Search

Caused by perceived norm violations, online firestorms confront organizations with large volumes of hostile-emotional comments on public social media leading to a damage to reputation or the cancellation of products and projects. Relying on social norm theory we analyze how people express perceived norm violations in their online comments and how this relates to their use of hostile-emotional online sanctions. We distinguish negative externalities; propriety judgements; excess of zeal, which combines negative externalities with propriety judgements; and no justification, meaning no speculations about why norm violations occurred, as four types of motive for hostile verbal expression. Using hostile-emotional sanctioning is differently associated with these motives: (1) weak association with negative externalities to maintain credibility; (2) moderate association with propriety judgements as a result of altruistic punishments; (3) moderate association with no justification, triggered by arousal; and (4) strong association with an excess of zeal because norm enforcers believe that a latent group exists which rewards them with positive sanctions for working toward the common goal and punishes them with negative sanctions for shirking. We analyze one specific online protest signed by 305,122 people that led to a massive hostile-emotional firestorm against an organization. We find that 37% of the 44,173 individuals who additionally commented their protest participation were hostile and/or emotional. As predicted, we find that compared to the other motives, the excess of zeal is most likely to motivate hostile-emotional sanctions. Overall, our theory and findings explain why most online firestorms are hard to stop: with an excess of zeal, a latent group of norm enforcers must be appeased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature on public figures attacked by their audiences is unclear why female and male figures react differently to attacks. This study examines why female journalists are more likely than male journalists to use avoidance strategies as a reaction to online attacks. Avoidance includes limiting audience engagement, adapting reporting behavior, and thinking about quitting journalism. Drawing on social role theory and gender stereotypes, this study contrasts two explanatory hypotheses. The results, based on mediation analyses of online survey data of 637 journalists representative of Switzerland, show that women are more likely than men to use avoidance strategies because women are more stressed by attacks. This heightened stress is argued to result from differences in gender role socialization. In contrast, while women are somewhat more severely attacked than men, this cannot explain their greater probability of avoidance. Results contribute a theoretically and empirically rich explanation of gendered reactions to attacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]