Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 25–39 | Cite as

Social capital and online hate production: A four country survey

  • Markus Kaakinen
  • Pekka Räsänen
  • Matti Näsi
  • Jaana Minkkinen
  • Teo Keipi
  • Atte Oksanen
Article

Abstract

Hateful, threatening or degrading content has become a common part of today’s online interactions. However, little is known about the people who produce such content. This study analyzes online hate content production and its associations with cognitive indicators of social capital in both offline and online social networks. The data are derived from American, Finnish, German and British Internet users aged 15–30 (N = 3,565). Measures included questions concerning online hate, social capital and contextual control variables. The results indicate that hate content production is rare overall, despite its high visibility, and is related to social capital in two key ways. First, respondents with high social capital in offline social networks were less likely to produce hate content, and second, high social capital in online networks was associated with a higher probability of production.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Davidson, J., & Martelozzo, E. (2013). Exploring young people’s use of social networking sites and digital media in the internet safety context. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 1456–1476.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.701655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams, M. L., & Burnap, P. (2015). Cyberhate on social media in the aftermath of Woolwich: A case study in computational criminology and big data. British Journal of Criminology, 56(2), 211–238.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, C. (2009). WWW.HATE.COM: White Supremacist Discourse on the Internet and the Construction of Whiteness Ideology. The Howard Journal of Communications, 20(2), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., Näsi, M., & Räsänen, P. (2014). Exposure to Online Hate Among Young Social Media Users. Sociological Studies of Children & Youth, 18, 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in the hate speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banks, J. (2011). European Regulation of Cross-Border Hate Speech in Cyberspace: The Limits of Legislation. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 19(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Council of Europe. (2017a). No hate speech movement: Campaign for human rights online. Available at: http://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/. Accessed 17 Jan 2017.
  8. 8.
    Council of Europe. (2017b). European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/default_en.asp. Accessed 17 Jan 2017.
  9. 9.
    Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2014). Victims of online groups: American youth’s exposure to online hate speech. In J. Hawdon, J. Ryan & M. Lucht (Eds.), The causes and consequences of group violence: From bullies to terrorists (pp. 165–182). Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books – Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keipi, T., Näsi, M., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2017). Online Hate and Harmful Content: Cross-National Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315628370.
  11. 11.
    Wall, D. S., & Williams, M. L. (2013). Policing cybercrime: networked and social media technologies and the challenges for policing. Policing and Society, 23(4), 409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams, M. L., Edwards, A., Housley, W., Burnap, P., Rana, O., Avis, N., Morgan, J., & Sloan, L. (2013). Policing Cyber-Neighbourhoods: Tension Monitoring and Social Media Networks. Policing and Society, 23(4), 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, E., & Leets, L. (2002). Persuasive storytelling by hate groups online: Examining its effects on adolescents. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(6), 927–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong, M. A., Frank, R., & Allsup, R. (2015). The supremacy of online white supremacists – an analysis of online discussions by white supremacists. Information & Communications Technology, 24(1), 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerstenfeld, P. B., Grant, D. R., & Chiang, C. (2003). Hate online: A content analysis of extremist internet sites. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levin, B. (2002). Cyberhate: A legal and historical analysis of extremists’ use of computer networks in America. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(6), 958–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caiani, M., & Parenti, L. (2013). European and American extreme right groups and the Internet. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lucassen, G., & Lubbers, M. (2012). Who fears what? Explaining far-right-wing preference in Europe by distinguishing perceived cultural and economic ethnic threats. Comparative Political Studies, 45(5), 547–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klausen, J. (2015). Tweeting the Jihad: Social media networks of Western foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 38(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Erjavec, K., & Kovačič, M. P. (2012). You don’t understand, this is a new war! Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Communication and Society, 15(6), 899–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., & Korchmaros, J. D. (2011). National Trends in Exposure to and Experiences of Violence on the Internet Among Children. Pediatrics, 128(6), 1376–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Costello, M., Hawdon, J., Ratliff, T., & Grantham, T. (2016). Who views online extremism? Individual attributes leading to exposure. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2017). Exposure to Online Hate in Four Nations: A Cross-National Consideration. Deviant Behavior, 38(3), 254–266.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1196985.
  24. 24.
    Näsi, M., Räsänen, P., Kaakinen, M., Keipi, T., & Oksanen, A. (2017). Do routine activities help explain young adults’ online harassment: A multi-nation study. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(4), 418–432.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816679866.
  25. 25.
    Sureka, A., Kumaraguru, P., Goyal, A., & Chhabra, S. (2010). Mining YouTube to discover extremist videos, users, and hidden communities. In P.-J. Cheng, M.-Y. Kan, W. Lam, & P. Nakov (Eds.), Information retrieval technology, volume 6458 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 13–24). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Glaser, J., Dixit, J., & Green, D. P. (2002). Studying hate crime with the Internet: What makes racists advocate racial violence? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chau, M., & Xu, J. (2007). Mining Communities and Their Relationships in Blogs: A Study of Hate Groups. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers Don’t Ride Alone. In P. Kollock & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and Cyberspace (pp. 167–194). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lehdonvirta, V., & Räsänen, P. (2011). How do young people identify with online and offline peer groups? A comparison between UK, Spain and Japan. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(1), 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Keipi, T., & Oksanen, A. (2014). Self-exploration, anonymity and risks in the online setting: Analysis of narratives by 14–18-year olds. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(8), 1097–1113.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.881988.
  31. 31.
    De Souza, C. S., & Preece, J. (2004). A framework for analyzing and understanding online communities. Interacting with Computers, 16(3), 579–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim, M. S., & Kim, H. M. (2017). The effect of online fan community attributes on the loyalty and cooperation of fan community members: The moderating role of connect hours. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 232–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.031.
  33. 33.
    Kingod, N., Cleal, B., Wahlberg, A., & Husted, G. R. (2017). Online Peer-to-Peer Communities in the Daily Lives of People With Chronic Illness: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Qualitative Health Research, 27(1), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hampton, K. N. (2016). Persistent and Pervasive Community: New Communication Technologies and the Future of Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(1), 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hampton, K. N., Lee, C. J., & Her, E. J. (2011). How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media & Society, 13(7), 1031–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Boase, J., & Wellman, B. (2005). Personal Relationships: On and Off the Internet. In D. Perlman & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Handbook of Personal Relations (pp. 709–723). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb. City & Community, 2(4), 277–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wellman, B. (1979). The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology, 84(5), 1201–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    De Silva, M. J., McKenzie, K., Harpham, T., & Huttly, S. (2005). Social capital and mental illness: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(8), 619–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oxoby, R. (2009). Understanding social inclusion, social cohesion, and social capital. International Journal of Social Economics, 36(12), 1133–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rosenfeld, R., Messner, S. F., & Baumer, E. P. (2001). Social Capital and Homicide. Social Forces, 80(1), 283–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Salmi, V., & Kivivuori, J. (2006). The Association between Social Capital and Juvenile Crime The Role of Individual and Structural Factors. European Journal of Criminology, 3(2), 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Putnam, R., & Goss, K. A. (2002). Introduction. In R. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyber place: The rise of personalized networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Harpham, T., Grant, E., & Thomas, E. (2002). Measuring social capital within health surveys: Key issues. Health Policy and Planning, 17(1), 106–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yip, W., Subramanian, S. V., Mitchell, A. D., Lee, D. T. S., Wang, J., & Kawachi, I. (2007). Does social capital enhance health and well-being? Evidence from rural China. Social Science & Medicine, 64(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Elgar, F., Davis, C. D., Wohl, M. J., Trites, S. J., Zelenski, J. M., & Martin, M. S. (2011). Social capital, health and life satisfaction in 50 countries. Health & Place, 17(5), 1044–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Han, S. (2013). Compositional and contextual associations of social capital and self- rated health in Seoul, South Korea: A multilevel analysis of longitudinal evidence. Social Science & Medicine, 80, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Glass, R. (1999). Social capital and self-rated health: a contextual analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 89(8), 1187–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kennedy, B. P., Kawachi, I., Prothrow-Stith, D., Lochner, K., & Gupta, V. (1998). Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime. Social Science and Medicine, 47(1), 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Muntaner, C., Lynch, J., & Smith, G. D. (2000). Social capital and the third way in public health. Critical Public Health, 10(2), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2006). Online Interactions and Social Capital. Distinguishing Between New and Existing Ties. Social Science Computer Review, 24(4), 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bouchillon, B. C. (2014). Social Ties and Generalized Trust, Online and in Person: Contact or Conflict—The Mediating Role of Bonding Social Capital in America. Social Science Computer Review, 32(4), 506–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Boase, J. (2008). Personal Networks and the Personal Communication System. Information Communication and Society, 11(4), 490–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ellison, N. B., Gray, R., Lampe, C., & Fiore, A. (2014). Social capital and resource requests on Facebook. New Media & Society 2014, 16(7), 1104–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lu, W., & Hampton, K. N. (2016). Beyond the power of networks: Differentiating network structure from social media affordances for perceived social support. New Media & Society, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815621514.
  65. 65.
    Rosen, D., Lafontaine, P. R., & Hendrickson, B. (2011). CouchSurfing: Belonging and trust in a globally cooperative online social network. New Media & Society, 13(6), 981–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Shen, C., & Cage, C. (2015). Exodus to the real world? Assessing the impact of offline meetups on community participation and social capital. New Media & Society, 17(3), 394–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information Management, 48(1), 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Yen, C. (2016). How to unite the power of the masses? Exploring collective stickiness intention in social network sites from the perspective of knowledge sharing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(2), 118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Julien, C. (2014). Bourdieu, Social Capital and Online Interaction. Sociology, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514535862.
  70. 70.
    Dally, M., & Silver, H. (2008). Social exclusion and social capital: A comparison and critique. Theory and Society, 37(6), 537–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), The Handbook of Theory and Research for Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    McCosker, A. (2014). Trolling as provocation: YouTube’s agonistic publics. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 20(2), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pérez-Díaz, V. (2002). From civil war to civil society: Social Capital in Spain from the 1930s to the 1990s. In R. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society (pp. 245–288). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    McDoom, O. S. (2014). Antisocial capital: A profile of Rwandan genocide perpetrators’ social networks. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(5), 865–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Inequality Watch. (2014). The rise of income inequality amongst rich countries [e-publication]. Retrieved from http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article58.
  76. 76.
    United Nations (UN). (2013). Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision. New York. Available at: http://esa.un.org/unmigration/TIMSA2013/migrantstocks2013.htm?mtotals. Accessed 21 Nov 2015.
  77. 77.
    Näsi, M., Räsänen, P., Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Keipi, T., & Holkeri, E. (2014). Association between online harassment and exposure to harmful online content: A cross-national comparison between the United States and Finland. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 137–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.019.
  78. 78.
    Allen, J., & Norris, G. (2011). Is Genocide Different? Dealing with Hate Speech in a Post-Genocide Society. Journal of international law and international relations, 7(1), 146–174.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Brugger, W. (2002). Ban On or Protection Of Hate Speech-Some Observations Based on German and American Law. Tulane European & Civil Law Forum, 17(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    OECD. (2011). Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2011-en.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    ESS. (2012). European Social Survey: Round 6 (Data file). Available at: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=6. Accessed 21 Nov 2015.
  82. 82.
    Nyqvist, F., Forsman, A. K., & Cattan, M. (2013). A comparison of older workers’ and retired older people’s social capital and sense of mastery. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 41(8), 792–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    De Silva, M. J., Harpham, T., Tuan, T., Bartolini, R., Penny, M., & Huttly, S. (2006). Psychometric and cognitive validation of a social capital measurement tool in Peru and Vietnam. Social Science & Medicine, 62(4), 941–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Eurostat. (2010). Household structure in the EU. 2010 Edition. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3888793/5848337/KS-RA-10-024-EN.PDF. Accessed 21 Nov 2015.
  85. 85.
    United States’ Census Bureau. (2015). Young Adults Then and Now. Available at: http://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer-youngadults.html. Accessed 21 Nov 2015.
  86. 86.
    Archer, J. (2004). Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: the role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12(2), 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2008). Risky Experiences for Children Online: Charting European Research on Children and the Internet. Children and Society, 22(4), 314–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). Introduction. In S. Livingstone & L. Haddon (Eds.), Kids Online. Opportunities and Risks for Kids (pp. 1–15). Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  2. 2.Department of Social ResearchUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy (Krimo)University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations