Norm violations in comments on social networking sites have raised concerns about the climate of political discourse. In this article, we analyze how comment characteristics and neutralization techniques in potential hate speech comments influence users’ ascription of deviance by reporting negative comments about refugees. We focus on the type of norm violation, subtlety, type of victim, and justifications as comment characteristics. Moreover, we examine the influence of descriptive and injunctive norms on reporting behavior of potential hate comments. Here, we focus on individual’s moral orientation and the perceived level of peer deviance. Results of an online survey (n = 457) that included a choice-based conjoint design suggest that incitements for violence and direct offenses are more likely to be reported than other types of norm violation and indirect offenses. Moral foundations, indicative of liberal political orientations, fostered reporting behavior, but conservative orientations reduced reporting behavior.
Amadeu Antonio Foundation. (2016). Monitoringbericht 2015/16. Rechtsextreme und menschenverachtende Phänomene im Social Web [Monitoring report 2015/16. Extreme right wing and inhuman phenomena on social media platforms]. Retrieved from https://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/w/files/pdfs/monitoringbericht-2015.pdf
2.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.LadwigP. (2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373-387. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009
3.
BanasJ. A.RainsS. A. (2010). A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Communication Monographs, 77, 281-311. doi:10.1080/03637751003758193
4.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193-209. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
5.
BatsonC. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BeierleinC.AsbrockF.KauffM.SchmidtP. (2014). Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA–3): Ein ökonomisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung dreier Subdimensionen autoritärer Einstellungen [Authoritarianism scale–Short version]. Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. (GESIS-Working Papers, 2014/35). Mannheim: GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.6102/zis228
7.
BhavnaniR.FindleyM. G.KuklinskiJ. H. (2009). Rumor dynamics in ethnic violence. Journal of Politics, 71, 876-892. doi:10.1017/S002238160909077X
8.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ChenG. M. (2017). Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
10.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
11.
CialdiniR. B.RenoR. R.KallgrenC. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
12.
CitronD. K.NortonH. L. (2011). Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering digital citizenship for our information age. Boston University Law Review, 91, 1435-1484. Retrieved from http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/178
13.
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64, 658-679. doi:10.1111/jcom.12104
CrawfordK.GillespieT. (2016). What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society, 18, 410-428. doi:10.1177/1461444814543163
16.
DehmU.StorllD. (2010). Medien und Tabus. Eine qualitative-quantitative Grundlagenstudie [Media and taboos. A qualitative and quantitative research on essentials]. Media Perspektiven, 410-431.
17.
DeuzeM.BrunsA.NeubergerC. (2007). Preparing for an age of participatory news. Journalism Practice, 1, 322-338. doi:10.1080/17512780701504864
18.
DownsD. M.CowanG. (2012). Predicting the importance of freedom of speech and the perceived harm of hate speech. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1353-1375. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00902.x
19.
EdenA.TamboriniR.GrizzardM.LewisR.WeberR.PrabhuS. (2014). Repeated exposure to narrative entertainment and the salience of moral intuitions. Journal of Communication, 64, 501-520. doi:10.1111/jcom.12098
GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (1987). The methodological adequacy of longitudinal research on crime. Criminology, 25, 581-614. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00812.x
24.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives use different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
HaidtJ. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002. doi:10.1126/science.1137651
27.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon.
28.
HaidtJ.JosephC. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In CarruthersP.LaurenceS.StichS. (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367-391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
30.
HanzelkaJ.SchmidtI. (2017). Dynamics of cyber hate in social media: A comparative analysis of anti-Muslim movements in the Czech Republic and Germany. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11, 143-160. doi:10.5281/zenodo.495778
31.
HarrisL. C.DumasA. (2009). Online consumer misbehavior: An application of neutralization theory. Marketing Theory, 9, 379-402. doi:10.1177/1470593109346895
32.
HenryS. (2009). Social deviance. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
33.
HindujaS. (2007). Neutralization theory and online software piracy: An empirical analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 187-204. doi:10.1007/s10676-007-9143-5
34.
JoeckelS.FruehH. (2016). “The world ain’t all sunshine”: Investigating the relationship between mean world beliefs, conservatism and crime TV exposure. Communications—The European Journal of Communication Research, 41, 195-217. doi:10.1515/commun-2016-0001
35.
JostJ. T.AmodioD. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55-64. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7
36.
KenskiK.CoeK.RainsS. A. (2017). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research. Advance online publication, 1-20. doi:10.1177/0093650217699933
37.
KnopfT. A. (2009). Rumors, race, and riots. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1975)
38.
KuglerM.JostJ. T.NoorbaloochiS. (2014). Another look at moral foundations theory: Do authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain liberal-conservative differences in “moral” intuitions?Social Justice Research, 27, 413-431. doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0223-5
39.
LeeE.LeetsL. (2002). Persuasive storytelling by hate groups online: Examining its effects on adolescents. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 927-957. doi:10.1177/0002764202045006003
40.
LeetsL. (2001). Responses to internet hate sites: Is speech too free in cyberspace?Communication Law and Policy, 6, 287-317. doi:10.1207/S15326926CLP0602_2
41.
LeetsL. (2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to anti-semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 341-361. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00264
42.
MalinJ.FowersB. J. (2009). Adolescent self-control and music and movie piracy. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 718-722. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.029
43.
ManganelliA. M.BobbioA.CanovaL. (2007). A short version of the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1223-1234. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.013
44.
MarunaS.CopesH. (2005). What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research?Crime and Justice, 32, 221-320. doi:10.1086/655355
45.
MeibauerJ. (2013). Hassrede—von der Sprache zur Politik [Hate speech—From language to politics]. In MeibauerJ. (Ed.), Hassrede/Hate Speech. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu einer aktuellen Diskussion. Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek, 1–16. Retrieved from http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2013/9251/
46.
MocanuD.RossiL.ZhangQ.KarsaiM.QuattrociocchiW. (2015). Collective attention in the age of (mis) information. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1198-1204. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.024
47.
MorrisR. G.HigginsG. E. (2009). Neutralizing potential and self-reported digital piracy: A multitheoretical exploration among college graduates. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 173-195. doi:10.1177/0734016808325034
48.
MuddimanA. (2013). The instability of incivility: How news frames and citizen perceptions shape conflict in American politics. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.
49.
NaabT. K.KalchA.MeitzT. G. K. (2018). Flagging uncivil user comments: Effects of intervention information, type of victim, and response comments on bystander behavior. New Media & Society, 20, 777-795. doi:10.1177/1461444816670923
50.
NaabT. K.SehlA. (2017). Studies of user-generated content: A systematic review. Journalism, 18, 1256-1273. doi:10.1177/1464884916673557
51.
OliverM. B.DillardJ. P.BaeK.TamulD. J. (2012). The effect of narrative news format on empathy for stigmatized groups. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 205-224. doi:10.1177/1077699012439020
52.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259-283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444
53.
ParkH. S.SmithS. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research, 33, 194-218. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00296.x
54.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
55.
PostmesT.SpearsR.LeaM. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715. doi:10.1177/009365098025006006
56.
RainsS. A.KenskiK.CoeK.HarwoodJ. (2017). Incivility and political identity on the internet: Intergroup factors as predictors of incivility in discussions of news online. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 22, 163-178. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12191
57.
ReichZ. (2011). User comments: The transformation of participatory space. In SingerJ. B., et al. (Eds.), Participatory journalism guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 6-117). Chichester, UK: Blackwell.
58.
RenoR. R.CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104-112. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.104
59.
SantanaA. D. (2015). Incivility dominates online comments on immigration. Newspaper Research Journal, 36, 92-107. doi:10.1177/0739532915580317
60.
SchultzP. W.NolanJ. M.CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J.GriskeviciusV. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429-434. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
61.
SoralW.BilewiczM.WiniewskiM. (2018). Exposure to hate speech increases prejudice through desensitization. Aggressive Behavior, 44, 136-146. doi:10.1002/ab.21737
62.
SpringerN.EngelmannI.PfaffingerC. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 798-815. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.997268
63.
StefanowitschA.FlachS. (2016). Auswertung von Userkommentaren auf der offiziellen Facebook-Seite von PEGIDA, Januar bis Dezember 2015 im Auftrag der Sueddeutschen Zeitung [Analysis of user comments on the official Facebook page of PEGIDA, January to December 2015 on behalf of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung]. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9mLol0BxIQ_Z053SXZ6S2NVR3M/view
64.
StroudN. J.ScaccoJ. M.MuddimanA.CurryA. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 188-203. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104
65.
StürmerS.SnyderM. (2009). Helping “us” versus “them.” In StürmerS.SnyderM. (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 33-58). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
SunsteinC. R.VermeuleA. (2009). Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17, 202-227. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x
68.
SykesG.MatzaD. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670. doi:10.2307/2089195
69.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
70.
TamboriniR. (2013). A model of intuitive morality and exemplars. In TamboriniR. (Ed.), Media and the moral mind (pp. 43-74). New York, NY: Routledge.
71.
TamboriniR.EdenA.BowmanN. D.GrizzardM.LachlanK. A. (2012). The influence of morality subcultures on the acceptance and appeal of violence. Journal of Communication, 62, 136-157. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01620.x
72.
ZiegeleM.JostP. B. (2016). Not funny?! The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research, 47, 891-920. doi:10.1177/0093650216671854
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
