When do users intervene upon encountering uncivil comments on social media platforms? This question was the focus of a research team from the Communication Science department at LMU in the pilot project DIZICOU. The initial findings from the simulation study are now available.
Around 80 percent of internet users in Germany regularly see rude or offensive comments (incivility) on social media, including those directed against certain social groups. This can cause personal harm to those affected, but can also reinforce social division. This is why it is problematic that most uninvolved users (bystanders) do not react to incivility. If no one reacts, this could give the impression that it is okay to devalue others on social media. However, if users respond appreciatively and support those affected, for example in factual comments, this could lead to more respectful behaviour on the platforms. Previous studies on why bystanders intervene or not are based on personal information about their own (intended) behaviour. The aim of this project was therefore to observe bystander behaviour against incivility on social media in as natural an environment as possible. In order to investigate which characteristics of comments and platforms influence actual intervention, a social media platform was recreated.
Factors influencing digital moral courage
Digital moral courage means that viewers intervene in favour of others when they see incivility online, even though they risk becoming the target of incivility themselves in the worst case. Digital moral courage can be direct, for example by advocating respectful interaction in a user comment, or indirect, by reporting potentially criminal content. A proven model from social psychology explains when bystanders intervene in emergency situations and this also applies online: Bystanders are more likely to intervene if, among other things, they perceive the situation as threatening to others, feel personally responsible for intervening and know how they can help.
In addition, specific characteristics of incivil statements on the internet and characteristics of social media platforms can influence how users assess a situation and whether they intervene. Incivility is directed against different social groups. However, it is hardly known how users assess such statements depending on the target group and in which cases they are more likely to take action.
Social norms on the platform could also influence intervention. When people see the majority behaving in a certain way, they often tend to conform to the behaviour because they perceive it as appropriate or believe it is expected of them. On social media, it is known that users are less likely to intervene in incivility if others have already done so. However, in offline emergencies, bystanders were found to be more likely to help if they had previously observed their group supporting each other. The project therefore investigated how users behave when helpful and appreciative behaviour generally prevails on a social media platform or when the opposite is the case.
Simulation study with a mock-up social media platform
We conducted an online experiment with social media users in Germany using a social media simulation called Daily.dot. The mockup social media platform was based on an existing infrastructure at Cornell University, but all content and functionalities were customised specifically for the study.
After a preliminary survey, the participants were asked to test the beta version of Daily.dot on two consecutive days and read the posts of other users, for example. The other users were accounts created specifically for the study, which regularly generated posts, comments and likes. On both days, one comment was displayed that was directed against people with a migration background or politicians. We also varied the social norm on the social media platform: 80 percent of the comments were either pro-social (offering help, providing information, giving comfort) or anti-social (refusing to support). After the experiment, we recorded the perception of incivility in a follow-up survey.
The online experiment showed that participants were more likely to intervene when they saw incivil statements against people with a migration background than when these were directed against politicians. More participants reported these comments or supported those affected because they perceived the comments as more threatening to those affected and to democracy and felt more responsible to intervene. Interestingly, the behaviour of the other users (prosocial or antisocial) had no direct influence on the participants’ behaviour. However, the participants were able to recognise whether a prosocial or antisocial norm prevailed on the platform.
Conclusion
The preliminary survey showed that politicians themselves are more often ascribed responsibility for maintaining incivility, possibly because they often receive support from professional social media teams. Although this is not always the case, for example for people who work on a voluntary basis in local authorities, it may be one reason why the participants reacted less (compared to racist incivility). Because incivility can personally harm those affected and, for example, prevent people from getting involved in society, it is important to make users aware that digital moral courage is valuable in any case and across social groups.
The way other users interacted with each other on the platform had no influence on the intervention of the participants. This may have been due to the fact that the users did not know any of the other participants personally. It remains to be seen whether, for example, pro-social behaviour among acquaintances on social media can promote moral courage. Nevertheless, the study shows that the behaviour of other users on social media is perceived. The project publication therefore takes a closer look at how it is not the actual behavioural norm on the platform, but the perception of it that shapes participants’ behaviour.
The blog posts published by bidt reflect the views of the authors; they do not reflect the attitude of the institute as a whole.
