Social media reduce users' moral sensitivity: Online shaming as a possible consequence

Abstract

In this study, we propose that social media reduce users' moral sensitivity through the mediation of the perceived moral intensity of hostile comments, which leads to behavioral consequences for online shaming. Three separate studies were conducted to explore this statement. Study 1 (N = 160) compared moral sensitivity between participants in simulated social media situations and a control group. Study 2 (N = 412) tested the mediating role of perceived moral intensity through self‐rated questionnaires. Study 3 (N = 295) examined the behavioral consequences of reduced moral sensitivity on online shaming by manipulating social media and perceived moral intensity. Across these three studies with their different methodologies, we found consistent support for our prediction that social media reduce users' moral sensitivity. Also, our findings shed light on perceived moral intensity as a mediator. As expected, less perceived moral intensity and less moral sensitivity (as serial mediators) induced by social media led to a higher tendency to participate in online shaming. In addition, our research suggests that the harmful effects of social media could be restricted by improving users' perceived moral intensity in the form of reminders. These findings provide novel insights into the underlying mechanism of cyberviolence on social media and also contribute to the literature on the antecedents and consequences of moral sensitivity.

Wisdom in the digital age: a conceptual and practical framework for understanding and cultivating cyber-wisdom

“…Promisingly, a few studies at the intersection of media studies and moral psychology have focused on moral decision-making online by examining, for instance, the extent to which users value good character or are conscious of and respond to moral dilemmas, relating, for example, to online privacy and security (Jackson et al, 2008 ; Mohammadnazar et al, 2019 ). In addition, there is some research that has examined the extent to which low moral sensitivity corresponds to abusive behaviour online (Ge, 2020 ; Zezulka & Seigfried-Spellar, 2016 ). These studies have prioritised aspects that are relevant to wisdom in the digital age—aspects that range from how users deal with moral dilemmas to their moral sensitivity.…”

(In)civility and adolescents’ moral decision making online: drawing on moral theory to advance digital citizenship education

“…This finding is based on a classification of participants' reactions that is grounded in Bandura's (1999) theory of moral disengagement. The present research builds on a few studies that have drawn on this theory to explore the extent to which users make morally engaged or disengaged decisions online (e.g., D 'Errico & Paciello, 2018;Ge, 2020;Kyriacou & Zuin, 2018;Price et al, 2013). These studies have argued that using social media within different contexts (from discussing climate change or migration to witnessing to cyberbullying) contribute primarily to forms of moral disengagement than of moral engagement.…”

“…A few studies informed by moral psychology have explored the extent to which users make morally engaged or disengaged decisions online, depending on their emotions or on their perceptions of the ethical features of different online contexts (D'Errico & Paciello, 2018;Ge, 2020). What is lacking, however, is research exploring moral decision making online through a multifaceted moral theoretical lens.…”

The relationship between Group relative deprivation and aggressive collective action online toward deprivation-related Provocateurs within the Group: the mediating role of hostile feelings

“…A priori power analysis using the GPower software (Faul et al, 2007 ) to determine the minimum sample size required for this study. The median effect size was always set to f 2 = 0.15 in previous studies that have used regression analysis to calculate mediating effect (Ge, 2020 ; Pozzoli et al, 2016 ; Yang et al, 2018 ). When the median effect size was set to f 2 = 0.15, α = 0.05, and 1 − β = 0.9, a minimum of 88 subjects was deemed necessary to use regression analysis with two predictors.…”