This cumulative dissertation explores online audiences’ responses to counterpublic discourse in the digital space. Counterpublic discourse is characterized by views that oppose the view of mainstream media and the perception that the counterpublic’s view is deliberately excluded from the dominant discourse. Although such discursive patterns have become a widespread phenomenon in today’s polarized online media environments, little is known about its effects on the audience. Against this background, the dissertation consists of three survey experiments that set out to investigate cognitive and behavioral effects of specific counterpublic discourse features. Moreover, to identify factors that may increase individuals’ susceptibility to counterpublic discourse, the studies accounted for participants' media trust levels or pre-existing attitudes. Special focus was placed on counterpublics in the realm of right-wing populism: Both Study 1 and Study 2 were concerned with effects of the right-wing counterpublic narrative claiming that mainstream media disguises uncomfortable truths about immigration and censors right-wing counterpublics’ views. While Study 1 investigated effects on perceived credibility of news items, Study 2 investigated effects on willingness to speak out. Lastly, in a more general manner, Study 3 examined how audiences assessed the credibility and argument quality of user comments that countered the mainstream media’s view. In the empirical studies, the lower the levels of media trust, the more likely participants were to regard counterpublic discourse as credible or to engage in counterpublic discourse themselves. Hence, together, the findings shed light on individual factors that may provide counterpublics with a particularly fertile ground.
