PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

537

Title *

Responding to Online Toxicity: Which Strategies Make Others Feel Freer to Contribute, Believe That Toxicity Will Decrease, and Believe that Justice Has Been Restored?use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Alison I. Young Reusser, Kristian M. Veit, Elizabeth A. Gassin, and Jonathan P. CasePlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

<p>When we encounter toxic comments online, how might individual efforts to reply to those comments improve others’ experiences conversing in that forum? Is it more helpful for others to publicly, but benevolently (with a polite tone, demonstrated understanding of the original comment, and empathy for the commenter; Young Reusser et al., 2021), correct the post? Is going along with or joking along with the commenter in a benevolent way helpful? Or is retaliating – returning toxicity for toxicity – the best strategy? Using real Reddit conversation pairs – a toxic comment followed by a reply – as stimuli, we conducted a pilot study (n = 126 participants) and pre-registered experiment (n = 1357 participants) investigating the impact of three kinds of replies to online toxicity (benevolent correction, benevolent going-along, or retaliation) on observers’ self-reported freedom to contribute to the conversation, their belief that the toxicity will be reduced, and their overall impression that justice has been restored. We found evidence that benevolently correcting the toxicity helped participants feel freer to contribute than retaliating against it. Benevolently correcting was also seen as the best option for dissuading the toxicity and restoring justice. These findings suggest that treating toxic commenters with empathy, understanding, and politeness while correcting their toxicity can be a useful strategy for online bystanders who want to intervene to improve the health of online discourse. Preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/hfjnb (date of in-principle acceptance: 01/23/2023).</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

online discourse, benevolence, empathy, forgiveness, toxicity

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2023-08-02 05:30:37

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY