Search

Are people with lower social status more likely to post aggressive content online? And if yes, can this be explained by people's political views? Some previous attempts to approach these questions have been insufficiently comprehensive and methodologically sound. This study therefore expands the existing literature on online aggression with both a sociologically grounded, theoretical model of the interplay of social and political determinants and an innovative empirical data triangulation design. The study matches behavioral data from a social media platform with survey data providing extensive social and political information about users. Findings suggest that online aggression is more likely among users with an ascribed social status that is associated with power claims (male gender, older age, and national citizenship) and with a disadvantaged achieved social status (lower education, lower incomes, unemployment, and rural residence). Left–right leaning, populism, and trust in institutions can explain between 20 and 40 percent of these structural effects. The results help tailor measures that counter online aggression to specific risk groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing challenge of digital hate speech requires an understanding of its complexity, scale, and impact. Research on experiencing digital hate speech has so far been limited to the roles of personal victim, observer, and perpetrator, with a focus on young people. However, research on hate crimes suggests that vicarious victimization may also be relevant due to its negative impacts. In addition, the lack of knowledge about the older generation neglects the fact that older people are increasingly seen as vulnerable to digital risks. Therefore, this study introduces vicarious victimization as an additional role in research on digital hate speech. Prevalence rates for the four roles are examined across the life span, using a nationally representative sample of adult Internet users in Switzerland. Additionally, all roles are correlated with life satisfaction and loneliness, two stable indicators of subjective well-being. The results show that in this national population, personal victimization and perpetration are less common (<7 percent), whereas observation and vicarious victimization are more common (>40 percent). Prevalence decreases with age in all roles. As expected, multivariate analyses show that both forms of victimization are negatively related to life satisfaction and positively related to loneliness, with these effects being stronger for personal victimization. Similarly, being an observer and being a perpetrator correlate negatively, but not significantly, with well-being. This study contributes to a theoretical and empirical distinction between personal and vicarious victims and provides insight into their effects on well-being in a population largely unexplored in terms of age and national representativeness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compares two explanations why some journalists are targeted more than others, both by general digital hostility and specifically by identity-based hostility, job-related hostility, and severe hostility such as threats and repeat offences. The first explains targeting by identity, especially of historically disadvantaged groups such as women and migrants; the second explains targeting by celebrity: journalists with larger audiences, greater social media presence, more television work, and focus on political coverage are targeted more. A Swiss survey of 568 journalists shows that celebrity mainly explains targeting with general hostility, whereas the effects of identity vary for different types of hostility. Additional interactions suggest that historically disadvantaged groups tend to experience more digital hostility, but only with increasing celebrity capital. This study emphasizes how hostility types differentiate explanatory values. Further, it contributes an innovative celebrity explanation and demonstrates how interactions can illuminate the tangled relation between identity, visibility, and hostility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Actors of public interest today have to fear the adverse impact that stems from social media platforms. Any controversial behavior may promptly trigger temporal, but potentially devastating storms of emotional and aggressive outrage, so called online firestorms. Popular targets of online firestorms are companies, politicians, celebrities, media, academics and many more. This article introduces social norm theory to understand online aggression in a social-political online setting, challenging the popular assumption that online anonymity is one of the principle factors that promotes aggression. We underpin this social norm view by analyzing a major social media platform concerned with public affairs over a period of three years entailing 532,197 comments on 1,612 online petitions. Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals. This effect is reinforced if selective incentives are present and if aggressors are intrinsically motivated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]