Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 629–649

Tweetment Effects on the Tweeted: Experimentally Reducing Racist Harassment

Original Paper

Abstract

I conduct an experiment which examines the impact of group norm promotion and social sanctioning on racist online harassment. Racist online harassment de-mobilizes the minorities it targets, and the open, unopposed expression of racism in a public forum can legitimize racist viewpoints and prime ethnocentrism. I employ an intervention designed to reduce the use of anti-black racist slurs by white men on Twitter. I collect a sample of Twitter users who have harassed other users and use accounts I control (“bots”) to sanction the harassers. By varying the identity of the bots between in-group (white man) and out-group (black man) and by varying the number of Twitter followers each bot has, I find that subjects who were sanctioned by a high-follower white male significantly reduced their use of a racist slur. This paper extends findings from lab experiments to a naturalistic setting using an objective, behavioral outcome measure and a continuous 2-month data collection period. This represents an advance in the study of prejudiced behavior.

Keywords

Online harassment Social media Randomized field experiment Social identity 

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9373_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (392 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 393 kb)

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2012). Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science, 337(6092), 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks, A. J. (2014). The public’s anger: White racial attitudes and opinions toward health care reform. Political Behavior, 36(3), 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banks, A. J. (2016). Are group cues necessary? How anger makes ethnocentrism among whites a stronger predictor of racial and immigration policy opinions. Political Behavior, 1–23.Google Scholar
  5. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2003). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., et al. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchard, F. A., Crandall, C. S., Brigham, J. C., & Vaughn, L. A. (1994). Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, Y., Zhou, Y., Zhu, S., & Xu, H. (2012). Detecting offensive language in social media to protect adolescent online safety. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2012 International Conference on and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing (SocialCom). IEEE pp. 71–80.Google Scholar
  11. Chhibber, P., & Sekhon, J. S. (2014). The asymmetric role of religious appeals in India.Google Scholar
  12. Coppock, A., Guess, A., & Ternovski, J. (2015). When treatments are tweets: A network mobilization experiment over twitter. Political Behavior, 1–24.Google Scholar
  13. Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(3), 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(4), 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gulker, J. E., Mark, A. Y., & Monteith, M. J. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who, what, and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison, B. F., & Michelson, M. R. (2012). Not that theres anything wrong with that: The effect of personalized appeals on marriage equality campaigns. Political Behavior, 34(2), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henson, B., Reyns, B. W., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). Fear of crime online? Examining the effect of risk, previous victimization, and exposure on fear of online interpersonal victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
  18. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hosseinmardi, H., Rafiq, R. I., Li, S., Yang, Z., Han, R., Mishra, S., & Lv, Q. (2014). A comparison of common users across instagram and ask. fm to better understand cyberbullying. arXiv preprintarXiv:1408.4882 .Google Scholar
  20. Kam, C. D., & Kinder, D. R. (2012). Ethnocentrism as a short-term force in the 2008 American presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 326–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kennedy, M. A., & Taylor, M. A. (2010). Online harassment and victimization of college students. Justice Policy Journal, 7(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  22. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(2), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mantilla, K. (2013). Gendertrolling: Misogyny adapts to new media. Feminist Studies, 39(2), 563–570.Google Scholar
  25. Moor, P. J. (2007). Conforming to the flaming norm in the online commenting situation.Google Scholar
  26. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Omernick, E., & Sood, S. O. (2013). The impact of anonymity in online communities. In Social Computing (SocialCom), 2013 International Conference on. IEEE pp. 526–535.Google Scholar
  28. Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual review of psychology, 60, 339–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paluck, E. L., Shepherd, H., & Aronow, P. M. (2016). Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 566–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Piston, S. (2010). How explicit racial prejudice hurt Obama in the 2008 election. Political Behavior, 32(4), 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & Groot, D. D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1243–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rasinski, H. M., & Czopp, A. M. (2010). The effect of target status on witnesses’ reactions to confrontations of bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 161–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shepherd, H., & Paluck, E. L. (2015). Stopping the drama gendered influence in a network field experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension; an integration of studies of intergroup relations.Google Scholar
  38. Sood, S., Antin, J., & Churchill, E. (2012). Profanity use in online communities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM pp. 1481–1490.Google Scholar
  39. Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B., & Jost, J. T. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 486–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stringhini, G., Egele, M., Kruegel, C., & Vigna, G. (2012). Poultry markets: On the underground economy of twitter followers. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM workshop on Workshop on online social networks. ACM pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  41. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.Google Scholar
  42. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weaver, V. M. (2012). The electoral consequences of skin color: The hidden side of race in politics. Political Behavior, 34(1), 159–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xu, Z., & Zhu, S. (2010). Filtering offensive language in online communities using grammatical relations. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference.Google Scholar
  45. Yin, D., Xue, Z., Hong, L., Davison, B. D., Kontostathis, A., & Edwards, L. (2009). Detection of harassment on web 2.0. Proceedings of the Content Analysis in the WEB 2.Google Scholar
  46. Zitek, E. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). The role of social norm clarity in the influenced expression of prejudice over time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 867–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PoliticsNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations