Hate speech
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
Stub...
Psychology settings for deliberation
Yehoshoa Getti - The Israrli deliberation: Rationalety and Agresivnes
Contents
Measuring incivility, flaming and rage
Papacharissi, Z. (2004)
Papacharissi, Z. (2004)[1]:
According to Papacharissi (2004), incivility can "be operationalized as the set of behaviors that threaten democracy, deny people their personal freedoms, and stereotype social groups" (p. 267). The researcher developed an index to code for civility or lack thereof in online political discussions. This index consisted of the three following questions, and if the answer to at least one of them was affirmative, the message was labeled uncivil (p.274).
(1) Does the discussant verbalize a threat to democracy (e.g. propose to overthrow a democratic government by force)?
(2) Does the discussant assign stereotypes (e.g. associate person with a group by using labels, whether those are mild – ‘liberal’, or more offensive – ‘faggot’)?
A distinction was made in the study between "neutral" and "antagonistic" stereotypes).
(3) Does the discussant threaten other individuals’ rights (e.g. personal freedom, freedom to speak)?
Politeness was also measured in the study – in a manner similar to civility. An index was developed, based on categories that were borrowed from the research of Jamieson (1997) and Jamieson and Falk (1998)**. If a message included at least one instance of impoliteness, it was labeled impolite: name-calling (e.g. weirdo, traitor, crackpot), aspersions (e.g. reckless, irrational, un-American), synonyms for liar (e.g. hoax, farce), hyperbole (e.g. outrageous, heinous), words that indicated non-cooperation, pejorative speak, or vulgarity.
- Jamieson, K.H. (1997) ‘Civility in the House of Representatives. APPC Report 10’, URL (consulted March 1997): http://appcpenn.org/pubs.htm.
Jamieson, K.H. and E. Falk (1998) ‘Civility in the House of Representatives: An update/ APPC Report 20’, URL (consulted November 1998): http://appcpenn.org/pubs.htm.
Sobieraj, S. & Berry, J.M. (2011)
Sobieraj, S. & Berry, J.M. (2011)[2]
Sobieraj & Berry (2011) conceptualized and measured types of political incivility that they termed "outrage". The researchers identified 13 types of recurring speech and behavior that constituted outrage, and they developed a codebook to define each. These are the 13 variables: insulting language, name calling, emotional display, emotional language, verbal fighting/sparring, character assassination, misrepresentative exaggeration, mockery, conflagration, ideologically extremizing language, slippery slope, belittling, and obscene language (p. 26, explanations about the variables – pp. 39-41).
Turnage, A. K. (2008)
Turnage, A. K. (2008)[3]:
Acoording to Turnage (2008), the most common characteristics of flaming identified in the literature as a whole are: hostility, aggression, intimidation, insults, offensive language or tone, unfriendliness, uninhibited behavior, and sarcasm. The researcher measured these eight variables in email recipients’ responses to a given set of messages. In addition, other attributes that may be characteristic of flaming were examined in the email messages studied, such as profanity, use of all caps, excessive punctuation, and emoticons (p.48-49).
The following scale measuring was developed to test the variables:
Message Invectives Scale
hostile __: __: __: __: __: __: __ non-hostile
aggressive __: __: __: __: __: __: __ non-aggressive
intimidating __: __: __: __: __: __: __ non-intimidating
insulting __: __: __: __: __: __: __ not insulting
offensive __: __: __: __: __: __: __ not offensive
friendly __: __: __: __: __: __: __ unfriendly
uninhibited __: __: __: __: __: __: __ inhibited
sarcastic __: __: __: __: __: __: __ not sarcastic
flame __: __: __: __: __: __: __ not a flame
For the purposes of measuring the resulting answers, the seven increments on the scale were assigned scores of one through seven, with one indicating the highest extreme and seven indicating the lowest. Therefore, if a respondent rated a particular email to be high on hostility, aggression, etc., then that particular email would be more likely to be considered a flame by that participant.
Speech recogntion of anger
a method based on sound of speach[4]
References
- ↑ Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.
- ↑ Sobieraj, S. & Berry, J.M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19-41.
- ↑ Turnage, A. K. (2008). Email flaming behaviors and organizational conflict. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 43-59.
- ↑ Nwe, T. L., Foo, S. W., & De Silva, L. C. (2003). Speech emotion recognition using hidden Markov models. Speech Communication, 41(4), 603–623.