Multidimensionality of online trolling behaviors

Abstract

As trolling became an integral part of online communities, use of the term evolved and expanded significantly. This paper proposes a typology of trolling behaviors and compares the use of the terms troll and trolling by North American college students with scholarly and media uses. The study provides conceptual nuance based on two focus groups and four follow-up individual interviews. Participants differentiate between light-hearted trolling and anti-social trolling, which is the dominant focus of published works. The paper distinguishes between four behavioral types: serious trolling (implying that it is not funny and likely motivated by social or political ideology), humorous trolling, serious non-trolling behaviors, and humorous non-trolling behaviors. Key behavioral dimensions are identified, including: 1) pseudo-sincerity; 2) intentionality; 3) provocativeness; 4) repetition; 5) satire; 6) communicating serious opinions; and 7) representing public opinions. Formal concept analysis clarifies relationships between behavioral dimensions and types.

“Being a butt while on the internet”: Perceptions of what is and isn't internet trolling

“…More than simply the practice of “being a butt while on the internet” (P5), the accounts from these interviews suggest that trolling comes in many different varieties, echoing perspectives from a growing number of trolling scholars (Hardaker, ; Phillips, ; Sanfilippo, Fichman, & Yang, ). Unfortunately, this study was not able to arrive at a clear, single definition of internet trolling – in fact, rather the opposite: trolling seems to be highly subjective, contextual, and contested.…”

Chinese collective trolling

“…As online trolling increased in pervasiveness, the term is used as an umbrella term for different phenomena, from serious and deviant to humorous or ideological driven behavior (Sanfilippo, Fichman, & Yang, 2018); it is context-dependent phenomena (Fichman & Sanfilippo, 2015). Trolling is associated with direct aggression, flaming, spraying, and even cyber bullying (Hardakar, 2010;de Seta, 2013).…”

“…While trolling behaviors varies widely, the literature emphasizes deviant and negative behaviors, which have many commonalities with flaming (e.g., Hardaker, 2010;Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler, & Barab, 2002) and hacking (e.g., Shachaf & Hara, 2010;Suler & Phillips, 1998). Fichman and Sanfilippo (2016) emphasize that "not all trolling is equal" and claim that trolling is more complicated than mere deviant behavior leading to negative impact, and recent scholarly works began to describe lighthearted, humorous, or ideological trolling (e.g., Phillips & Milner, 2017;Sanfilippo, Fichman & Yang, 2018). Because online trolling is a socio-technical phenomenon, with context-dependent manifestation that varies from one community to another and from one platform to another, it may exhibit different behavioral patterns in different countries (Fichman & Sanfilippo, 2016), and more specifically, its manifestation in China may be more collectivistic than trolling in Western cultures (Yang & Fichman, 2017).…”

Global Trolling: The Case of “America First”

“…This paper focuses on global trolling, as it manifests itself on YouTube in the form of videos with overt satirical political content. While early research focused attention on deviant behaviors and malevolent trolling [1], more recently the focus shifted to satirical, ideological, collective, and political trolling from countries around the globe [2,3,4]. Some scholars studied motivation behind trolling behavior [5,6], while others focused on the perceptions and reactions to trolling [2].…”

“…Trolling behaviors include provocativeness, intentionality, repetitiveness, pseudo-sincerity, and satire [3,6]. Trolls can employ specific tactics to be provocative in specific situations [22], for example, through various outrage tactics such as lying, namecalling, insulting, or simply through the use of vulgar language [26].…”