Socioeconomic status and online shaming: The mediating role of belief in a just world

Accepted Manuscript Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming: The Mediating Role of Belief in a Just World

Yubo Hou, Tonglin Jiang, Qi Wang PII:

S0747-5632(17)30415-6

DOI:

10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.003

Reference:

CHB 5056

To appear in:

Computers in Human Behavior

Received Date:

08 March 2017

Revised Date:

09 June 2017

Accepted Date:

01 July 2017

Please cite this article as: Yubo Hou, Tonglin Jiang, Qi Wang, Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming: The Mediating Role of Belief in a Just World, Computers in Human Behavior (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.003

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND ONLINE SHAMING

Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming: The Mediating Role of Belief in a Just World Yubo Hou1*, Tonglin Jiang1 3*, Qi Wang2

1

Peking University, China

2

Cornell University, USA

3

The University of Hong Kong, China

*These

authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yubo Hou at the School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China, email: [email protected], and to Qi Wang at the Department of Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA, email: [email protected]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

Running head: SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND ONLINE SHAMING

Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming: The Mediating Role of Belief in a Just World

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

2

Abstract This study examined individual factors contributing to online shaming, a recent phenomenon where people engage in social policing by shaming transgressions using the Internet technology. It focused on the effects of socioeconomic status (SES) and the belief in a just world (BJW). A sample of 245 city employees in Nanjing, China participated in the study. Participants read an online post about a real-life transgression and reported their willingness to engage in online shaming. Their subjective SES and BJW 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 shaming. BJW further mediated the relationship between SES and online shaming. The findings have important practical implications in the Internet era.

Keywords: online shaming, socioeconomic status, belief in a just world, social media, Internet

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

3

Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming: The Mediating Role of Belief in a Just World The fast development of Web-based technology has greatly changed people’s lives. In particular, Internet has become a platform for people to share information, voice viewpoint, and participate 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 quickly proliferated (Cheung, 2014; Wall & Williams, 2007). Internet has become a battlefield for people to call for punishment for those who have violated social norms. Across many countries, the past decade has witnessed increasing online shaming, where numerous angry and abusive comments swarm into the targets’ personal webpages for the purpose of humiliation and social condemnation. Serious disruptions of personal lives and social orders often occur as a result (Cheung, 2014; Ronson, 2016). Given the personal and social impact of online shaming, it is important to ask who are the anonymous “Internet police” and why they conduct online shaming. Our study intended to address these questions by examining the effects of subjective socioeconomic status and belief in a just world. The Dark Side of Online Shaming Shaming is generally defined as a “process by which citizens publicly and selfconsciously draw attention to the bad dispositions or actions of an offender, as a way of punishing him or her for having those dispositions or engaging in those actions” (Kahan & Posner, 1999). It reflects vigilantism in which people exercise social control when an established order is under threat from a transgression, a potential transgression, or an imputed transgression

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

4

against institutionalized norms (Johnston, 1996). Thus, people publicly shame others to defend their social norms (Cheung, 2014). According to the rational choice theory, perceived external sanctions often serve as a component in the cost evaluation of offenses and are therefore effective in deterring the offenses (Nagin & Paternoster, 1993). Previous research has shown that expected shame states can significantly inhibit the offending motivations (Bachman, Paternoster, & Ward, 1992; Grasmick & Bursik Jr, 1990; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993) and compel individuals to improve behaviors so as to avoid shame in the future (Lindsay-Hartz, De Rivera, & Mascolo, 1995). The use of shaming as a way to deter deviant behaviors has been observed since the first day of the cyber world (Goldman, 2015; Skoric, Chua, Liew, Wong, & Yeo, 2010). Online shaming can be considered to be a type of vigilantism where people exert external sanctions via Internet (Cheung, 2014; Wall & Williams, 2007). People who conduct online shaming wish to reinforce social norms and keep society operating in an orderly fashion (Wehmhoener, 2010). Indeed, online exposure of perpetrators has boosted changes in institutional transparency, facilitated prosecution of corruption and abuse of power by politicians or local authorities, and contributed to political reform and democracy (e.g., Aman & Jayroe, 2013; Bacalao-Pino, 2014). However, online shaming, and shaming more generally, has its dark side and can in fact disrupt social control and make things more anarchic (Laidlaw, 2016; Solove, 2007). Furthermore, with the Internet-empowered rapid and broad information transmission, the negative effect of online shaming can be particularly pervasive.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

5

Specifically, the use of the Internet to call for others to punish social infractions can be far-reaching, without geographical or locational constraints, and take place with great immediacy. Online shaming often involves outburst of anger and aggression, exposing and sharing the transgression post, using or threatening the use of force, and so forth (Laidlaw, 2016; Wehmhoener, 2010). Furthermore, online shaming often comes with the exposure of personal identifiable information of the offenders for the purpose of humiliation, social condemnation and punishment (Cheung, 2014). Empowered by the Internet, these online aggressive behaviors can easily escalate into a form of online mob trial and further extend to offline harassment (Cheung, 2014; Solove, 2007). As a result, people who initially violate social norms may later turn into the victims of online shaming. Online anonymity that keeps people safe from identification and penalty for their aggressive actions further contributes to the negative effect of online shaming. Anonymity often brings about deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1969), which may reduce people’s ability to regulate their behavior and make them engage in abusive actions. Deindividuation may also make people react based on their current emotional states and decrease their awareness of others’ thoughts and feelings (McKenna & Bargh, 2000; Zimbardo, 1969). Research has observed greater hostility and aggressive behaviors in computer-mediated interactions than face-to-face interactions (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). Moreover, the perceived online anonymity may make people feel free from traditionally constraining pressures of social norms, conscience, morality, and ethics to behave in a normative manner.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

6

This, in turn, makes online aggression particularly pervasive and contributes to a mob-like mentality to correct the actions of the wayward and avenge those who have done wrong (Wehmhoener, 2010). Motives for Online Shaming People who engage in online shaming usually do not consider it to be shaming. In fact, they often see it as a contribution to society (Skoric et al., 2010). The two main motives for justice, the use of punishment, and behavior control are applicable to online shaming (Oswald, Hupfeld, Klug, & Gabriel, 2002; Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997; Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006). Online shaming may help to reestablish social norms disturbed by the offender, and further deter the offender as well as others from committing the offense again. Thus, one motive for online shaming is to ensure conformity to social norms through self-regulation (Wehmhoener, 2010). When individuals use the Internet to express their viewpoints, they intend to reinforce social norms and promote justice, and they are empowered to act against social infractions through public shaming (Cheung, 2014). Another motive of online shaming is to exercise social control, with the intention of bringing forth group solidarity and deterring deviance (Johnston, 1996). Research has shown that informal social control motivates online shaming. For example, Rafferty (2011) found that the purpose for people to use cyber sanctioning was to exert control in penalizing transgressions so as to prevent similar behaviors in the future. The motivation for social control distinguishes online shaming from other forms of online aggression such as cyber-bullying, although they can

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

7

all produce psychological harms to the targets (Smallridge, Wagner, & Crowl, 2016). Notably, individual participation in crime prevention activities is often voluntary (Rosenbaum, 1987). As a type of vigilantism, online shaming shares the feature of autonomy, where individuals participate autonomously and spontaneously, free from state support or other organizational input (Johnston, 1996; Smallridge et al., 2016). They voluntarily comment on or repost about the transgression in order to exercise social control and restore justice. However, individuals may be variably motivated to engage in online shaming. Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming Socioeconomic status (SES) refers to individuals’ relative social rank generated by wealth inequality (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2016a). SES is not simply how much one earns; it is also how one perceives him- or herself in comparison with others, with the two indexes being moderately correlated (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000; Johnson & Krueger, 2006; Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009). Research has shown that subjective SES is more important than objective indicators of SES for psychological functioning. Even after accounting for people’s objective social standing, higher subjective SES predicts better psychological well-being and greater physical health (Adler et al., 2000; Boyce, Brown, & Moore, 2010; Cohen et al., 2008; Kraus & Stephens, 2012). Importantly, SES not only determines the material resources one has access to, but also shapes individuals’ psychological patterns. In lower SES environments where resource is scarce, individuals often do not lend themselves to personal influence, choice, or control and tend not to

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

8

believe in their own efficacy or their abilities in social influence (Gurin, Gurin, & Morrison, 1978; Kraus & Stephens, 2012; Lachman & Weaver, 1998). In contrast, the abundant material resources often enable people in higher SES groups to experience themselves with distinct agency, which makes them more willing to influence the world according to their personal preferences (Kraus et al., 2009; Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, 2012; Kraus & Stephens, 2012). Criminology research has shown that people with higher SES generally exhibit stronger intentions to intervene and exert informal social control and that they feel more responsible for deterring the offense, compared with those with lower SES (Greenberg, Rohe, & Williams, 1982; Rosenbaum, 1987; Taylor, Gottfredson, & Brower, 1981). In general, voluntary social participation is greater among individuals who occupy more dominant social positions and roles, either ascribed or achieved (Smith, 1994). For example, people who devote their time to volunteer works are mainly from higher SES groups, with a relatively high income, good functional health, and good education (Auslander & Litwin, 1988; Edwards & White, 1980; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, & Gorski, 1992; Smith, 1994; Wilson & Musick, 1997). Given that people with higher SES have a higher level of perceived control and autonomy, they may be more inclined to engage in the voluntary activity of online shaming than those with lower SES. The Effect of Belief in a Just World Belief in a just world (BJW) refers to the mental state in which people need to believe in a just world in order to maintain their subjective well-being and navigate in the complex social

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

9

world (Lerner, 1980; Lerner & Miller, 1978). As a ‘‘positive illusion’’ towards the world (Lipkus, Dalbert, & Siegler, 1996; Taylor & Brown, 1988), BJW is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can protect individuals from the harsh realities of the real world and thus promote mental health and subjective well-being (Dalbert, 1999, 2009; Furnham, 2003; Lerner, 1980). On the other hand, to preserve their just-world beliefs, individuals tend to blame and derogate those who disrupt the social order (Hafer, Bègue, Choma, & Dempsey, 2005). Lipkus and colleagues (1996) propose that there are two dimensions of BJW: the personal belief in just world (PBJW) and the general belief in just world (GBJW). PBJW refers to the belief that one's life events are fair, whereas GBJW refers to the belief that the world is generally fair. BJW is closely related to pro-social behaviors, with PBJW and GBJW playing different roles (Dalbert, 1999, 2009; Sutton & Winnard, 2007). When GBJW is threatened, people tend to take actions such as to humiliate or derogate others to protect their just beliefs, which may make them antagonistic towards victims. Studies have shown that GBJW predicts indifference and harsh attitudes towards social miseries. For example, people with stronger GBJW show harsher attitudes towards refugees (Khera, Harvey, & Callan, 2014) and more prejudice toward the elderly and the poor (Sutton & Douglas, 2005), and they exhibit less altruistic behavior (Bègue, Charmoillaux, Cochet, Cury, & De Suremain, 2008). Unlike GBJW, PBJW is positively associated with various indexes of psychological adjustment, such as greater life satisfaction (Dalbert, 1999), lower depression (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2002), and greater purpose in life (Bègue & Bastounis, 2003). As a valuable psychological

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

10

capital, PBJW not only protects individuals from sufferings but also motivates them to behave benevolently. For example, Bègue et al. (2008) found that the more people believed in a just world for themselves, the more they gave to a street beggar. In summary, past research has provided evidence that strong general just-world belief is positively associated with punitive and harsh attitudes towards others, whereas strong personal just-world belief promotes voluntary prosocial behaviors. Thus, we expected that both forms of just-world beliefs would motivate online shaming, either through the intention of punishment or benevolence, for the purpose of restoring justice and social order. Furthermore, we expected justworld beliefs to mediate the effect of SES in predicting online shaming. Higher SES individuals, who are more concerned about individual rights and social justice (Greenberg et al, 1982; Kraus et al., 2012; Smith, 1994), would exhibit stronger just-world beliefs, which would in turn make them more inclined to engage in online shaming. PBJW and GBJW would further manifest for different reasons: As online shaming is closely related to voluntary social responsibility (Skoric et al., 2010), PBJW would mediate the effect of SES on online shaming. On the other hand, given that online shaming is characterized by social condemnation and aggression (Cheung, 2014; Ronson, 2016; Wehmhoener, 2010), GBJW would also mediate the effect of SES on online shaming (see Figure 1).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

11

Figure 1. Proposed two-mediator model

Methods Participants The participants included 245 employees (111 males; mean age = 29.52 years; SD = 8.35) from the city of Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China. They provided informed consent and were each paid RMB10 for their participation. The participants were from a variety of professions, including laborers (7.4%), office clerks (18%), service professionals (22.1%), entrepreneurs (2.5%), technicians (24.2%), civil servants (17.2%), and self-employed (4.5%), and a few who were temporally out of job (4.1%). Approximately half of the participants had a monthly income lower than the average income in Nanjing (i.e., RMB 3457; http://www.njtj.gov.cn/47448/47488/) and the other half had an above-average income. Out of the 243 participants who reported information about their education, 77% had a college education or beyond, 20% completed high school or professional school training, and 3% finished elementary school or middle school. The participants reported surfing on the Internet for an average of 2 to 3 hours a day, browsing the News, watching videos, or chatting with others.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

12

Measures Online shaming. Research has shown that online shaming is expressed in a variety of ways, including expressing anger, making abusive/negative comments, reposting the transgression post, and following the updates of the event (Laidlaw, 2016; Wehmhoener, 2010). Abusive comments are difficult to measure and quantify given people’s presentational concerns. Therefore, in our study, online shaming was captured by expression of anger, repost the transgression post or like others’ hostile comments, and willingness to follow the updates. We used a scenario test to capture the participants’ tendency of online shaming in a controlled experiment. We adopted an online post of a real-life transgression and relevant hostile comments from Weibo, a social media site in China equivalent to Twitter. In this transgression event, a BMW driver illegally parked her car and verbally abused the policeman who came to solve the traffic accident caused by her. After reading the post and comments, participants were asked to report on 7-point Likert Scales their anger, their tendency to repost the transgression post or like others’ hostile comments, and their willingness to keep abreast of the event. Participants also answered questions about the reasons behind their responses. SES. The most widely used index of social class rank is the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Socioeconomic Status (Adler et al., 2000). In this measure, participants rank themselves in society or in their local community on a ladder with 10 rungs representing ascending levels of income, education, and occupation (Adler et al., 2000; Goodman et al., 2001). Researchers in China have found that a social hierarchy of 5 levels is more appropriate for

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

13

Chinese society (Lu, 2004). We therefore made modification to the MacArthur Ladder, asking participants to choose their SES from the bottom level 1 to the top level 5. Belief in a just world. The Scale of Belief in a Just World (Dalbert, 1999) consists of 13 items, with 7 items measuring PBJW (e.g., I believe that I usually get what I deserve) and 6 items measuring GBJW (e.g., I think basically the world is a just place). Participants rated the items on 6-point scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The coefficient of internal consistency of PBJW and GBJW was 0.88 and 0.80, respectively. Results Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations of all measures are shown in Table 1. The participants’ anger, willingness to repost or like the hostile comments, and willingness to keep abreast of the event were all positively correlated. In other words, individuals who felt angrier about an online event of social transgression would also be more likely to repost or like the hostile comments and to follow the updates on the event. Furthermore, participants with higher SES tended to repost or like more the hostile comments and showed more willingness to keep abreast of the event, although they reported feeling no more anger than participants with lower SES. PBJW and GBJW were both positively correlated with the three measures of online shaming, indicating that people with stronger beliefs in a just world were more likely to engage in online shaming. In addition, higher SES individuals exhibited stronger PBJW and GBJW.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

14

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

Age

29.52

8.36

1

SES

2.17

0.77

.18**

PBJW

26.70

6.74

.04

.30***

1

GBJW

23.48

6.46

.01

.24***

.74***

1

Anger

4.46

1.51

- .04

- .01

.27***

.26***

1

Repost /like

4.01

1.53

- .02

.13*

.20**

.32***

.69***

1

Follow

4.22

1.54

.03

.13*

.25***

.34***

.57***

.66***

7

1

1

Note. SES = socioeconomic status. *, p = .05. **, p =.01. ***, p = .001

In the following analyses, we tested the mediating roles of PBJW and GBJW in the relationship between SES and each of the three online shaming variables (i.e.. anger, repost/like and follow-up), respectively. To perform the mediation analyses, we first regressed PBJW and GBJW on SES, respectively. SES significantly predicted both PBJW, B = 2.65, SE = .53, t = 4.98, p < .001, and GBJW, B = 2.03, SE = .52, t = 3.90, p < .001. Then in the model for anger expression, we regressed anger on PBJW and GBJW, respectively. Results showed that both PBJW, B = .06, SE = .01, t = 4.40, p < .001, and GBJW, B = .06, SE = .01, t = 4.13, p < .001, significantly predicted anger towards the online transgression. We further regressed anger on SES, which showed that SES did not significantly predict anger, B

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

15

= -.02, SE = .13, t = -.17, p = .86. Recent technical literature on mediation has suggested that there need not be a significant effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable to establish mediation (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). Hence, although the effect of SES on anger expression was not significant, we went further to test the mediation. A multiple mediation analysis (model 4 in PROCESS) was conduced with bootstrapping methods to examine the proposed two-mediator model. PBJW and GBJW were simultaneously

entered as mediators. There was a significant total indirect effect of SES on anger, B = .18, SE = .06, 95% CI [.0866, .3351]. PBJW significantly mediated the effect of SES on anger, B = .13, SE = .07, 95% CI [.0012, .2858]. However, the mediating effect of GBJW was not significant, B = .06, SE = .05, 95% CI [-.0290, .1970] (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The mediating roles of PBJW and GBJW in the relationship between SES and anger expression. Unstandardized coefficients are displayed. *p < .05, ***p < .001.

Next, we tested the mediation model for the tendency to repost or like the hostile comments. We regressed repost on PBJW and GBJW, respectively, and found that both PBJW, B

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

16

= .05, SE = .01, t = 3.23, p < .01, and GBJW, B = .08, SE = .01, t = 5.22, p < .001, significantly predicted repost. We further regressed repost on SES and found that SES significantly predicted repost, B = .26, SE = .13, t = 2.05, p = .04. Further multiple mediation analysis (model 4 in PROCESS) showed a significant total indirect effect of SES on repost, B = .12, SE = .06, 95% CI [.0142, .2599]. Whereas GBJW significantly mediated the effect of SES on repost, B = .18, SE = .06, 95% CI [.0755, .3324], the mediating effect of PBJW was not significant, B = -.06, SE = .06, 95% CI [-.2112, .0516] (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. The mediating roles of PBJW and GBJW in the relationship between SES and repost behaviors. Unstandardized coefficients are displayed. *p < .05, ***p < .001.

Finally, we tested the mediation model for the willingness to follow the event updates. We regressed online follow-up on PBJW and GBJW, respectively, which showed that both PBJW, B = .06, SE = .01, t = 3.92, p < .001, and GBJW, B = .08, SE = .01, t = 5.56, p < .001, significantly predicted follow-up behaviors. We further regressed follow-up on SES and found a significant effect, B = .25, SE = .13, t = 1.98, p = .05. Further multiple mediation analysis (model

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

17

4 in PROCESS) showed a significant total indirect effect of SES on follow-up, B = .16, SE = .06, 95% CI [.0491, .2008]. GBJW significantly mediated the effect of SES on follow-up, B = .17, SE = .06, 95% CI [.0741, .3129], but the mediating effect of PBJW was not significant, B = -.02, SE = .06, 95% CI [-.1473, .0916] (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. The mediating roles of PBJW and GBJW in the relationship between SES and followup on event updates. Unstandardized coefficients are displayed. *p < .05, ***p < .001.

Discussion The emergence of Internet technology and the associated social media have dramatically changed people’s lives. Online shaming can be regarded as a new form of social control exercised via Internet. Although it may be intended for reestablishing the disrupted social order, its aggressive and hostile tactics to defend social norms can bring about detrimental effects (Skoric et al., 2010). By examining online shaming from the perspectives of socioeconomic status and belief in a just world, we aimed to delineate individual factors that motivate people to engage in online shaming.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

18

SES Effect on Online Shaming As expected, the SES level was positively correlated with online shaming, whereby those with higher SES were more inclined to conduct online shaming than those with lower SES. Intuitively, one may think that lower SES individuals would behave more aggressively towards transgressions posted online. It is a common perception that the decentralized feature of Internet is conductive for grassroots to make their voice heard and to participate in online discourse production and dissemination (Bennett, 2003; Tabbi, 1997; Tang & Yang, 2011). However, in reality, the Internet discursive power often resides in those who come from middle and upper classes (Tang & Yang, 2011; Zhao & Fu, 2010), and Internet access is positively associated with income and education (Goldman, 2015). Indeed, people with lower SES not only have less access to opportunities to express their viewpoints online, they also have a higher level of tolerance for injustice and tend to accept the existing social order in which they are at disadvantage (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Kraus & Keltner, 2013). Furthermore, online shaming is an autonomous behavior with the purpose of defending social norms and preventing future deviance. People with higher SES tend to have higher income, better functional health, and higher education. They are more willing to take social responsibilities and participate in voluntary work than those with lower SES (Smith, 1994). Therefore, when higher SES individuals are confronted with social transgression events, they are more likely to take actions against the transgressor. Our finding is consistent with previous

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

19

observations that individuals who more frequently contribute on online shaming websites tend to be more socially responsible and have a higher level of openness (Skoric et al., 2010). In addition, online shaming calls for public humiliation, with the expression of anger and contempt towards the offender. It is essentially a form of aggression. Research has shown that aggression often results from the urge to take control of a situation that elicits distress (Bushman, Baumeister, & Phillips, 2001). People in higher SES groups are characterized by a high demand for control and tend to feel that they deserve more than others (Piff, 2014). They are also more likely to endorse punishment over rehabilitation for criminal offenders (Kraus & Keltner, 2013). Online shaming takes place in service of gaining control over the transgressions. Hence, people with higher SES engaged more in this form of aggressive behavior than those with lower SES. Notably, our findings showed that SES was significantly associated with the tendency to repost or like the hostile comments and the willingness to follow the event updates, but was not directly related to the expression of anger. This suggests that participants felt equally angry about the online transgression regardless of SES. On the other hand, SES had a significant indirect effect on anger via PBJW, which we discuss in the next section. In addition, when asked to explicitly express how angry they felt about the event, participants might restrain their reports due to a social desirability effect. This is reflected in the participants’ reported reasons for their online shaming behavior, which was mainly to defend against injustice rather than to vent their anger. Nevertheless, those who expressed strong angers about the transgression were also more likely to repost or like the hostile comments and to follow the updates on the event.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

20

The Mediating Role of BJW We found that both personal and general beliefs in a just world were positively associated with all three forms of online shaming. This is consistent with the theorization that strong beliefs in a just world motivate individuals to maintain the existing social order and protect the fairness of the world (Hafer, Bègue, Choma, & Dempsey, 2005). Furthermore, as predicted, PBJW and GBJW mediated the effect of SES on online shaming, whereby higher SES individuals, in line with their interest in individual rights and social justice (Greenberg et al, 1982; Kraus et al., 2012; Smith, 1994), held stronger just-world beliefs, which in turn made them more inclined to engage in online shaming. Interestingly, PBJW and GBJW, given their different characteristics, manifested in different ways. Whereas PBJW mediated the effect of SES on anger expression, GBJW mediated the effect of SES on the tendency to repost or like the hostile comments and the willingness to keep abreast of the event. PBJW has been found to have positive implications for individuals’ psychological wellbeing as well as benevolent behavior (Bègue et al., 2008; Dalbert, 1999, 2009; Lipkus et al., 1996). GBJW, in contrast, has been associated with antagonistic and harsh attitudes towards those who disrupt the social order (Bègue et al., 2008; Khera et al., 2014; Sutton & Douglas, 2005). Compared with the other two measures of online shaming, feeling angry about a transgression may be less oriented towards actions of deterring and punishing deviant behaviors. Thus, by expressing anger, higher SES individuals with strong PBJW may gain a sense of control and justice without derogating or harming others. In contrast, by endorsing abusive

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

21

comments and following the event updates, higher SES individuals with strong GBJW may adopt punitive actions to deter transgressions and protect their just beliefs. As an emerging form of informal social control, online shaming is exercised for the purpose of justice and behavioral control. Informal social control is often considered to be a way of reducing crime and deviance but not being a deviant action itself. However, when it is exercised online, individuals often adopt antisocial and abusive behaviors that are vastly different from how they usually act in the real world (Solove, 2007). Our findings further suggest that the dilemma of online shaming between “good intention” and “bad behavior” may indeed be underlined by different mechanisms concerning individuals’ beliefs in excising benevolence versus punishment to maintain a just world. Theoretical and Practical Implications Although much work has been done on socioeconomic status, many issues have not yet been fully understood in terms of how SES shapes psychological experiences (Kraus & Stephens, 2012). Studies on the relation between SES and aggression have not always yielded consistent results (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2016b; Kraus, Horberg, Goetz, & Keltner, 2011). Our study is the first to examine the effect of SES on the aggressive behavior of online shaming. The findings suggest that the motives behind online shaming are a key factor to be taken into consideration in order to understand the impact of SES. Online shaming typically aims at defending social norms, although it often manifests in the way of aggression. People with higher SES exhibit stronger just-world beliefs and greater motivation to intervene and, consequently,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

22

show greater engagement in online shaming. Intervention programs that are designed to mitigate the negative impact of online shaming should focus on this population. Our findings also have implications for the theory of belief in a just world. Unlike previous studies showing effects of PBJW on a variety of positive outcomes, we found that people with strong PBJW, just like those with strong GBJW, were more inclined to engage in online shaming, although they may be less action-oriented than those with strong GBJW. GBJW, on the other hand, may motivate more harmful behaviors in cyberspace. The different motivations for people with strong PBJW and those with strong GBJW to engage in online shaming require further investigation. Shaming as a way of crime prevention has been widely discussed in criminology and sociology. However, there have been very few psychological studies examining its causes, processes, and consequences. Furthermore, online shaming is a fast-growing phenomenon with the emergence of the Internet technology and it warrants attention from researchers and practitioners. Our study took the first step and revealed the influences of socioeconomic status and belief in a just world. Further studies are called for to examine online shaming and provide empirical basis for intervention programs to reduce or even eliminate its disruptive effects.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

23

Reference Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586. doi: 10.1037//02786133.19.6.586 Aman, M. M., & Jayroe, T. J. (2013). ICT, Social Media, and the Arab Transition to Democracy: From Venting to Acting. DOMES: Digest Of Middle East Studies, 22(2), 317-347. doi:10.1111/dome.12024 Auslander, G. K., & Litwin, H. (1988). Sociability and patterns of participation: Implications for social service policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 17(2), 25-37. Bachman, R., Paternoster, R., & Ward, S. (1992). The rationality of sexual offending: Testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law and Society Review, 343372. doi: 10.2307/3053901 Bègue, L., & Bastounis, M. (2003). Two spheres of belief in justice: Extensive support for the bidimensional model of belief in a just world. Journal of Personality, 71(3), 435-463. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.7103007 Bègue, L., Charmoillaux, M., Cochet, J., Cury, C., & De Suremain, F. (2008). Altruistic behavior and the bidimensional just world belief. The American Journal of Psychology, 47-56. doi: 10.2307/20445443

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

24

Bennett, W. L. (2003). New Media Power: The Internet and Global Activism. In N. Couldry & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World (1738). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Boyce, C. J., Brown, G. D. A., & Moore, S. C. (2010). Money and happiness rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychol Sci, 21(4), 471-475. doi: 10.1177/0956797610362671 Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding. J Pers Soc Psychol, 81(1), 17. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.17 Cheung, A. S. Y. (2014). Revisiting privacy and dignity: Online shaming in the global e-village. Laws, 3(2), 301-326. doi:10.3390/laws3020301 Cohen, S., Alper, C. M., Doyle, W. J., Adler, N., Treanor, J. J., & Turner, R. B. (2008). Objective and subjective socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold. Health Psychology, 27(2), 268. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.268 Dalbert, C. (1999). The World is More Just for Me than Generally: About the Personal Belief in a Just World Scale's Validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 79-98. doi: 10.1023/A:1022091609047 Dalbert, C. (2009). Belief in a just world. Handbook of individual differences in social behavior, 288-297.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

25

Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-computer interaction, 6(2), 119-146. Dzuka, J., & Dalbert, C. (2002). Mental Health and Personality of Slovak Unemployed Adolescents: The Impact of Belief in a Just World1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 732-757. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00240.x Edwards, J. N., & White, R. P. (1980). Predictors of social participation: Apparent or real?. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 9(1-4), 60-73. Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 795-817. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00072-7 Goldman, L. M. (2015). Trending Now: The Use of Social Media Websites in Public Shaming Punishments. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 52, 415. Goodman, E., Adler, N. E., Kawachi, I., Frazier, A. L., Huang, B., & Colditz, G. A. (2001). Adolescents' perceptions of social status: development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), e31-e31. Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik Jr, R. J. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 837-861. doi: 10.2307/3053861 Greenberg, S. W., Rohe, W. M., & Williams, J. R. (1982). Safety in urban neighborhoods: A comparison of physical characteristics and informal territorial control in high and low

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

26

crime neighborhoods. Population and Environment, 5(3), 141-165. doi: 10.1007/BF01257054 Greitemeyer, T., & Sagioglou, C. (2016a). Subjective socioeconomic status causes aggression: A test of the theory of social deprivation. J Pers Soc Psychol, 111(2), 178-194. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000058 Greitemeyer, T., & Sagioglou, C. (2016b). Subjective Socioeconomic Status Causes Aggression: A Test of the Theory of Social Deprivation. J Pers Soc Psychol. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000058 Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Morrison, B. M. (1978). Personal and ideological aspects of internal and external control. Social Psychology, 275-296. doi: 10.2307/3033581 Hafer, C. L., Bègue, L., Choma, B. L., & Dempsey, J. L. (2005). Belief in a just world and commitment to long-term deserved outcomes. Social Justice Research, 18(4), 429-444. doi: 10.1007/s11211-005-8569-3 Hodgkinson, V. A., Weitzman, M. S., Noga, S. M., & Gorski, H. A. (1992). Giving and volunteering among American teenagers 12 to 17 years of age: Washington, DC: Independent Sector. Johnson, W., & Krueger, R. F. (2006). How money buys happiness: genetic and environmental processes linking finances and life satisfaction. J Pers Soc Psychol, 90(4), 680. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.680

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

Johnston, L. (1996). What is vigilantism? British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 220-236. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014083 Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political psychology, 25(6), 881-919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x Kahan, D. M., & Posner, E. A. (1999). Shaming White‐Collar Criminals: A Proposal for Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines*. The Journal of Law and Economics, 42(S1), 365-392. Khera, M. L. K., Harvey, A. J., & Callan, M. J. (2014). Beliefs in a just world, subjective wellbeing and attitudes towards refugees among refugee workers. Social Justice Research, 27(4), 432-443.doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0220-8 Kraus, M. W., Horberg, E. J., Goetz, J. L., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social class rank, threat vigilance, and hostile reactivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0146167211410987. Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2013). Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol, 105(2), 247. doi: 10.1037/a0032895 Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. J Pers Soc Psychol, 97(6), 992. doi: 10.1037/a0016357

27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

28

Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546. doi: 10.1037/a0028756 Kraus, M. W., & Stephens, N. M. (2012). A road map for an emerging psychology of social class. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(9), 642-656. doi: 10.1111/j.17519004.2012.00453.x Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol, 74(3), 763. doi: 10.1037/00223514.74.3.763 Laidlaw, E. B. (2016). Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy. doi: 10.20944/preprints201612.0112.v1 Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. In The Belief in a just World (pp. 9-30). Springer US. Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: looking back and ahead. Psychological bulletin, 85(5), 1030. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030 Lindsay-Hartz, J., de Rivera, J., & Mascolo, M. (1995). Differentiating shame and guilt and their effects on motivation. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 274-300). New York: Guilford Press.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

29

Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 666-677. Lu, X. Y. (2004). Research report on Chinese contemporary social class (in Chinese). Beijing: Research report on Chinese contemporary social class. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 57-75. Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 467-496. Oswald, M. E., Hupfeld, J., Klug, S. C., & Gabriel, U. (2002). Lay-perspectives on criminal deviance, goals of punishment, and punitivity. Social Justice Research, 15(2), 85-98. doi: 10.1023/A:1019928721720 Piff, P. K. (2014). Wealth and the inflated self class, entitlement, and narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 34-43. doi: 10.1177/0146167213501699 Rafferty, R. (2011). Motvations Behind Cyber Bullying and Online Aggression: Cyber Sanctions, Dominance, and Trolling Online. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ Ronson, J. (2016). So you've been publicly shamed. New York: Riverhead Books.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

30

Rosenbaum, D. P. (1987). The theory and research behind neighborhood watch: Is it a sound fear and crime reduction strategy? Crime & Delinquency, 33(1), 103-134. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication research, 32(5), 531-565. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computermediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(2), 157-187. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90050-6 Skoric, M. M., Chua, J. P. E., Liew, M. A., Wong, K. H., & Yeo, P. J. (2010). Online Shaming in the Asian Context: Community Empowerment or Civic Vigilantism? Surveillance & Society, 8(2), 181-199. Smallridge, J., Wagner, P., & Crowl, J. N. (2016). Understanding Cyber-Vigilantism: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 8(1), 57. Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243-263. Solove, D. J. (2007). The future of reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the Internet: Yale University Press. Sutton, R. M., & Douglas, K. M. (2005). Justice for all, or just for me? More evidence of the importance of the self-other distinction in just-world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 637-645. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.010

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

31

Sutton, R. M., & Winnard, E. J. (2007). Looking ahead through lenses of justice: The relevance of just‐world beliefs to intentions and confidence in the future. British journal of social psychology, 46(3), 649-666. doi: 10.1348/014466606X166220 Tabbi, J. (1997). Reading, writing, hypertext: democratic politics in the virtual classroom. In Porter, D. (ed.), Internet Culture (233–252). New York: Routledge. Tang, L., & Yang, P. (2011). Symbolic power and the internet: The power of a ‘horse’. Media, Culture & Society, 33(5), 675-691. doi: 10.1177/0163443711404462 Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. N. (1981). Informal control in the urban residential environment (Final Report). Washington, DC: Community Crime Prevention Division, National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological bulletin, 103(2), 193. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law and Society Review, 237265. doi: 10.2307/3053926 Wall, D. S., & Williams, M. (2007). Policing diversity in the digital age Maintaining order in virtual communities. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7(4), 391-415. doi: 10.1177/1748895807082064

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

32

Wehmhoener, K. A. (2010). Social norm or social harm: An exploratory study of internet vigilantism. (Graduate Thesis). Retrieved from Graduate College at Digital Repository (Accession No. 11572) Wenzel, M., & Thielmann, I. (2006). Why we punish in the name of justice: Just desert versus value restoration and the role of social identity. Social Justice Research, 19(4), 450-470. doi: 10.1007/s11211-006-0028-2 Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 694-713. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of consumer research, 37(2), 197-206. Zhao, Y. Z., & Fu, B. Q. (2010). Analysis of the social strata of Internet discursive power in China mainland. Journal of International Communication(5), 63-70. Zimbardo, P. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Socioeconomic Status and Online Shaming

Acknowledgement This research was supported by a grant from the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation (31528014) to Qi Wang and Yubo Hou.

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights 

Individuals with higher socioeconomic status are more inclined to engage in online shaming.



Belief in a just world contributes to online shaming.



Belief in a just world further mediates the relationship between socioeconomic status and online shaming