Premium
“I will defend your right to free speech, provided I agree with you”: How social media users react (or not) to online out‐group aggression
Author(s) -
Antonetti Paolo,
Crisafulli Benedetta
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
psychology and marketing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.035
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1520-6793
pISSN - 0742-6046
DOI - 10.1002/mar.21447
Subject(s) - aggression , psychology , social psychology , free speech , perception , mediation , moderated mediation , verbal aggression , social media , internet privacy , human factors and ergonomics , poison control , computer science , world wide web , law , political science , medicine , environmental health , neuroscience
Social networking sites (SNS) routinely ban aggressive users. Such bans are sometimes perceived as a limitation to the right to free speech. While research has examined SNS users' perceptions of online aggression, little is known about how observers make trade‐offs between free speech and the desire to punish aggression. By focusing on reactions to an SNS ban, this study explores under what circumstances users consider the protection of the right to free speech as more important than the suppression of aggression. We propose a model of moderated mediation that explains under what circumstances online aggression increases the acceptance of a ban. When posts display aggression, the ban is less likely to be perceived as violating free speech and as unfair. Consequently, aggression reduces the likelihood that users will protest through negative word of mouth. Moreover, users protest against an SNS ban only when this affects an in‐group user (rather than an out‐group user). This in‐group bias, however, diminishes when an in‐group aggressor targets a high warmth out‐group user. The study raises managerial implications for the effective management of aggressive interactions on SNS and for the persuasive communication of a decision to ban a user engaging in aggressive behavior.