What drives people to participate in online firestorms?

Abstract

PurposeSocial media empower individuals to voice their opinions about issues that they perceive to be unacceptable. When many others add their opinions and large quantities of messages containing negative word-of-mouth suddenly spread online, an online firestorm occurs. By extending the situational theory of problem solving (Kim and Grunig, 2011) into the domain of online communication, this study aims to identify the drivers for participating in online firestorms.Design/methodology/approachWith reference to a fictitious online firestorm trigger (i.e. perceived moral misconduct) posted on Facebook, a qualitative pre-study and quantitative online survey were conducted. Based on the responses of 410 participants, an ordinary least squares regression was modeled to examine the factors of participating in the online firestorm. Later, structural equation modeling was applied to test the model and gauge its fit with the data.FindingsParticipants' involvement recognition, perception of being collective actors and approval of slacktivism behaviors positively predicted their participation in the online firestorm, whereas non-anonymity hampered it.Originality/valueThe study's findings not only contribute to the current understandings of online firestorms but are also valuable for developing theory and forms of professional crisis management. Moreover, they offer insights into the factors of online communication environments that encourage users to voice their opinions.

Algorithmic pricing in hospitality and tourism: call for research on ethics, consumer backlash and CSR

“…The literature shows that various factors drive online firestorm participation, such as moral compass (Johnen et al , 2018), social recognition (e.g. Gruber et al , 2020; Johnen et al , 2018), emotions (Delgado-Ballester et al , 2021), and structural ties and linguistic style (Herhausen et al , 2019). In this context, outrage appraisal was found to be a significant predictor of consumer backlash (Delgado-Ballester et al , 2021).…”

In the eye of the (fire)storm: better safe or sorry ? Crisis communication strategies for managing virality of online negative brand-related content

“…For this reason, addressing the nature of virality is the Achilles' heel of mitigating its escalation (Utz, Schultz, and Glocka, 2013). To evaluate these effects, users' intention to forward negative content (Negative e-WOM) is proposed in the current study to capture the potential virality of complaints, with forwarding buttons being easily accessible to users as the subject of their perceived behavioral control, involving low risk, costs, and effort (Gruber, Mayer and Einwiller, 2020).…”

Online firestorms: an act of civic engagement or a narcissistic boost? The role of brand misconduct appraisals

“…Several studies have shed empirical light on factors that encourage participation in, as opposed to initiation of, online firestorms (Table 1), such as altruistic punishment (intrinsic motivation), the low cost of criticism or the opportunity to raise one’s voice against injustice and immorality (Rost et al , 1996). Other factors that encourage participation are close connection to the situation (involvement), passive engagement (termed “slacktivism”), a sense of community belongingness (collective identity) (Gruber et al , 2020) and the dissemination potential of a sharer, expressed through their number of followers (Jöntgen, 2020). Emotional intensity, tie strength, shared linguistic style and type of message created in the wake of a brand transgression can contribute to an online firestorm becoming viral (Herhausen et al , 2019; Legocki et al , 2022), as can negative emotions elicited by brand misconduct and experienced by individuals, such as a desire for revenge (Delgado-Ballester et al , 2021).…”