Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 80, Issue 7–8, pp 381–392 | Cite as

Gendered Morality and Backlash Effects in Online Discussions: An Experimental Study on How Users Respond to Hate Speech Comments Against Women and Sexual Minorities

  • Claudia WilhelmEmail author
  • Sven Joeckel
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Gender roles Morality Minority groups Antisocial behavior Online comments Hate speech Moral identity Moral foundation Backlash Gender stereotypes Sexual minority 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical Approval

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.

Supplementary material

11199_2018_941_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373–387.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Aquino, K., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 703–718.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Blasi, A. (1983). Moral development and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental Review, 3(2), 178–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowman, N. D., Joeckel, S., & Dogruel, L. (2012). A question of morality? The influence of moral salience and nationality on media preferences. Communications - The European Journal of Communication Research, 37, 345–369.  https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2012-0020.Google Scholar
  10. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chess, S., & Shaw, A. (2015). A conspiracy of fishes, or, how we learned to stop worrying about #GamerGate and embrace hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(1), 208–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 223–230.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(1), 65–73.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00407.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cortese, A. J. (2006). Opposing hate speech. Westport: Praeger Publishers Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10347075.Google Scholar
  15. Council of Europe. (2016). Combating sexist hate speech. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680651592
  16. Crawford, K., & Gillespie, T. (2016). What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society, 18, 410–428.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ditto, P. H., & Koleva, S. P. (2011). Moral empathy gaps and the American culture war. Emotion Review, 3(3), 331–332.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Downs, D. M., & Cowan, G. (2012). Predicting the importance of freedom of speech and the perceived harm of hate speech. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1353–1375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00902.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duncan, L. E., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1997). Authoritarianism and gender roles: Toward a psychological analysis of hegemonic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(1), 41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Elm, D. R., Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (2001). Determinants of moral reasoning: Sex role orientation, gender, and academic factors. Business & Society, 40(3), 241–265.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030104000302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility: Lectures on the ethical implications of psychoanalytic insight. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  24. Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233231e.pdf.
  25. 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
  26. Garvey, K., & Ford, T. G. (2014). Rationality, political orientation, and the individualizing and binding moral foundations. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 5(1), 9–12.  https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2014.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilbert, P. R. (2002). Discourses of female violence and societal gender stereotypes. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1271–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102762478019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Graham, J. (2014). Morality beyond the lab. Science, 245(6202), 1242.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives use different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., & Young, L. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS One, 7(12), e50092.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left–right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Henry, S. (2009). Social deviance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  40. Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in online communication. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), Blackwell handbooks in linguistics: Vol. 13. The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202–228). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herring, S. C., & Stoerger, S. (2014). Gender and (a) nonymity in computer-mediated communication. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff, & J. Holmes (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed., pp. 567–586). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., Haidt, J., & Young, L. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS One, 7(8), e42366.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Joeckel, S., & Frueh, H. (2016). ‘The world ain’t all sunshine’: Investigating the relationship between mean world beliefs, conservatism and crime TV exposure. Communications - The European Journal of Communication Research, 41, 195–217.  https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2016-0001.Google Scholar
  45. Joeckel, S., Bowman, N. D., & Dogruel, L. (2013). The influence of adolescents' moral salience on actions and entertainment experience in interactive media. Journal of Children and Media, 7(4), 480–506.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2013.781513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.
  47. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to anti-semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 341–361.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leskinen, E. A., Rabelo, V. C., & Cortina, L. M. (2015). Gender stereotyping and harassment: A "catch-22" for women in the workplace. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 192–204.  https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Manganelli, A. M., Bobbio, A., & Canova, L. (2007). A short version of the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1223–1234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Monin, B., & Jordan, A. (2009). The dynamic moral self: A social psychological perspective. In D. Narváez & D. K. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character. Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 341–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Naab, T. K., Kalch, A., & Meitz, T. G. K. (2018). Flagging uncivil user comments: Effects of intervention information, type of victim, and response comments on bystander behavior. New Media & Society, 20(2), 777–795.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816670923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. Nunner-Winkler, G., Meyer-Nikele, M., & Wohlrab, D. (2007). Gender differences in moral motivation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(1), 26–52.  https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2007.0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 923–936.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259–283.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The content of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Santana, A. D. (2015). Incivility dominates online comments on immigration. Newspaper Research Journal, 36, 92–107.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532915580317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 513–540.  https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200818436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sharma, S., Durand, R. W., & Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 291–300.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3150970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., & Graham, J. (2014). The moral ties that bind... even to out-groups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1554–1562.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614534450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261–302.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4.Google Scholar
  75. Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations' Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 188–203.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thoma, S. J. (1986). Estimating gender differences in the comprehension and preference of moral issues. Developmental Review, 6(2), 165–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(86)90010-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Viki, G. T., Massey, K., & Masser, B. (2005). When chivalry backfires: Benevolent sexism and attitudes toward Myra Hindley. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10(1), 109–120.  https://doi.org/10.1348/135532504X15277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Whitley, B. E., & Ægisdóttir, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 42(11), 947–967.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007026016001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Whitley Jr., B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 126–134.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media and Communication StudiesUniversity of ErfurtErfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations