Rational-Critical User Discussions: How Argument Strength and the Conditions Set by News Organizations Are Linked to (Reasoned) Disagreement

Abstract

Due to their potential influence on the individual and societal formation of opinions, the quality of online discussions has been a subject of widespread interest. From a deliberative perspective, rational argumentation and critical reflection are central criteria for good discourse. Drawing on research on the perception of arguments and the conditions of disagreement, we ask how argument strength is linked to the likelihood of receiving (reasoned) disagreement and whether the discussion norms and technical features set by the news organizations moderate this effect. Based on a manual content analysis of 14.690 user comments on nine German news websites, we find that comments with a higher argument strength are more likely to receive disagreement in general and reasoned disagreement in particular. Further, the levels of (reasoned) disagreement are higher on platforms with strong discussion norms and supporting technical features. The results show that the quality of a discussion can be related to both users’ argumentation and the decisions of the news organizations.