Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Coles, Bryn A; West, Melanie (2016)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF
‘Trolling’ refers to a specific type of malicious online behaviour, intended to disrupt\ud interactions, aggravate interactional partners and lure them into fruitless argumentation.\ud However, as with other categories, both ‘troll’ and ‘trolling’ may have multiple,\ud inconsistent and incompatible meanings, depending upon the context in which the term\ud is used and the aims of the person using the term.\ud Drawing data from 14 online fora and newspaper comment threads, this paper explores\ud how online users mobilise and make use of the term ‘troll’. Data was analysed\ud from a discursive psychological perspective.\ud Four repertoires describing trolls were identified in posters online messages: 1) that\ud trolls are easily identifiable, 2) nostalgia, 3) vigilantism and 4) that trolls are nasty. A\ud final theme follows these repertoires – that of identifying trolls. Analysis also revealed\ud that despite repertoire 01, identifying trolls is not a simple and straight-forward task.\ud Similarly to any other rhetorical category, there are tensions inherent in posters\ud accounts of nature and acceptability of trolling. Neither the category ‘troll’ nor the\ud action of ‘trolling’ has a single, fixed meaning. Either action may be presented as\ud desirable or undesirable, depending upon the aims of the poster at the time of posting.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bishop, J. (2012a). The psychology of trolling and lurking: the role of defriending and gamification for increasing participation in online communities using seductive narratives. In H. Li (Ed.), Virtual community participation and motivation: Crossdisciplinary theories (pp. 160-176). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0312-7.ch010.
    • 235 Bishop, J. (2013a). The art of trolling law enforcement: A review and model for implementing 'flame trolling' legislation enacted in Great Britain (1981-2012). International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 27, 301-318. doi:10.1080/ 13600869.2013.796706.
    • Condor, S. (2000). Pride and prejudice: Identity management in english people's talk about 'this country'. Discourse & Society, 11, 175-205. doi:10.1177/ 0957926500011002003.
    • Condor, S. (2006). Public prejudice as collaborative accomplishment: Towards a dialogic social psychology of racism. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 1-18. doi:10.1002/casp.845.
    • Condor, S., Figgou, L., Abell, J., Gibson, S., & Stevenson, C. (2006). 'they're not racist. . . ' Prejudice denial, mitigation and suppression in dialogue. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 441-462. doi:10.1348/014466605X66817.
    • Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2425-2428). ACM. doi:10.1145/ 1979742.1979575.
    • Edwards, D. (1998). The relevant thing about her: Social identity categories in use. In c. Antaki, & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 15-33). London: Sage.
    • Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology, 5, 271-291. doi:10. 1177/1354067X9953001.
    • Gala´n-Garc´ıa, P., de la Puerta, J. G., Go´mez, C. L., Santos, I., & Bringas, P. G. (2014). Supervised machine learning for the detection of troll profiles in twitter social network: Application to a real case of cyberbullying. In International Joint Conference SOCO13-CISIS13-ICEUTE13 (pp. 419-428). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01854-6_43.
    • Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 215-242. doi:10.1515/JPLR.2010.011.
    • Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing” trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371- 384. doi:10.1080/01972240290108186.
    • Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14, 206-221. doi:10.1080/13811118.2010.494133.
    • Je erson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction Competence (pp. 63-92). Washington, DC: University Press of America.
    • Potter, J. (2003). Discursive psychology: Between method and paradigm. Discourse & Society, 14, 783-794. doi:10.1177/09579265030146005.
    • Potter, J. (2012). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 119-138). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13620-008.
    • Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (1999). Social representations and discursive psychology: From cognition to action. Culture & Psychology, 5, 447-458. doi:10.1177/ 1354067X9954004.
    • Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2003). Sociolinguistics, cognitivism and discursive psychology. International Journal of English Studies, 3, 93-109. doi:10.6018/48531.
    • Potter, J., Edwards, D., & Wetherell, M. (1993). A model of discourse in action. American Behavioral Scientist, (pp. 383-401). doi:10.1177/0002764293036003008.
    • Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative research in Psychology, 2, 281-307. doi:10.1191/ 1478088705qp045oa.
    • Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2007). Life is out there a comment on gri n. Discourse Studies, 9, 276-282. doi:10.1177/1461445607075348.
    • Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Mico´, J. L., D´ıaz-Noci, J., Masip, P., & Meso, K. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, (p. 1940161211415849). doi:10.1177/ 1940161211415849.
    • 340 Sacks, H., Scheglo , E. A., & Je erson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. language, 4, 696-735. URL: http: //www.jstor.org/stable/412243.
    • Shachaf, P., & Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science, 36, 357-370. doi:10.1177/0165551510365390.
    • 345 Shin, J. (2008). Morality and internet behavior: A study of the internet troll and its relation with morality on the internet. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2834-2840). volume 2008. URL: http://www.editlib.org/noaccesspresent/27652/46654/.
    • Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition e ect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 321-326. doi:10.1089/1094931041291295.
    • Thacker, S., & Gri ths, M. D. (2012). An exploratory study of trolling in online video gaming. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 2, 17-33. doi:10.4018/ijcbpl.2012100102.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article