Scholars are increasingly concerned about the rising level of negativity in social media sites. This negativity has found its way into sites that are supposedly intended for prosocial civic engagement. To examine how hostility impacts behavior in a user-generated, prosocial context, an experimental study was conducted using an online petition modeled after those posted to the website Change.org. This study examines whether negativity causes a contagion effect leading to more negativity and the different types of negativity that may occur. Results suggest that when users read negative-toned petitions, a contagion effect increases both anger and anxiety. However, our findings are not consistent with previous literature that argues anger leads to increased proactive behavior. Instead, we find that while anxiety leads to an increase in petition-related action, anger does not. These findings have important theoretical and practical implications for scholars and those looking to participate in social justice via online platforms.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDA, et al. (2014) The “nasty effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19: 373–387.
2.
BorahP (2012) Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research41: 809–827.
3.
ChinCYLuHPWuCM (2015) Facebook users’ motivation for clicking the “like” button. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal43: 579–592.
4.
ChoJKeumHShahDV (2015) News consumers, opinion leaders, and citizen consumers: moderators of the consumption-participation link. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly92(1): 161–178.
5.
CicchirilloVHmielowskiJHutchensM (2015) The mainstreaming of verbally aggressive online political behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking18: 253–259.
6.
CoeKKenskiKRainsS (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64: 658–679.
7.
EdgerlySVragaEKMcLaughlinB, et al. (2014) Navigational structures and information selection goals: a closer look at online selectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media58: 542–561.
8.
EisenbergNMillerPA (1987) The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin101: 91–119.
9.
FowlerJHChristakisNA (2008) Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. British Medical Journal337: a2338.
10.
GeronT (2012) The Business Behind Change.org’s Activist Petitions. Forbes. October Available at: http://forbes.com
11.
GordijnEHWigboldusDYzerbytV (2001) Emotional consequences of categorizing victims of negative outgroup behavior as ingroup or outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations4: 317–326.
12.
GranovetterM (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78: 1360–1380.
13.
HansonWAPutlerDS (1996) Hits and misses: Herd behavior and online product popularity. Marketing Letters7: 297–305. Available at: http://doi.org/dx2ms4
14.
HayesAF (2012) PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling (White paper). Available at: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
15.
HigginsonS (1986) A short history of the right to petition government for the redress of grievances. The Yale Law Journal96: 142–166.
16.
HillKAHughesJE (1998) Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
17.
HmielowskiJDHutchensMJCicchirilloVJ (2014) Living in an age of online incivility: examining the conditional indirect effects of online discussion on political flaming. Information, Communication & Society17: 1196–1211.
18.
HutchensMJCicchirilloVJHmielowskiJD (2015) How could you think that?!?!: understanding intentions to engage in political flaming. New Media & Society17(8): 1201–1219.
19.
KramerADGuilloryJEHancockJT (2014) Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(24): 8788–8790.
20.
LeeSCudeBJ (2012) Consumer complaint channel choice in online and offline purchases. International Journal of Consumer Studies36: 90–96.
21.
McLaughlinBYangJYooW, et al. (2016) The effects of expressing religious support online for breast cancer patients. Health Communication31: 762–771.
22.
MarcusGENeumanWRMacKuenM (2000) Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
PapacharissiZ (2002) The virtual sphere: the Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society4: 9–27.
24.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6: 259–283.
25.
RainsSAYoungVA (2009) A meta-analysis of research on formal computer-mediated support groups: examining group characteristics and health outcomes. Human Communication Research35: 309–336.
26.
RobertsonSPDouglasSMaruyamaM, et al. (2013) Political discourse on social networking sites: sentiment, in-group/out-group orientation and rationality. Information Polity18: 107–126.
27.
RuizCDomingoDMicóJL, et al. (2011) Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics22: 463–487.
28.
ShirkyC (2011) The political power of social media: technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs90: 28–41.
29.
SobierajSBerryJ (2011) From incivility to outrage: political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication28: 19–41.
30.
SproullLConleyCAMoonJY (2005) Prosocial behavior on the net. In: Amichai-HamburgerY (ed.) The Social Net: The Social Psychology of the Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–161.
31.
TetlockPESkitkaLBoettgerR (1989) Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology57: 632–640.
32.
ValentinoNABraderTGroenendykEW, et al. (2011) Election night’s alright for fighting: the role of emotions in political participation. Journal of Politics73: 156–170.
33.
ValentinoNAHutchingsVLBanksAJ, et al. (2008) Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet. Political Psychology29: 247–273.
34.
Van ZomerenMSpearsRLeachC (2008) Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage?British Journal of Social Psychology47: 353–372.
35.
WagnerM (2014) Fear and anger in Great Britain: blame assignment and emotional reactions to the financial crisis. Political Behavior36: 683–703.
36.
WeeksBE (2015) Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: how anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication65: 699–719.
37.
WrightS (2012) Assessing (e-)
democratic innovations: “democratic goods” and Downing Street E-petitions. Journal of Information Technology & Politics9(4): 453–470.
38.
YzerbytVDumontMWigboldusD, et al. (2003) I feel for us: the impact of categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies. British Journal of Social Psychology42: 533–549.
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.
