A Moderated Mediation Effect of Online Time Spent on Internet Content Awareness, Perceived Online Hate Speech and Helping Attitudes Disposal of Bystanders
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/po/11.2Sup1/182Keywords:
perceived online hate speech, moderated mediation, emergent behavior, online time spent, internet content awareness, helping attitudes disposal of bystandersAbstract
Digital counter narratives have proved to be a consistent support to victims of online speech as they are defined as online narrative activities and actions, mostly verbal that have as effect the lowering of the negative psychological distress caused by hate speech (HS) over their victims. Internet content awareness (ICA) has an indirect significant effect on the relationship between perceived online HS and helping attitudes disposal towards the victim of HS, moderated by the online time spent by youth. Does internet content awareness (ICA) influence the helping attitudes disposal of bystanders in an online hate speech situation? Is the indirect effect of ICA mediation significant in triggering the helping attitudes towards the victims? Does the online time spent by youth moderates this relationship? These are the questions proposed by this research funded by Erasmus+ project Hate’s Journey. Our research team has designed an online questionnaire addressing 206 youth from Latvia, Turkey, Spain and Romania. We have used a moderated mediation model (Model 7 from Process Hayes). The key finding of this research is that in an online hate speech situation, the more aware a person is regarding the online content, the more helping attitudes will show towards the victim of HS, under the conditioning of less and medium time spent online. Conclusions and discussions will focus on the argumentation of results with regards to emergent behaviour paradigm.
References
Aguirre, B. E., Wenger, D. E., & Vigo, G. (1998). A test of the emergent norm theory of collective behavior. Sociological Forum, 13(2), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022145900928
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Anthony, R. J. (2004). Natural inspiration for self-adaptive systems. Database and expert systems applications. Proceedings of 15th International Workshop: 732 – 736. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1333561
Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2011). Predictors of student defenders or peer aggression victims: Empathy and social cognitive factors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(4), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410396746
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bekkers, R. (2007). Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game. Survey Research Methods, 1, 139-144. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/view/54
Bellmore, A., Ma, T. L., You, J. I., & Huhges, M. (2012). A two-method investigation of early adolescents’ responses upon witnessing peer victimization in school. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1265-1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.012
Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education. Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Polity Press.
Buckingham, D. (2008). Defining digital literacy – What do young people need to know about digital media? In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies (pp. 73–91). Peter-Lang.
Citron, D. K., & Norton, H. (2011). Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering digital citizenship for our information age. Boston University Law Review, 91, 1435-1483. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs/1056/
Couch, C. J. (1968) Collective behavior: An examination of some stereotypes. Social Problems, 15(3), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1968.15.3.03a00040
De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.418
Duffy, M. (2003). Web of hate: A fantasy theme analysis of the rhetorical vision of hate groups online. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 27(3), 291-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859903252850
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2008). The race between education and technology. Harvard University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
Johnson, G. (1997). Changes in earnings inequality: The role of demand shifts. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(2), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.2.41
Johnson, N. R. (1987). Panic and the breakdown of social order: Popular myth, social theory, empirical evidence. Sociological Focus, 20(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.1987.10570950
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123
Leets, L., & Giles, H. (1999). Harmful speech in intergroup encounters: An organizational framework for communication research. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 22 (pp. 91–37). Sage Publications.
Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The Communication Review, 7(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420490280152
Macaulay, T. (2017). Threats and impacts to the IoT. RIoT Control Understanding and Managing Risks and the Internet of Things, 221-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-419971-2.00012-1
Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2006). The knowledge gap. Implications of leveling the playing field for low-income and middle-income children. Reading Research Quaterly, 41(2), 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.41.2.2
Nickell, G. (1998). The helping attitudes scale. Paper presented at 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association at San Francisco, August, 1998. http://web.mnstate.edu/nickell/APA%201998%20paper.pdf
Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., Näsi, M., & Räsänen, P. (2014). Exposure to online hate among young social media users. Sociological Studies of Children & Youth, 18(1), 253-273. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1537-466120140000018021
Potter, W. J. (2004). Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach. Sage.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
Rad, D., Dixon, D., & Rad, G. (2020). Digital outing confidence as a mediator in the digital behaviour regulation and internet content awareness relationship. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 11(1), 84-95. https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/11.1/16
Rad, D., Dughi, T., Roman, A., & Ignat, S. (2019). Perspectives of consent silence in cyberbullying. Postmodern Openings, 10(2), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/71
Reicher, S. D. (1987). Crowd behaviour as social action. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422
Tilly, C. (1993). Contentious repertoires in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Social Science History, 17(1), 253–280. https://doi.org/10.2307/1171282
Turner, R. H., & Killian L. M. (1987). Collective behavior (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Turner, R. H., & Killian, L. M. (1972). Collective behavior (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Postmodern Openings Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND