Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming: the Mediating Role of Belief in a Just World
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 19e25 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh Full length article Socioeconomic status and online shaming: The mediating role of belief in a just world ** * Yubo Hou a, , 1, Tonglin Jiang a, c, 1, Qi Wang b, a Peking University, China b Cornell University, USA c The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong article info abstract Article history: This study examined individual factors contributing to online shaming, a recent phenomenon where Received 8 March 2017 people engage in social policing by shaming transgressions using the Internet technology. It focused on Received in revised form the effects of socioeconomic status (SES) and the belief in a just world (BJW). A sample of 245 city 9 June 2017 employees in Nanjing, China participated in the study. Participants read an online post about a real-life Accepted 1 July 2017 transgression and reported their willingness to engage in online shaming. Their subjective SES and BJW Available online 4 July 2017 were assessed. Participants with higher SES exhibited a greater tendency to engage in online shaming than those with lower SES, and participants with stronger BJW were more likely to engage in online Keywords: fi Online shaming shaming. BJW further mediated the relationship between SES and online shaming. The ndings have Socioeconomic status important practical implications in the Internet era. Belief in a just world © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Social media Internet 1. Socioeconomic status and online shaming: the mediating orders often occur as a result (Cheung, 2014; Ronson, 2016). Given role of belief in a just world the personal and social impact of online shaming, it is important to ask who are the anonymous “Internet police” and why they The fast development of Web-based technology has greatly conduct online shaming. Our study intended to address these changed people's lives. In particular, Internet has become a plat- questions by examining the effects of subjective socioeconomic form for people to share information, voice viewpoint, and partic- status and belief in a just world. ipate in civic discourse (Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005). On the other hand, online shaming, where people engage in social policing by shaming transgressions using the Internet technology, has 1.1. The dark side of online shaming quickly proliferated (Cheung, 2014; Wall & Williams, 2007). fi “ Internet has become a battlefield for people to call for punishment Shaming is generally de ned as a process by which citizens for those who have violated social norms. Across many countries, publicly and self-consciously draw attention to the bad dispositions the past decade has witnessed increasing online shaming, where or actions of an offender, as a way of punishing him or her for ” & numerous angry and abusive comments swarm into the targets' having those dispositions or engaging in those actions (Kahan fl personal webpages for the purpose of humiliation and social Posner, 1999). It re ects vigilantism in which people exercise so- condemnation. Serious disruptions of personal lives and social cial control when an established order is under threat from a transgression, a potential transgression, or an imputed trans- gression against institutionalized norms (Johnston, 1996). Thus, * Corresponding author. Department of Human Development, Cornell University, people publicly shame others to defend their social norms (Cheung, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. 2014). According to the rational choice theory, perceived external ** Corresponding author. School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and sanctions often serve as a component in the cost evaluation of of- Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health, Peking University, Beijing fenses and are therefore effective in deterring the offenses (Nagin & 100871, China. Paternoster, 1993). Previous research has shown that expected E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Hou), [email protected] fi (Q. Wang). shame states can signi cantly inhibit the offending motivations 1 These authors contributed equally to this work. (Bachman, Paternoster, & Ward, 1992; Grasmick & Bursik; Jr, 1990; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.003 0747-5632/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 20 Y. Hou et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 19e25 Nagin & Paternoster, 1993) and compel individuals to improve individuals use the Internet to express their viewpoints, they behaviors so as to avoid shame in the future (Lindsay-Hartz, De intend to reinforce social norms and promote justice, and they are Rivera, & Mascolo, 1995). empowered to act against social infractions through public The use of shaming as a way to deter deviant behaviors has been shaming (Cheung, 2014). observed since the first day of the cyber world (Goldman, 2015; Another motive of online shaming is to exercise social control, Skoric, Chua, Liew, Wong, & Yeo, 2010). Online shaming can be with the intention of bringing forth group solidarity and deterring considered to be a type of vigilantism where people exert external deviance (Johnston, 1996). Research has shown that informal social sanctions via Internet (Cheung, 2014; Wall & Williams, 2007). control motivates online shaming. For example, Rafferty (2011) People who conduct online shaming wish to reinforce social norms found that the purpose for people to use cyber sanctioning was and keep society operating in an orderly fashion (Wehmhoener, to exert control in penalizing transgressions so as to prevent similar 2010). Indeed, online exposure of perpetrators has boosted behaviors in the future. The motivation for social control distin- changes in institutional transparency, facilitated prosecution of guishes online shaming from other forms of online aggression such corruption and abuse of power by politicians or local authorities, as cyber-bullying, although they can all produce psychological and contributed to political reform and democracy (e.g., Aman & harms to the targets (Smallridge, Wagner, & Crowl, 2016). Jayroe, 2013). However, online shaming, and shaming more Notably, individual participation in crime prevention activities is generally, has its dark side and can in fact disrupt social control and often voluntary (Rosenbaum, 1987). As a type of vigilantism, online make things more anarchic (Laidlaw, 2016; Solove, 2007). shaming shares the feature of autonomy, where individuals Furthermore, with the Internet-empowered rapid and broad in- participate autonomously and spontaneously, free from state sup- formation transmission, the negative effect of online shaming can port or other organizational input (Johnston,1996; Smallridge et al., be particularly pervasive. 2016). They voluntarily comment on or repost about the trans- Specifically, the use of the Internet to call for others to punish gression in order to exercise social control and restore justice. social infractions can be far-reaching, without geographical or However, individuals may be variably motivated to engage in on- locational constraints, and take place with great immediacy. Online line shaming. shaming often involves outburst of anger and aggression, exposing and sharing the transgression post, using or threatening the use of 1.3. Socioeconomic status and online shaming force, and so forth (Laidlaw, 2016; Wehmhoener, 2010). Further- more, online shaming often comes with the exposure of personal Socioeconomic status (SES) refers to individuals' relative social identifiable information of the offenders for the purpose of hu- rank generated by wealth inequality (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, miliation, social condemnation and punishment (Cheung, 2014). 2016). SES is not simply how much one earns; it is also how one Empowered by the Internet, these online aggressive behaviors can perceives him- or herself in comparison with others, with the two easily escalate into a form of online mob trial and further extend to indexes being moderately correlated (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & offline harassment (Cheung, 2014; Solove, 2007). As a result, people Ickovics, 2000; Johnson & Krueger, 2006; Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, who initially violate social norms may later turn into the victims of 2009). Research has shown that subjective SES is more important online shaming. than objective indicators of SES for psychological functioning. Even Online anonymity that keeps people safe from identification and after accounting for people's objective social standing, higher penalty for their aggressive actions further contributes to the subjective SES predicts better psychological well-being and greater negative effect of online shaming. Anonymity often brings about physical health (Adler et al., 2000; Boyce, Brown, & Moore, 2010; deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1969), which may reduce people's Cohen et al., 2008; Kraus & Stephens, 2012). ability to regulate their behavior and make them engage in abusive Importantly, SES not only determines the material resources one actions. Deindividuation may also make people react based on their has access to, but also shapes individuals' psychological patterns. In current emotional states and decrease their awareness of others' lower SES environments where resource is scarce, individuals often thoughts and feelings (McKenna & Bargh, 2000; Zimbardo, 1969). do not lend themselves to personal influence, choice, or control and Research has observed greater hostility and aggressive behaviors in tend not to believe in their own efficacy or their abilities in social