Journalists, scholars, and citizens have raised concerns regarding the high share of incivility in comment sections of news outlets. The current study surveyed members of the social movement #ichbinhier, which aims at collectively countering uncivil comments to cultivate a civil discussion atmosphere in comment sections. We root the activities of #ichbinhier as corrective action and identify the determinants of the members’ engagement by integrating research on bystander behavior and collective action. The findings of our survey show that factors pertaining to individual skills, perceived responsibility, and expected benefits relate to the members’ likelihood to engage against uncivil online comments. Regarding factors derived from collective action research, group efficacy and knowledge of the rules and structures of the movement account for higher levels of engagement. These results shed light on the factors that motivate and inhibit #ichbinhier members—and, potentially, Facebook users in general—to engage against uncivil comments.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDAet al. (2014) The “nasty effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19: 373–387.
2.
ArmitageCJConnerM (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic reviews. British Journal of Social Psychology40: 471–499.
3.
BarronGYechiamE (2002) Private e-mail requests and the diffusion of responsibility. Computers in Human Behavior18: 507–520.
4.
BaumeisterRFChesnerSPSendersPSet al. (1988) Who’s in charge here? Group leaders do lend help in emergencies. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin14: 17–22.
5.
BeierleinCKemperCJKovalevaAet al. (2012) Ein Messinstrument zur Erfassung politischer Kompetenz- und Einflussüberzeugungen: Political Efficacy Kurzskala (PEKS) [An instrument for the measurement of political competency and efficacy: Political Efficacy Short Scale (PEKS)]. Mannheim: GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften.
6.
BergJ (2016) The impact of anonymity and issue controversiality on the quality of online discussion. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13: 37–51.
7.
BergströmAWadbringI (2014) Beneficial yet crappy: journalists and audiences on obstacles and opportunities in reader comments. European Journal of Communication30: 137–151.
8.
BernhardUDohleM (2015) Corrective or confirmative actions? Political online participation as a consequence of presumed media influences in election campaigns. Journal of Information Technology & Politics12: 285–302.
9.
BimberBFlanaginAJStohlC (2005) Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory15: 365–388.
10.
BlairCAFoster ThompsonLWuenschKL (2005) Electronic helping behavior: the virtual presence of others makes a difference. Basic and Applied Social Psychology27: 171–178.
11.
BruningRDempseyMKauffmanDFet al. (2013) Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology105: 25–38.
12.
BrunstingSPostmesT (2002) Social movement participation in the digital age. Small Group Research33: 525–554.
13.
BurnSM (2009) A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles60: 779–792.
14.
ChekrounPBrauerM (2002) The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology32: 853–867.
15.
ChenGM (2017) Online Incivility and Public Debate: Nasty Talk. Basel: Springer International Publishing.
16.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64: 658–679.
17.
CramerREMcmasterMRBartellPAet al. (1988) Subject competence and minimization of the bystander effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology18: 1133–1148.
18.
DovidioJFGaertnerSLValidzicAet al. (1997) Extending the benefits of recategorization: evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology33: 401–420.
19.
FeldmanLHartPSLeiserowitzAet al. (2017) Do hostile media perceptions lead to action? The role of hostile media perceptions, political efficacy, and ideology in predicting climate change activism. Communication Research44: 1099–1124.
20.
FischerPGreitemeyerTPollozekFet al. (2006) The unresponsive bystander: are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies?European Journal of Social Psychology36: 267–278.
21.
FischerPKruegerJIGreitemeyerTet al. (2011) The bystander-effect: a meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin137: 517–537.
22.
FlewTMartinFSuzorN (2019) Internet regulation as media policy: rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance. Journal of Digital Media & Policy10: 33–50.
23.
FriessDEildersC (2015) A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet7: 319–339.
24.
GildeZúñigaHJungNValenzuelaS (2012) Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17: 319–336.
25.
GolanGJLimJS (2016) Third person effect of ISIS’s recruitment propaganda: online political self-efficacy and social media activism. International Journal of Communication10: 4681–4701.
26.
GuldbergKMacknessJ (2009) Foundations of communities of practice: enablers and barriers to participation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning25: 528–538.
27.
HerbstS (2010) Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
28.
HsuehMYogeeswaranKMalinenS (2015) “Leave your comment below”: can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors?Human Communication Research41: 557–576.
29.
JungNKimYDe ZúñigaHG (2011) The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society14: 407–430.
30.
KalchANaabTK (2017) Replying, disliking, flagging: how users engage with uncivil and impolite comments on news sites. Studies in Communication and Media6: 395–419.
31.
KarpfD (2010) Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective: looking beyond clicktivism. Policy & Internet2: 7–41.
32.
KellyCKellyJ (1994) Who gets involved in collective action? Social psychological determinants of individual participation in trade unions. Human Relations47: 63–88.
33.
KenskiKStroudNJ (2006) Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media50: 173–192.
34.
KenskiKCoeKRainsSA (2017) Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: an examination of types and predictors. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 3 April. DOI: 10.1177/0093650217699933.
35.
KlandermansPG (1984) Mobilization and participation in trade union action: an expectancy-value approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology57: 107–120.
36.
KreißelPEbnerJUrbanAet al. (2018) Hass auf Knopfdruck [Hate at the Touch of a Button]. London: Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
37.
LatanéBDarleyJM (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help?Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
38.
LatanéBNidaS (1981) Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin89: 308–324.
39.
LeyH (2018) #ichbinhier: Zusammen gegen Fake News und Hass im Netz: [#iamhere: Together against Fake News and Hate in the Net]. Köln: DuMont.
40.
LimJS (2017) The third-person effect of online advertising of cosmetic surgery: a path model for predicting restrictive versus corrective actions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94: 972–993.
41.
LimJSGolanGJ (2011) Social media activism in response to the influence of political parody videos on YouTube. Communication Research38: 710–727.
42.
McLeodJMScheufeleDAMoyP (1999) Community, communication, and participation: the role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication16: 315–336.
43.
NaabTKKalchAMeitzTG (2018) Flagging uncivil user comments: effects of intervention information, type of victim, and response comments on bystander behavior. New Media & Society20: 777–795.
44.
NewmanNFletcherRKalogeropoulosAet al. (2018) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
45.
ObermaierMFawziNKochT (2016) Bystanding or standing by? How the number of bystanders affects the intention to intervene in cyberbullying. New Media & Society18: 1491–1507.
46.
PalasinskiM (2012) The roles of monitoring and cyberbystanders in reducing sexual abuse. Computers in Human Behavior28: 2014–2022.
47.
PostmesTBrunstingS (2002) Collective action in the age of the internet. Social Science Computer Review20(3): 290–301.
48.
RojasH (2010) “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: how perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology22: 343–363.
49.
RösnerLKrämerNC (2016) Verbal venting in the social web: effects of anonymity and group norms on aggressive language use in online comments. Social Media + Society2: 1–13.
50.
SchwartzSHGottliebA (1980) Bystander anonymity and reactions to emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39: 418–430.
51.
SimonBLoewyMStürmerSet al. (1998) Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74: 646–658.
52.
SolomonLZSolomonHStoneR (1978) Helping as a function of number of bystanders and ambiguity of emergency. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin4: 318–321.
53.
SpringerNEngelmannIPfaffingerC (2015) User comments: motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society18: 798–815.
54.
StroudNJScaccoJMMuddimanAet al. (2015) Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20: 188–203.
55.
StroudNJVan DuynEPeacockC (2016) News commenters and news comment readers. Available at: https://mediaengagement.org
56.
ThornbergR (2007) A classmate in distress: schoolchildren as bystanders and their reasons for how they act. Social Psychology of Education10: 5–28.
57.
Van ZomerenMSpearsR (2009) Metaphors of protest: a classification of motivations for collective action. Journal of Social Issues65: 661–679.
58.
Van ZomerenMPostmesTSpearsR (2008) Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin134: 504–535.
59.
Van ZomerenMSpearsRFischerAHet al. (2004) Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87: 649–664.
60.
Van BommelMVan ProoijenJWElffersHet al. (2012) Be aware to care: public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology48: 926–930.
61.
VelasquezALaRoseR (2015) Social media for social change: social media political efficacy and activism in student activist groups. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media59: 456–474.
62.
ZiegeleM (2016) Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation. Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [User Comments as Media-Stimulated Interpersonal Communication: Theory and Qualitative Analysis of the Discussion Value of Online News]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
63.
ZiegeleMKoehlerCWeberM (2018a) Socially destructive? Effects of negative and hateful user comments on readers’ donation behavior toward refugees and homeless persons. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media62: 636–653.
64.
ZiegeleMWeberMQuiringOet al. (2018b) The dynamics of online news discussions: effects of news articles and reader comments on users’ involvement, willingness to participate, and the civility of their contributions. Information, Communication & Society21: 1419–1435.
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.
