Cyber vigilantism, in particular crowdsourced vigilantism, is a newly emerging practice whereby people expose misconducts and identify culprits through collaboratively searching and publicizing information using the Internet. This study proposes a theory-oriented framework with which we demonstrate that individuals’ media exposure and perceived social norms may interact and jointly predict their reception of and reactions to the practice. We tested the framework with web survey data of 800 adults in Taiwan. Results showed that the frequency and the ways in which the press covers cyber vigilantism were both directly and indirectly associated with individuals’ acceptance of or resistance to cyber vigilantism. The indirect associations were mediated by individuals’ evaluations and perceived social acceptance of the practice. We suggest that obtaining favorable news coverage is essential for cyber vigilantism to gain acceptance and attract crowds. When modeling or predicting the structure and evolving process of this newly emerging cyber practice, researchers may want to consider the overall media environment, social context, and personal evaluations.
AjzenI. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned behavior. In KuhlJ.BeckmanJ. (Eds.), Action control: From cognitions to behaviors (pp. 11–39). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
3.
BrabhamD. C. (2012). Motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application to improve public engagement in transit planning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 307–328.
4.
CarifioL.PerlaR. (2008). Resolving the 50 year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education, 42, 1150–1152.
5.
ChangL. Y. C.LeungA. K. H. (2015). An introduction to cyber crowdsourcing (human flesh search) in the Greater China region. In SmithR.CheungR.LauL. (Eds.), Cybercrime risks and responses: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 240–252). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137474162_16
6.
ChangL. Y. C.PoonR. (2017). Internet vigilantism: Attitudes and experiences of university students toward cyber crowdsourcing in Hong Kong. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61, 1912–1932. doi:10.1177/0306624X16639037
7.
CheongP. H.GongJ. (2010). Cyber vigilantism, transmedia collective intelligence, and civic participation. Chinese Journal of Communication, 3, 471–487.
8.
ChiaS. C. (2018). Crowd-sourcing justice: Tracking a decade’s news coverage of cyber vigilantism throughout the Greater China region. Information, Communication & Society, 1–18. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1476573
9.
ChiaS. C.LuK. H.McLeodD. M. (2004). Sex, lies, and video compact disc: A case study on third-person perception and motivations for media censorship. Communication Research, 31, 109–130. doi:10.1177/0093650203260204
10.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637–655. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070554
11.
CoganB. (2005). “Framing usefulness:” An examination of journalistic coverage of the personal computer from 1982–1984. Southern Journal of Communication, 70, 248–265. doi:10.1080/10417940509373330
12.
de VreeseC. H. (2005). News framing: theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13, 51–62.
13.
DudoA.DunwoodyS.ScheufeleD. A. (2011). The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in US newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 55–75. doi:10.1177/107769901108800104
14.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
15.
Estelles-ArolasE.Gonzalez-Ladron-de-GuevaraF. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38, 189–200. doi:10.1177/0165551512437638
16.
FangC. C.LinF. Y. (2010). Wanglu shang de baoli zhengyi: renrou sousuo de xianxiang yu tantao [Violent justice on the Internet—Exploring the phenomenon of human flesh search]. Zixun yu Guanli Kexue, 3, 23–35. doi:10.30136/ZXYGLKX.201012.0002
17.
FieldsJ. M.SchumanH. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 427–448. doi:10.1086/268330
18.
GarsonG. D. (2014). Scales and measures. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Publishing Associates.
19.
GibsonR.ZillmannD. (1994). Exaggerated versus representative exemplification in news reports: Perception of issues and personal consequences. Communication Research, 21, 603–624. doi:10.1177/009365094021005003
20.
GuntherA. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25, 486–504. doi:10.1177/009365098025005002
21.
GuntherA. C.ChiaS. C. Y. (2001). Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media perception and its consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 688–701. doi:10.1177/107769900107800405
22.
GuntherA. C.ThorsonE. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574–596. doi:10.1177/009365092019005002
23.
HoekenH.HustinxL. (2009). When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35, 491–510. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01360.x
LeeE. J.JangY. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37, 825–846. doi:10.1177/0093650210376189
28.
LinC. S. (2011). Renrou sousuo chutang [Human flesh search: A literature review]. Tushu yu Zixun Xuekan, 79, 31–47. doi:10.6575/JoLIS.2011.79.03
29.
McCombsM. E.ReynoldsA. (2009). How news shapes our civic agenda. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187. doi:10.1086/267990
31.
MohamedN.AhmadI. H. (2012). Information privacy concerns, antecedents and privacy measure use in social networking sites: Evidence from Malaysia. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2366–2375. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.008
32.
NelkinD. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
33.
NhanJ.HueyL.BrollR. (2017). Digilantism: An analysis of crowdsourcing and the Boston marathon bombings. The British Journal of Criminology, 57, 341–361. doi:10.1093/bjc/azv118
34.
NormanG. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625–632.
35.
ParkY. J. (2011). Digital literacy and privacy behavior online. Communication Research, 40, 215–236. doi:10.1177/0093650211418338
36.
PellG. (2005). Uses and misuses of Likert scales. Medical Education, 39, 97.
37.
RogersR. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91, 93–114. doi:10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
38.
RogersR. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A source book (pp. 153–176). London, England: Guildford Press.
39.
SkoricM. M.ChuaJ. P. E.LiewM. A.WongK. H.YeoP. J. (2010). Online shaming in the Asian context: Community empowerment or civic vigilantism?Surveillance & Society, 8, 181–199.
40.
SlothuusR.de VreeseC. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72, 630–645. doi:10.1017/S002238161000006X
SunY.ShenL.PanZ. (2008). On the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 35, 257–278. doi:10.1177/0093650207313167
43.
TrottierD. (2017). Digital vigilantism as weaponisation of visibility. Philosophy & Technology, 30, 55–72. doi:10.1007/s13347-016-0216-4
44.
TrottierD. (2018). Coming to terms with shame: Exploring mediated visibility against transgressions. Surveillance & Society, 16, 170–182.
45.
TsfatiY. (2007). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and minority alienation: The case of Arabs in Israel. Journal of Communication, 57, 632–651. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00361.x
46.
TsfatiY.CohenJ. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on democratic legitimacy: The case of Gaza settlers. Communication Research, 32, 794–821. doi:10.1177/0093650205281057
47.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
48.
WangB.HouB.YaoY.YanL. (2009). Human flesh search model: Incorporating network expansion and GOSSIP with feedback. DS-RT ‘09 Proceedings of the 2009 13th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications, 2009, 82–88.
49.
WangF. Y.ZengD.HendlerJ. A.ZhangQ.FengZ.GaoY.…LaiG. (2010). A study of the human flesh search engine: crowd-powered expansion of online knowledge. Computer, 43, 45–53. doi:10.1109/MC.2010.216
50.
WantaW.GolanG.LeeC. (2004). Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 364–377. doi:10.1177/107769900408100209
51.
WexlerM. N. (2011). Reconfiguring the sociology of the crowd: Exploring crowdsourcing. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31, 6–20. doi:10.1108/01443331111104779
52.
YardleyE.LynesG. T.WilsonD.KellyE. (2018). What’s the deal with “websleuthing”? News media representations of amateur detectives in networked spaces. Crime, Media, Culture, 14, 81–109. doi:10.1177/1741659016674045
53.
YounS. (2009). Determinants of online privacy concern and its influence on privacy protection behaviors among young adolescents. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43, 389–418. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2009.01146.x
54.
YounS.HallK. (2008). Gender and online privacy among teens: Risk perception, privacy concerns, and protection behaviors. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 763–765. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0240
55.
ZerbackT.KochT.KramerB. (2015). Thinking of others: Effects of implicit and explicit media cues on climate of opinion perceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 421–443. doi:10.1177/1077699015574481
56.
ZillmannD. (2002). Exemplification theory of media influence. In BryantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 19–41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
ZillmannD.BrosiusH.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
