Gendered Morality and Backlash Effects in Online Discussions: An Experimental Study on How Users Respond to Hate Speech Comments Against Women and Sexual Minorities
Hate speech in online users’ comments is often targeted toward underprivileged social groups such as immigrants, sexual minorities, and women. Besides the general severity of such offenses, social media users’ personal characteristics influence the evaluation of hate comments. We focus on the flagging of hate comments aimed toward women and sexual minorities (i.e., the intention to report such comments as inappropriate to a moderator or platform provider of an online discussion forum). We investigate the influence of user’s morality on the intention to flag of such comments. Relying on social role and backlash theory, we scrutinize in how far gender plays a role in flagging intention and in how far people perceive hate comments by women as an act of double deviance. Therefore, we conducted a 2 × 2 online experiment with 457 participants (51% female) recruited through political interest groups and a German news magazine site on Facebook. Results indicate that moral judgments are to some extent gendered as women are more concerned about fairness and avoiding harm to others than men are. Deviant and agentic online behavior by women is judged more strictly than such behavior by men. Results implicate that moderators of online discussions and platform providers should be sensitive to how gender stereotypes influence online discussions.
KeywordsGender roles Morality Minority groups Antisocial behavior Online comments Hate speech Moral identity Moral foundation Backlash Gender stereotypes Sexual minority
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of Interest
We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants followed the procedural requirements for ethical research with human subjects of the University of Erfurt. Research procedures were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
- Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bartlett, J., & Krasodomski-Jones, A. (2015). Counter-speech. Examining content that challenges extremism online. Retrieved from http://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/counter-speech.Pdf.
- Beierlein, C., Asbrock, F., Kauff, M., & Schmidt, P. (2014). Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA – 3): Ein ökonomisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung dreier Subdimensionen autoritärer Einstellungen [authoritarianism scale – Short version (KSA – 3): A parsimonous measure capturing the three sub-dimensions of authoritarian attitudes]. Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen [Collection of items and scales in social sciences]. https://doi.org/10.6102/zis228.
- Cortese, A. J. (2006). Opposing hate speech. Westport: Praeger Publishers Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10347075.Google Scholar
- Council of Europe. (2016). Combating sexist hate speech. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680651592
- Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Lewis, R. J. (2012). Moral psychology and media theory: Historical and emerging viewpoints. In R. Tamborini (Ed.), Media and the moral mind (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility: Lectures on the ethical implications of psychoanalytic insight. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Forsa (2017). Hate speech. Retrieved from http://www.lfm-nrw.de/fileadmin/user_upload/lfm-nrw/Service/Pressemitteilungen/Dokumente/2017/Ergebnisbericht_Hate-Speech_forsa-Mai-2017.pdf.
- Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233231e.pdf.
- Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016, April 12). The dark side of Guardian comments. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
- Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Glenn, A. L., Koleva, S., Iver, R., Graham, J., & Ditto, P. H. (2010). Moral identity in psychopathy. Judgement and Decision Making, 5(7), 497–505.Google Scholar
- Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Henry, S. (2009). Social deviance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Kenski, K., Coe, K., & Rains, S. A. (2017). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933.
- Kugler, M., Jost, J. T., & Noorbaloochi, S. (2014). Another look at moral foundations theory: Do authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain liberal-conservative differences in “moral” intuitions? Social Justice Research, 27(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0223-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Masullo Chen, G. (2017). Incivility and deliberation: Understanding the discourse around race, sexual orientation, and politics through online comments. Paper presented at the 66th annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2009). Moral identity, moral functioning, and the development of moral character. In D. Medin, L. Skitka, D. Bartels, & C. Bauman (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Moral cognition and decision-making (Vol. 50, pp. 237–274). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00408-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nguyen, N. T., Basuray, M. T., Smith, W. P., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. (2008). Moral issues and gender differences in ethical judgment using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) multidimensional ethics scale: Implications in teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9357-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2004). Sustaining cultural beliefs in the face of their violation: The case of gender stereotypes. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 259–280). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., & Dhont, K. (2012). Is sexism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition perspective on men’s and women’s sexist attitudes toward own and other gender. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 350–359.Google Scholar
- Winkler, J., Halfmann, A., & Freudenthaler, R. (2017). Backlash effects in online discussions: Effects of gender and counter-stereotypical communication on persuasiveness and likeability. Paper presented at the 66th annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 55–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7.Google Scholar