Understanding the Bystander Audience in Online Incivility Encounters: Conceptual Issues and Future Research Questions

Kim, Yeweon

doi:10.24251/hicss.2021.357

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, this is the first study to comprehensively test all steps and barriers of the BIM in the context of cyber aggression; a noted gap in the literature (Kim, 2021). As the BIM prescribes, our study found a positive, sequential relationship between success in noticing the event (Step 1), interpreting the event as problematic ( Step2), and taking personal responsibility (Step 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

I’ll be there for you? The bystander intervention model and cyber aggression

Karasavva,

Mikami

2024

Cyberpsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Bystander Intervention Model (BIM) has been validated for face-to-face emergencies and dictates that observers’ decision to intervene hinges on five sequential steps, while barriers block progress between steps. The current study is the first, to our knowledge, to apply the BIM in its entirety to cyber aggression and explore the ways that individual factors such as experiences with depression, social anxiety, and cyber aggression either as the target or the aggressor influence bystanders. In our pre-registered study, emerging adults (N = 1,093) viewed pilot-tested cyber aggressive content and reported how they would engage with each of the steps and barriers of the BIM, if they were observing this content as a bystander in real life. Regarding the actions they would take, most participants chose non-intervention (36.3%) or private direct intervention (39.4%). Path analysis suggested that overall, the BIM can explain bystanders’ responses to cyber aggression. Nonetheless, there were some discrepancies with prior work on face-to-face emergencies, specifically that cyber bystander intervention does not appear to be as linear. As well, in contrast to the face-to-face applications of the BIM that prescribes barriers to affect only a single specific step, here we found some barriers were negatively linked to multiple steps. These findings elucidate ways in which cyber aggression in the online context may be similar to, as well as different from, aggression that occurs face-to-face. Implications of these findings for interventions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

I’ll be there for you? The bystander intervention model and cyber aggression

Karasavva,

Mikami

2024

Cyberpsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bystanders can intervene when they observe a violation of a subreddit's community guidelines, but they can also choose to encourage and reward the behavior. These users fundamentally drive the success of the community through their engagements (Kim, 2021). There has been a growing concern that social media platforms, however inadvertently, are promoting uncivil discussion because the content is engaged with (Davidson et al, 2020).…”

Section: Does Uncivil Content Get Engaged With More?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incivility on Popular Politics and News Subreddits: An Analysis of In-groups, Community Guidelines and Relationships with Social Media Engagement

Vargo,

Hopp

2023

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political and news subreddits are individualistic as it pertains to the incivility we might expect them to exhibit; some have clear in-group members, and all have varying degrees of content moderation policies. We sample submissions (n = 127,870) and comments (n = 2,576,049) from 20 of the most popular news and politics subreddits from June 4th, 2021, to June 4th, 2022. All subreddits appear to be mostly civil, with incivility most commonly occurring in comments. When incivility occurs, it tends to take on less-severe forms including insults, profanity, and general toxicity. Subreddits with with clear political in-groups did exhibit more insults, toxicity, profanity, and identitybased attacks. The more complex a subreddit's moderation policies, the less incivility was observed. Finally, uncivil submissions do result in a mild increase in engagement, but given the overall low prevalence of incivility observed, it appears not to be integral to a subreddit's overall engagement.

show abstract

“…Most social media platforms, including Facebook, provide the opportunity to flag the content of others that potentially violates the commenting policy of the discussion provider. Users can also choose to downvote comments they perceive as inappropriate or intervene against comments of others through counter-speech comments (Kalch & Naab, 2017;Kim, 2021;Naab et al, 2018Naab et al, , 2019. While in traditional media settings users were dependent on institutions to take action against problematic content, social media empower ordinary users to engage against content they perceive as problematic (Lim & Golan, 2011).…”

Section: Actors Intervening In Comment Sectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is responsible for interventions against problematic comments? Comparing user attitudes in Germany and the United States

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online comment sections on news organizations' social media pages provide a unique forum for exploring attitudes toward platform governance and freedom of expression at the crossroads between people, platforms, and news providers. Amid ample political and policy interest, little empirical evidence exists on user perceptions of platform governance. Through survey studies in Germany (n = 1155) and the United States (n = 1164), we provide a comparative perspective on responsibility attributions toward different regulatory actors who may intervene against problematic user comments: the state (law enforcement), platform operators (Facebook), news organizations, and users themselves. We explore this against the backdrop of different notions of free speech and cultural differences in the two countries. We find that Germans attribute greater responsibility for intervention to the state, Facebook, and news organizations than Americans. They also assume greater self-responsibility. While support for free speech did not impact responsibility attribution to Facebook, news organizations, or the users themselves, people with greater general support for free speech saw law enforcement as less responsible for intervention. The results provide empirical evidence for an integrated view of various regulatory actors who complement each other in the governance of online discussions.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Understanding the Bystander Audience in Online Incivility Encounters: Conceptual Issues and Future Research Questions

Cited by 7 publications

References 65 publications

I’ll be there for you? The bystander intervention model and cyber aggression

I’ll be there for you? The bystander intervention model and cyber aggression

Incivility on Popular Politics and News Subreddits: An Analysis of In-groups, Community Guidelines and Relationships with Social Media Engagement

Who is responsible for interventions against problematic comments? Comparing user attitudes in Germany and the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About