Defending Others Online: The Influence of Observing Formal and Informal Social Control on One's Willingness to Defend Cyberhate Victims

Overview

Journal Int J Environ Res Public Health

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Environmental Health
Public Health

Date 2023 Aug 12

PMID 37569046

Authors

Matthew Costello

James Hawdon

Ashley V Reichelmann

Atte Oksanen

Catherine Blaya

Vicente J Llorent

Pekka Rasanen

Izabela Zych

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This paper examines factors correlated with online self-help-an informal form of social control vis-à-vis intervention-upon witnessing a cyberhate attack. Using online surveys from 18- to 26-year-old respondents in the United States, we explore the roles of various types of online and offline formal and informal social control mechanisms on the enactment of self-help through the use of descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression. The results of the multivariate analyses indicate that online collective efficacy is positively related to self-help, as is having close ties to individuals and groups offline and online. Formal online social control, however, is not significantly related to engaging in self-help. Other findings demonstrate that personal encounters with cyberhate affect the likelihood that an individual will intervene when witnessing an attack, and that individuals with high levels of empathy are more likely to intervene to assist others. This work indicates that pro-social online behavior is contagious and can potentially foster online spaces in which harmful behaviors, such as propagating cyberhate, are not condoned.

References

Windisch S, Wiedlitzka S, Olaghere A . PROTOCOL: Online interventions for reducing hate speech and cyberhate: A systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev. 2023; 17(1):e1133. PMC: 8356355. DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1133. View

Bushman B, Anderson C . Comfortably numb: desensitizing effects of violent media on helping others. Psychol Sci. 2009; 20(3):273-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02287.x. View

Henson B, Fisher B, Reyns B . There Is Virtually No Excuse: The Frequency and Predictors of College Students' Bystander Intervention Behaviors Directed at Online Victimization. Violence Against Women. 2019; 26(5):505-527. DOI: 10.1177/1077801219835050. View

Cowan G, Heiple B, Marquez C, Khatchadourian D, McNevin M . Heterosexuals' attitudes toward hate crimes and hate speech against gays and lesbians: old-fashioned and modern heterosexism. J Homosex. 2005; 49(2):67-82. DOI: 10.1300/J082v49n02_04. View

DeSmet A, Veldeman C, Poels K, Bastiaensens S, Van Cleemput K, Vandebosch H . Determinants of self-reported bystander behavior in cyberbullying incidents amongst adolescents. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013; 17(4):207-15. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0027. View

Kleinsasser A, Jouriles E, McDonald R, Rosenfield D . An Online Bystander Intervention Program for the Prevention of Sexual Violence. Psychol Violence. 2015; 5(3):227-235. PMC: 4521419. DOI: 10.1037/a0037393. View

Sampson R, Raudenbush S, Earls F . Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997; 277(5328):918-24. DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5328.918. View

Eagly A, Crowley M . Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychol Bull. 2024; 100(3):283-308. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283. View

Latane B, Darley J . Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1968; 10(3):215-21. DOI: 10.1037/h0026570. View

10.

Weitzman A, Cowan S, Walsh K . Bystander Interventions on Behalf of Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence Victims. J Interpers Violence. 2018; 35(7-8):1694-1718. PMC: 6342674. DOI: 10.1177/0886260517696873. View

11.

Schwartz S, Gottlieb A . Participation in a bystander intervention experiment and subsequent everyday helping: ethical considerations. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1980; 16(2):161-71. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90006-2. View

12.

Rasanen P, Hawdon J, Holkeri E, Keipi T, Nasi M, Oksanen A . Targets of Online Hate: Examining Determinants of Victimization Among Young Finnish Facebook Users. Violence Vict. 2016; 31(4):708-26. DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00079. View

13.

Schwartz S, Gottlieb A . Bystander anonymity and reactions to emergencies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980; 39(3):418-30. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.39.3.418. View

14.

DeRosier M, Kupersmidt J, Patterson C . Children's academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Dev. 1994; 65(6):1799-813. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00850.x. View

15.

Rebollo-Catalan A, Mayor-Buzon V . Adolescent Bystanders Witnessing Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls: What They Observe and How They Respond. Violence Against Women. 2019; 26(15-16):2024-2040. DOI: 10.1177/1077801219888025. View

16.

Darley J, Latane B . Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1968; 8(4):377-83. DOI: 10.1037/h0025589. View

17.

Machackova H, Pfetsch J . Bystanders' responses to offline bullying and cyberbullying: The role of empathy and normative beliefs about aggression. Scand J Psychol. 2016; 57(2):169-76. DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12277. View

18.

Patterson L, Allan A, Cross D . Adolescent bystanders' perspectives of aggression in the online versus school environments. J Adolesc. 2016; 49:60-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.02.003. View

19.

Banyard V . Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: the case of interpersonal violence. Violence Vict. 2008; 23(1):83-97. DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.23.1.83. View

20.

Olenik-Shemesh D, Heiman T, Eden S . Bystanders' Behavior in Cyberbullying Episodes: Active and Passive Patterns in the Context of Personal-Socio-Emotional Factors. J Interpers Violence. 2015; 32(1):23-48. DOI: 10.1177/0886260515585531. View