Suchergebnisse

The rise of racial hate speech on social media has raised critical questions for scholars to explore. It is necessary to understand how outside observers passively evaluate (a) online racial hate speech posts on social media and (b) whether those evaluations are related to observers' subsequent behavior. This study explored how observers evaluate acts of majority-on-minority and minority-on-minority anti-Asian hate tweets on Twitter. In an experiment ( n = 196) informed by expectancy violations theory, we tested how White observers evaluated anti-Asian tweets ostensibly posted by either a White or Black source. Analysis revealed a moderated-mediation pathway in which observers' political partisanship (Democrat/Republican) affected how they judged the ethnic prototypicality of White and Black sources of racial hate speech; these source prototypicality judgments were in turn associated with observers' judgments of tweet offensiveness and self-reported intentions to engage in online activism (i.e., signing an online petition). These results contribute to our understanding of outside observers' differential expectancies regarding online hate speech, and how those expectancies can affect perceptions of and reactions to acts of racism.

Warranting theory has been used extensively to explain how people evaluate information across a variety of online settings. However, no validated measurement instrument exists to assess the construct of warranting value that is at the core of the theory. Two studies were conducted to develop and validate a General Warranting Value Scale and three scales that assess specific forms of information control: Modification Control, Dissemination Control, and Source Obfuscation. In addition, we tested predictions of warranting theory using multiple stimuli and samples—including a nationally representative sample of adults. Overall, evidence for scale validity was obtained: Confirmatory factor analyses were consistent with measurement model fit. All scales were sensitive to theoretically predicted manipulations and were correlated with theoretically predicted outcomes.

This study investigated how people make sense of self-portrayals in social media that are inconsistent with impressions formed through other interpersonal interactions. The research focused on how inconsistent online information affects interpersonal impressions and how motivation to manage impressions influences the types of attributions that actors and observers make for the misleading online behavior. Results show that the relationship between observer and the target influences evaluations of online/offline inconsistencies: Subjects rated the inconsistencies of acquaintances as more intentionally misleading, more hypocritical, and less trustworthy relative to the inconsistencies of friends. In addition, the types of attributions people made for online behavior depended on the perspective of the person providing the explanation: People explained their own online behavior more favorably than the online behavior of both friends and acquaintances.

The body-positive movement is one of many decentralized, user-generated movements on social media that seek to engender positive societal change. In support of the body-positive movement, social media users employ a variety of messages and images to advocate for more inclusive beauty standards across different online platforms. We examine how the nature of body-positive messaging (mainstream body positivity vs body neutrality), the degree to which images are sexualized (sexualized vs non-sexualized), and the platform that hosts body-positive content (Instagram/Flickr/blog) influence how people evaluate body-positive content online. The results indicate that the more participants felt messaging was body-neutral, the more morally appropriate and less self-interested they found the posts. The extent to which participants felt messaging was morally appropriate also led them to embrace more inclusive beauty standards. Moreover, non-sexualized (vs sexualized) images were rated more morally appropriate and less self-interested. Implications for promoting body positivity and other prosocial movements online are discussed.

Our work adopted an intersectional approach to investigate how women's racial identity may influence how they evaluate and are impacted by body-positive imagery of women on social media. In a 2 × 2 × 2 experiment ( N = 975), we examined how source race (Black vs White) and sexualization (non-sexualized vs sexualized) in body-positive images affect Black and White viewers' impressions of self-interest, moral appropriateness, and body positivity. Results indicated that viewers generally responded more favorably to non-sexualized (vs sexualized) images: Participants reported less self-interested motivations for sharing, found the images more morally appropriate, and believed they were more effective representations of body positivity. Results also revealed that Black (vs White) viewers tended to express more appreciation for body-positive imagery, regardless of source race or sexualization. Findings not only advance our theoretical understanding of sexual objectification with more diverse depictions and broader sampling, but also provide practical suggestions for advocates of the body-positive movement.

Abstract
Researchers often use attribution theory to understand how people make sense of messages. Unlike the ephemeral actions typically investigated using attribution frameworks, messages can persist. Our study observed how persistence influences the harmfulness of messages and how people levy blame upon harmful posters and those ostensibly obligated and capable of intervening. Grounded in the path model of blame, a randomized experiment (N = 520) tested whether persistence cues in an online environment (low vs high message persistence) influenced appraisals of the harmfulness of online toxicity (i.e., sexism on Reddit), inferences of mental states for relevant agents (e.g., awareness, capacity), attributions of blame, and motives to respond. Results indicated that greater persistence increased perceived harmfulness and motivated individuals to place greater blame upon inactive/ineffective moderators who were capable of intervening.

The ability viewers have to contribute information to websites (i.e., user-generated content) is a defining feature of the participatory web. Building on warranting theory, this study examined how viewers' evaluations of a target are more or less likely to be influenced by user-generated content. The results indicate that the more a target is perceived to be able to control the dissemination of user-generated reviews online, the less credence people place in those reviews when forming impressions of the target. In addition, the less people are confident that user-generated reviews are truly produced by third-party reviewers, the less people trust those reviews. The results provide novel support for warranting theory by illustrating how the warranting value of user-generated information can vary and thus differentially affect viewers' evaluations of a target. The implications of the study's results for warranting theory, online impression management, e-commerce, and future research are discussed.