Abstract
Herman Cain Awards are presented on reddit.com/r/hermancainaward to individuals who share COVID-19 misinformation on social media (SM) and subsequently die from the disease. We apply affective disposition theory’s moral judgment predictions regarding message and audience factors and Schadenfreude theorizing to explain reactions to similar SM posts. In an experiment with a large census-matched sample, participants viewed a series of SM posts similar to those on featured on reddit.com/r/hermancainaward. We manipulated two message factors: whether the poster was dogmatic or uncertain in their anti–COVID-19-vaccination stance and whether they expressed regret before they died. Dogmatic posting resulted in perceptions of the poster as more immoral and deserving of worse health outcomes, but regret mitigated these effects. Notably, political party and vaccination status, two audience factors, moderated these processes. Our findings demonstrate that SM posting is a morally relevant behavior and that narrative moral judgment theories seem capable of explaining reader’s responses.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
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.
