices were built upon the statements
of the participants of Study 1. For analytical purposes, the discussion factors were
coded dichotomously. In other words, we did not differentiate between comments
that included one controversial statement and comments that included multiple con-
troversial statements. While future studies might apply more precise measures, the
current study was exploratory in its nature, and an additive effect of the single indi-
cators of discussion factors could not be assumed definitely. For example, a comment
that insults other users and simultaneously “shouts” by using all caps might not be per-
ceived as more offensive than a comment that includes only one indicator of aggres-
sion (cf. Papacharissi, 2004).

Intercoder reliability between the four coders was tested for all categories during
January 2014. Owing to the exploratory nature of the study, a Krippendorff ’s α value
of .67 was considered as the minimum value acceptable to draw tentative conclusions
(Krippendorff, 2004; Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2002). Table 1 describes the
coding scheme and reports both the Krippendorff ’s α and percent agreement values
(Holsti’s method), and thereby includes multiple intercoder indices as per the sugges-
tion of previous reports (e.g., Lombard et al., 2002). Table 1 also reports the frequency
of the variables in the final dataset. All variables except unexpectedness (α = .63) had a
Krippendorff ’s α greater than .70 (cf. Table 1). Although earlier studies on news factors
reported similar difficulties when coding unexpectedness (Weber, 2013) and although
the percent agreement-score of the factor was sufficient (PA = .86), doubts about the
validity of the category seem legitimate and the following results should therefore be
interpreted with caution.
Results
RQ3 was regarding the influence of the discussion factors on whether or not a
comment receives response comments (i.e., feedback). To answer this question,
we counted the comments that visibly responded to one of the 1,580 comments
analyzed and retained this information in the variable feedback. Overall, 268 initial
comments received 407 response comments: 76% of the 268 feedback-stimulating
comments received one response, 16% received two responses, and only 8% of the
feedback-stimulating comments received more than two responses. Owing to this
comparatively low number of comments that received more than one response com-
ment, the variable feedback was recoded dichotomously (0 = no feedback received,
1 = feedback received).
We then computed a binary logistic regression model. The variable feedback was
entered as the dependent variable. The discussion factors from Study 1 and the formal
comment descriptors (length and position) were entered as predictor variables. The
platform (WWW vs. Facebook) and the medium variables (Bild.de vs. Spiegel Online)
were entered as control variables. Additionally, previous research has shown that
the characteristics of news stories can influence the interactivity of news discussions
(Weber, 2013). To control whether these characteristics also influence the effects of
the discussion factors, we entered a very basic indicator of news characteristics (i.e.,
the topics of the news items) into our regression model. The results are shown in the
first column of Table 2 (model I).
According to the data, several discussion factors significantly influenced the prob-
ability of feedback on a comment: Comments were more likely to receive response
comments when they included controversial statements (controversy), when they
addressed other users in order to emphasize why the comment is relevant to them
(personalization), when they asked questions to close gaps in their own knowledge
(uncertainty), and when they provided a different perspective on the issue under
discussion (unexpectedness). Moreover, user comments that did not include irony or
metaphors (comprehensibility), and that were not exclusively negative in their tone

Table 2 Logistic Regression Analysis of the Effect of Discussion Factors on Comment

Feedback Probability
Model I (RQ3 )
Main Effects (effect
of discussion factors Model II (H1 & H2 )
on comment feedback Hypothesized INteraction
probability) effects (factors × platform)
Item b-value Odds b-value Odds
Constant .99* 2.71 .28 1.32

Block 1: Discussion factors
Aggression .44† 1.55 1.37* 3.92
Controversy .56** 1.74 −.17 .84
Facticity −.04 .96
Unexpectedness .49** 1.63
Negativity −.36* .70
Personalization .47* 1.60
Simplification .08 1.08
Comprehensibility .40* 1.36
Uncertainty .78** 2.18
Humor −.35 .71
Block 2: Formal descriptors
Length: Long (Ref. cat.) — —
Length: Medium −.15 .86
Length: Short −.22 .80
Length: Very short −.91** .41
Position: End (Ref. cat.) — — — —
Position: Middle .37 1.45 .40 1.49
Position: Beginning .93*** 2.52 .26 1.29
Block 3: Medium and platform variables
News medium (1 = Bild.de) −1.86*** .16
Platform (1 = Facebook) −.38* .68
Block 4: News story variables
T1 U.S. arms policy (Ref. cat.) — —
T2 Euro rescue fund −.17 .85
T3 Downsizing of the Bundeswehr −.18 .84
T4 Announcement of tax cut in −1.01 .36
Germany
T5 Minimum wages in Germany 1.27** 3.57
T6 WikiLeaks shutdown .56 1.75
R2 (Cox & Snell) .18 .19
R2 (Nagelkerke) .30 .33
χ2 (Model) 310.46*** 253.25***
Note: n = 1,580; 0 = no feedback received, 1 = feedback received; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *
p < .05; †p < .1.

(negativity) were more likely to receive responses. The trend indicated that offensive
comments (aggression) were more likely to receive response comments. With regard
to the length of comments, only very short comments (up to 10 words) were less
likely to receive response comments. Regarding the position of comments, comments
that were published in the first third of a discussion were significantly more likely to
receive feedback than comments posted in the last third (end). Additionally, com-
ments on Spiegel Online were more likely to receive a response than comments on
Bild.de. With regard to the discourse architectures, comments posted on the website
platforms of the news media were more likely to receive response comments than
comments posted on Facebook. Finally, comments posted as a response to the topic
“minimum wages in Germany” were more likely to receive response comments.
Platform differences
To test the validity of H1 and H2 , we additionally entered the interactions between the
factors controversy, aggression, and position and the platform (Facebook or websites)
into the binary logistic regression model.6 The interactions were created by multiply-
ing the item platform with one of the four factors from the same column. The results
are shown in the second column of Table 2 (model II).
The interaction effect was significant only for the discussion factor aggression.
However, contrary to H1, aggressive comments were more likely to receive feedback
if posted on Facebook rather than on the website. The effect of controversy was not
influenced by the discourse architectures at all. Likewise, comments located in the
middle and end of discussions were not more likely to stimulate feedback on Face-
book. Therefore, both H1 and H2 were rejected.
Discussion
The current study used the rationale of news value theory to argue that user
comments contain so-called discussion factors which—via various cognitive and
affective routes—increase the perceived relevance of the comments and therefore
increase the likelihood of a later user responding to such comments. Qualitative
interviews revealed that users indeed recognize factors that increase their motivation
to respond to other users’ comments. These factors were classified with the help
of the traditional news factor framework. Using quantitative content analysis, we
then explored the factors that were successful in stimulating feedback. The results
of this multistep approach implied that the authors of user comments can trigger
response comments by including controversy, unexpectedness, personalization, and
uncertainty in their postings and by avoiding incomprehensibility and negativity.
Length, position, the news medium itself, and the news story topic further affected
the probability of whether a comment received feedback. In the following para-
graphs, we will try to provide some arguments as to why the discussion factors that
were confirmed in our quantitative content analysis were effective in stimulating
user-to-user-interactions.

We found that comments including controversy were about 1.7 times as likely as
comments not including this factor to stimulate feedback. This result parallels find-
ings from audience-oriented news value research that controversial news items are
more likely to be selected and commented upon by news media users (Eilders, 2006;
Boczkowski & Mitchelstein, 2012). Controversy thus appears as a rather general trig-
ger of cognitive and behavioral responses in news selection and public news discus-
sion. An explanation for this might be that comments including provocative ques-
tions, stereotypes, unfounded demands, or exaggerations are likely to deviate from
a subsequent commenter’s individual or internalized opinion, norms, and/or values.
Deviant messages then might not only increase the amount of attention paid to the
message (cf. Shoemaker, 1996) but also the sense of disagreement. A sense of disagree-
ment, in turn, appears as a strong trigger to write response comments (Diakopoulos &
Naaman, 2011; Singer, 2009; Springer & Pfaffinger, 2012): For example, Boczkowski &
Mitchelstein (2012) described commenting users as “monitorial citizens” (p. 15) who
control their environment and, when facing disagreement, feel the need to “broadcast”
their opinion publicly. Conceptualizing controversy as a general indicator of discus-
sion value is somewhat supported by the nonsignificant interaction effect between this
discussion factor and different discourse architectures—in fact, controversial com-
ments stimulated response comments both on platforms that grant relative anonymity
(WWW) and on platforms that require real-name registration (Facebook). This result
is in line with previous research that found users’ posting behavior not to be influ-
enced by the sense of anonymity: “people posted a message when they felt that it was
necessary, even though doing so required them to reveal their personal identity to the
forum administrators” (Yun & Park, 2011, p. 216).
To some extent, the second study supported the argument that users differentiate
between controversial and aggressive comments. While controversy clearly stimu-
lated response comments, users responded to blunt and offensive personal offenses
(aggression) primarily on Facebook. On this platform, aggressive comments were
nearly four times as likely as aggressive comments posted on the websites to stimulate
feedback. This finding contradicts H1 and the perceptions of the users interviewed
in Study 1. However, the effect might be explained by using the social identity model
of depersonalization effects. This model suggests that individual users tend to orient
their perceptions and behaviors on the basis of perceived similarities with the charac-
teristics of a group as a whole rather than on the basis of their individual similarities
and differences with specific users participating in the communication (e.g., Postmes,
Spears, & Lea, 1998). When only a minority of the participants in anonymous news
discussions on mass media websites writes aggressive comments (only 1 in 10 com-
ments in the current sample) or responds to them, it might be rational for a single user
to ignore these comments, even though such behavior might contradict individual
norms. On Facebook, however, discussants typically offer a higher number of authen-
tic and visual cues to their identity (e.g., Trepte & Reinecke, 2011). Here, the condition
of visual anonymity is not granted and readers of provocative comments can discern
the provocateur’s similarities and differences based on their self-perception. As

a consequence, they might be more likely to respond to aggressive comments

that violate their individual normative beliefs.7 Nevertheless, future research
should investigate this effect by adding more news media and comments to their
samples.
The second study further confirmed that users prefer responding to comments
that were not written in an exclusively negative tone. Selecting comments for dis-
cussion obviously works differently than news selection, as predicted by news value
theory (Galtung & Ruge, 1965). Users seem to perceive the authors of more neutral or
positively written comments as more agreeable discussion partners than the authors
of exclusively negative comments.
While research on deliberation processes emphasizes the importance of
topic-centered discussions (e.g., Freelon, 2010; Stromer-Galley & Martinson, 2009),
the current study found that comments that provide a different perspective toward
the issue under discussion (e.g., an alternative interpretation) were more likely to
stimulate feedback than comments that strictly stayed on track. It can be argued
that such unexpected comments were perceived as new structuring topics (e.g.,
Stromer-Galley, 2007) that supplied the conversation with additional aspects worth
discussing. Such additional information can increase a subsequent user’s involvement
and tie in with pre-existing knowledge that he/she can contribute to the discussion.
However, the finding may also be interpreted as an indicator of the self-regulating
characteristic of online discussions: Unexpected comments might stimulate some
kind of “metatalk” (Stromer-Galley & Martinson, 2009, p. 200) intended to rebuke
previous users for not strictly keeping to the original topic. Although we cannot dis-
tinguish between these interpretations, unexpectedness primarily seems to stimulate
responses when respondents can link the unexpected information with pre-existing
cognitive schemes. In this regard, the factor corroborates the findings of news
value theory, which argued that unexpectedness can be effective only if it occurs
within an individual’s relevant set of topics perceived as important and meaningful
(Galtung & Ruge, 1965).
Personalizing comments by explicitly addressing other users and creating “con-
trollable” uncertainty by asking questions increased the probability of receiving
feedback. These effects might be interpreted from a sociocognitive news value
perspective: Early studies argued that personalized news items allow individuals to
easily identify with the events and circumstances reported (Galtung & Ruge, 1965).
Similarly, addressing other users might help these users to recognize the personal
relevance of the message and increase their perceived self-efficacy to respond (cf.
Study 1). Regarding the discussion factor uncertainty, asking questions implies an
expectation of the sender(s) to get a response and—given sufficient knowledge of
the receiver(s)—they commit them to some extent to provide this response (Schank,
1977; Stromer-Galley, 2007). Asking questions might also motivate so-called “answer
persons” to join the discussion. These users are well recognized across a variety
of online discussion spaces and they have both the knowledge and the altruism to
answer questions (Turner, Smith, Fisher, & Welser, 2005).

With regard to formal descriptors of user comments, only very short comments
were less likely to receive feedback than other comments. This result is counterintu-
itive at first sight because most participants in Study 1 asserted that they prefer writing
and reading short comments. However, when comments are too short they cannot
contain much useful information, that is, new aspects that keep the discussion going.
Furthermore, long comments probably include additional factors not covered by this
analysis, for example, the quality of the arguments used. The position of a comment
had a noticeable impact on whether it was intensively responded to or not; comments
posted at the beginning or the middle of a discussion were significantly more likely to
stimulate response comments. While it is plausible to assume that earlier comments
are better able to frame (Entman, 1993) the discussion than later ones, this result
might partly be a methodological artifact. Comments at the end of the discussion
cannot—by definition—receive as many response comments as those which started
the discussion. However, we only analyzed the first 100 comments, and in many cases
there were more comments that appeared later. As a result, the position “end” does
not necessarily describe the final stage of a discussion.
Comments on news items of rather serious news media (Spiegel Online) were more
likely to receive response comments than comments on news items of boulevard
media (Bild.de). Numerous interpretations seem adequate to explain this difference,
including differences in the behavior of different news audiences and different restric-
tiveness of the journalistic premoderation rules. Regarding the influence of the news
story topic, our results seem to confirm that users preferably engage in interactive
discussions when a topic—such as the introduction of a nationwide minimum wage
in Germany—concerns their own nation and has a large impact on a specified group
(Weber, 2013). However, the results also imply that the discussion factors help explain
interactivity in news discussions beyond the topic of a news story.
Finally, the second study provided limited support for the hypothesis that dif-
ferent technological features of the discourse architecture alter the discussion pro-
cesses. First, comments on the web platforms were more likely to stimulate responses
than comments on Facebook. It might therefore be possible that users perceive Face-
book’s comment function not so much as a utility to discuss issues of public relevance
interactively but rather to add their two cents to the conversation. Additionally, jour-
nalists on Facebook often explicitly invite users to voice their opinion (e.g., “What
do you think about it?”). This aspect of sociability might cause users to primarily
respond to the specific journalistic question instead of responding to the comments
of other users. Second, regarding H2, different comment sequencing techniques did
not influence the likelihood of late or early comments receiving responses. These
results somehow contradict the findings from our qualitative research and the more
technological-deterministic arguments from previous research (e.g., Jones & Rafaeli,
2000; Wright & Street, 2007). Nevertheless, we only examined a very limited variety
of different discourse architectures and, more specifically, we focused on one specific
aspect of different technical implementations of the comment function (chronologi-
cal vs. reverse chronological order). Future research should investigate whether other

sequencing techniques (e.g., displaying readers’ or editors’ choices of comments) or

other discussion features (e.g., the availability of a “reply-button”) affect the discussion
structure.
From a more general perspective, the current study also advances research on
interactivity: By analyzing the characteristics of “initial” user messages that spur
reciprocity between users in online news discussions, it complements earlier research
on interactivity-as-process (e.g., Stromer-Galley, 2004) which analyzed the formal
and content characteristics of messages that respond to “initial” user messages (e.g.,
Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997). Further, our consideration of the different discourse
architectures shows that research on interactivity-as-process should not disregard
the moderating influence of the interactivity of the technological features, that is,
the interactivity-as-product variables, respectively (Stromer-Galley, 2004). To some
extent, these variables can affect the prevalence and the nature of user-to-user
interactions. These findings should encourage researchers to continue investigating
when and why “the degree or features of medium interactivity might affect outcome
variables of human interaction” (Stromer-Galley, 2004, p. 393; Wright & Street, 2007).
Ultimately, the current study illustrates that in order to establish a theoretical bridge
between technological features and processes, the perception of interactivity of the
users has to be taken into account (e.g., Quiring, 2009).
Limitations
The current study can be seen as a first exploratory step into the concept of dis-
cussion factors. As such, it contains several limitations that should be addressed in
future research: First of all, we cannot be sure that the list of factors we derived is
complete. Additional factors guiding individual user behavior might not have been
captured with the method of qualitative interviews. Second, we considered only
a very simple indicator (topic) of the original news characteristics to control the
influence of the news items on the discussion structures. Earlier research has shown
that different news items can stimulate different degrees of interactivity (Weber,
2013). Future studies hence should analyze the joint influence of news factors in
news items and discussion factors in user comments in more detail. Third, in order
to test the robustness of the effects reported, future studies should analyze a bigger
(and maybe more international) sample. Fourth, only 268 of the 1,580 comments
in our sample received at least one response comment. Voicing no response or few
responses thus are the main reactions to comments of other users. However, our
coding was restricted to the first 100 comments, and comments might have received
more responses later on. But even when a comment receives only one response
comment, this might indicate to a subsequent reader that this particular comment
is more worthy to be thought about than others. Fifth, the coding procedure of
the discussion factors could be improved. Owing to low reliability, two indicators
of the discussion factors from Study 1 were not analyzed in Study 2 (cf. Table 1).
Most importantly, future studies should define precisely what they consider as a

“topic drift” (unexpectedness). Additionally, instead of using multiterm indices,

future studies might code each indicator separately or establish a “factor intensity
index.” Sixth, we did not comprehensively analyze the origins of the discussion
factors. We assume that these factors are stimulated by a combination of specific
news factors in news items and specific commenting practices. However, it remains
an open question to what extent news factors and commenting practices inform
discussion factors. Seventh, our analysis does not allow inferring whether the dis-
cussion factors stimulated quality debates or just harsh rebukes. Future research
should include more specific aspects of the response comments (e.g., Rafaeli &
Sudweeks, 1997), for example, whether they criticize or support the user they
respond to. Finally, our measure of interactivity was very simple. Whether a com-
ment receives a (semantically linkable) response comment is a very basic indicator
and can only shed first light on the complexity of real-world interactions. Yet, it was
the aim of the current study to adhere to the logic of news value theory, which is to
explain a discrete cognitive or behavioral response to a news item as the consequence
of its message-inherent news factors. But while responding to previous messages
appears as a necessary element of discussing issues, quality news discussions also
require listening to other discussants, expanding meaning, and learning about
alternative points of view (e.g., Freelon, 2010). Therefore, investigating whether
news discussions fulfill these criteria and if discussion factors support or limit these
outcomes are important subjects for future research.
Conclusion
The current study extends the applicability of news value theory to media-stimulated
interpersonal communication, shows that discussion factors help to explain why
some user discussions on mass media websites are more interactive than others,
and ultimately sheds light on their interpersonal nature. Despite the prominently
displayed news items (as a specific manifestation of mass communication), some of
the processes and contents of traditional interpersonal conversations about news and
politics—such as asking questions, provoking others, providing new perspectives,
or addressing specific discussants (e.g., Gamson, 1992)—can be effective in stim-
ulating user-to-user interactions in online news discussions, too. Thus, the current
study might have provided a rather general catalog of discussion factors that trigger
user-to-user interactions and an important component for developing a theory that
assesses the discussion value of online news items as a combination of the qualities
of news items, published user comments, and discourse architectures.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thorough
reading of an earlier version of this manuscript and for their highly constructive and
helpful comments on how to improve the quality of this contribution. Parts of this
research were supported by German Research Foundation Grant QU 215/3-1 to O.Q.

Notes
1 Such behavioral effects have been examined in other contexts, but mainly from the
perspective of public opinion and not based on individual user comments (e.g., Yun &
Park, 2011).
2 In this study, the terms “response comments” and “feedback” are used interchangeably.
3 Relevance is a relative and context-dependent construct (e.g., van Dijk, 1988). We
understand relevance to be the result of a cognitive process by which media consumers
assign some personal importance or meaningfulness to some aspects of a news item or a
user comment (van Dijk, 1988). Put differently, “an input ( … ) is relevant to an individual
when it connects with background information he has available to yield conclusions that
matter to him” (Wilson & Sperber, 2004, p. 608).
4 Users writing comments at least several times a week were counted as “regular”
commenters, and users who wrote comments at least several times a month were counted
as “occasional” commenters.
5 Translations from the German transcripts were discussed with a bilingual native speaker
(German and English) to best preserve the original meaning and tonality.
6 As soon as interactions are introduced into the model, the main effects of the discussion
factors, being part of the product terms of the interactions, cannot be interpreted as
unconditioned effects anymore (Jaccard, 2001). Thus, the main effects of the discussion
factors are reported in model I, and the interactions in model II.
7 Another possible explanation can be derived from a “community perspective”: Although
commenters can use pseudonyms on web platforms, there might be a community of
people who regularly comment on a specific site. These users might know each other by
means of their pseudonyms. As a result, they might also know that some users regularly
write aggressive comments and that it is useless to interact with them. In contrast, there is a
broad range of possible discussion spaces on Facebook within which users might interact
only sporadically. Consequently, these users might to a lesser extent be able to anticipate
whether it will make sense to discuss with a user who writes aggressive comments.
References
Alexa. (2013). Top sites in Germany. Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com
Alonzo, M., & Aiken, M. (2004). Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support
Systems, 36, 205–213. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00190-2.
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The “nasty
effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication Online first. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009.
Boczkowski, P. J., & Mitchelstein, E. (2012). How users take advantage of different forms of
interactivity on online news sites: Clicking, e-mailing, and commenting. Human
Communication Research, 38, 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01418.x.
Bucy, E. P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information
Society, 20, 373–383. doi:10.1080/01972240490508063.
Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical
analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.
tb00137.x.

Deutschmann, P. J., & Danielson, W. A. (1960). Diffusion of knowledge of the major news
story. Journalism Quarterly, 37, 345–355.
Diakopoulos, N. A., & Naaman, M. (2011). Towards quality discourse in online news
comments. In CSCW ’11 Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported
cooperative work (pp. 133–142). New York, NY: ACM. Retrieved from
http://www.nickdiakopoulos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/pr220-diakopoulos.pdf
Eilders, C. (2006). News factors and news decisions: Theoretical and methodological
advances in Germany. Communications, 31, 5–24. doi:10.1515/COMMUN.2006.002.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43, 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic
communication. New Media & Society, 12, 1172–1190. doi:10.1177/1461444809357927.
Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2,
64–91. doi:10.1177/002234336500200104.
Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Herring, S. C., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. A. (2002). Searching for safety online:
Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371–383.
Jaccard, J. (2001). Interaction effects in logistic regression. Sage university papers: Series:
Quantitative applications in the social sciences: Vol. 135. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, Q., & Rafaeli, S. (2000). Time to split, virtually: ‘Discourse architecture’ and
‘community building’ create vibrant virtual publics. Electronic Markets, 10, 214–223.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30,
411–433. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x.
Lee, E.-J., & Jang, Y. J. (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, 825–846. doi:10.1177/0093650210376189.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Free Press.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass
communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human
Communication Research, 28, 587–604. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x.
Ng, E. W. J., & Detenber, B. H. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online
political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 10. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00252.x.
Östgaard, E. (1965). Factors influencing the flow of news. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 39–63.
doi:10.1177/002234336500200103.
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential
of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259–284.
doi:10.1177/1461444804041444.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries?:
SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25,
689–715. doi:10.1177/009365098025006006.
Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and
measuring success. Behavior and Information Technology Journal, 20, 1–15.
doi:10.1080/01449290110084683.

Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Normative and informational influences in online
political discussions. Communication Theory, 16, 47–74. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.
00005.x.
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T., & Olmstead, K. (2010). Understanding the
participatory news consumer. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/∼/media//
Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Understanding_the_Participatory_News_Consumer.pdf
Quiring, O. (2009). What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user
schemata. New Media & Society, 11, 899–920. doi:10.1177/14614448093
36511.
Rafaeli, S., & Ariel, Y. (2007). Assessing interactivity in computer-mediated research. In A. N.
Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
Internet psychology (pp. 71–88). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 2. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00201.x.
Reich, Z. (2011). User comments: The transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer,
A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, … M. Vujnovic (Eds.),
Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 96–117). Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
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, 22, 463–487. doi:10.1177/1940161211415849.
Schank, R. C. (1977). Rules and topics in conversation. Cognitive Science, 1, 421–441.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0104_3.
Schulz, W. F. (1982). News structure and people’s awareness of political events. International
Communication Gazette, 30, 139–153. doi:10.1177/001654928203000301.
Shoemaker, P. J. (1996). Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural evolution to
explain the surveillance function. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 32–47.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Cohen, A. (2006). News around the world: Content, practitioners, and the
public. New York, NY: Routledge.
Singer, J. B. (2009). Separate spaces: Discourse about the 2007 Scottish elections on a national
newspaper web site. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14, 477–496.
doi:10.1177/1940161209336659.
Springer, N., & Pfaffinger, C. (2012, May). Why users comment online news and why they
don’t. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Conference of the International
Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Staab, J. F. (1990). The role of news factors in news selection: A theoretical reconsideration.
European Journal of Communication, 5, 423–443.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques (17th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2003). Diversity and political conversations on the internet: Users’
perspectives. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00215.x.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The
Information Society, 20, 391–394. doi:10.1080/01972240490508081.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content. A coding scheme. Journal of
Public Deliberation, 3, 1–35.

Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. M. (2009). Coherence in political computer-mediated

communication: Analyzing topic relevance and drift in chat. Discourse &
Communication, 3, 195–216. doi:10.1177/1750481309102452.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.
doi:10.1089/1094931041291295.
Sundar, S. S. (2004). Theorizing interactivity’s effects. The Information Society, 20, 385–389.
doi:10.1080/01972240490508072.
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative
research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International
Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19, 349–357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2011). The social web as a shelter for privacy and authentic living.
In S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Eds.), Privacy online. Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure
in the social web (pp. 61–73). Berlin: Springer.
Turner, T. C., Smith, M. A., Fisher, D., & Welser, H. T. (2005). Picturing usenet: Mapping
computer-mediated collective action. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00270.x/full.
van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. In Communication (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Walther, J. B., & Jang, J.-w. (2012). Communication processes in participatory websites.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 2–15.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x.
Warren, C. N. (1934). Modern news reporting. Madison, Wis.: Harper & Brothers.
Weber, P. (2013). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and
interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society Online first.
Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., Bronner, F., & de Ridder, J. A. (2011). “Highly
recommended!” The content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer
reviews. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 19–38.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01551.x.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn & G. L. Ward (Eds.),
Blackwell handbooks in linguistics: Vol. 16. The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online
discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9, 849–869. doi:10.1177/1461444807081230.
Yun, G. W., & Park, S.-Y. (2011). Selective posting: Willingness to post a message online.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 201–227.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01533.x.
Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2013). Conceptualizing online discussion value: A
multidimensional framework for analyzing user comments on mass-media websites.
Communication Yearbook, 37, 125–154.

Jcom 12123

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jcom 12123

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

What Creates Interactivity in Online News

Keywords: Online News Discussions, User-generated Content, User Comments,

Corresponding author: Marc Ziegele; e-mail: ziegele@uni-mainz.de

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 1

Interactivity in online (news) discussions

2 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Theoretical approach: From news factors to discussion factors

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 3

that specific message characteristics in user comments stimulate response comments

4 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 5

6 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 7

Unlike aggression, the participants perceived that controversial statements explic-

8 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Some interviewees preferred responding to factual comments but others perceived

With regard to their response behavior, our participants overwhelmingly pre-

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 9

Again, the effects of personalization on the participants’ response behavior were

10 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

This strategy was generally perceived as a powerful measure to receive feedback.

For most participants, humorous comments provided some entertainment value.

Consistently, the participants perceived that response comments primarily

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 11

interviewees claimed to respond to aggressive and controversial comments only on

Differences in the degree of usability between the communication services often

In summary, the participants’ responses indicate that the sociability of a commu-

12 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 13

14 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 15

Comprehensibility (1) Substituting a word with an expression 40% .86 .72

16 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 17

Table 2 Logistic Regression Analysis of the Effect of Discussion Factors on Comment

Constant .99* 2.71 .28 1.32

18 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 19

20 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

a consequence, they might be more likely to respond to aggressive comments

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 21

22 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

sequencing techniques (e.g., displaying readers’ or editors’ choices of comments) or

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 23

“topic drift” (unexpectedness). Additionally, instead of using multiterm indices,

24 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 25

26 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 27

Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. M. (2009). Coherence in political computer-mediated

28 Journal of Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

You might also like