Examining the role of moral, emotional, behavioural, and personality factors in predicting online shaming.

Abstract

Online shaming, where people engage in social policing by shaming perceived transgressions via the internet, is a widespread global phenomenon. Despite its negative consequences, scarce research has been conducted and existing knowledge is largely anecdotal. Using a correlational online survey, this mixed-method study firstly assessed whether moral grandstanding, moral disengagement, emotional reactivity, empathy, social vigilantism, online disinhibition, machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy predict participants' (N = 411; aged 15-78) likelihood to engage in online shaming. Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed these predictors significantly accounted for 39% of variance in online shaming intentions, and 20% of variance in perceived deservedness of online shaming (f2 = .25 and .64 respectively, p < .001). A content analysis of an open-ended question offered further insights into public opinions about online shaming. These qualitative findings included the perception of online shaming as a form of accountability, the perceived destructive effects of online shaming, the perceived role of anonymity in online shaming, online shaming as a form of entertainment, online shaming involving 'two sides to every story', the notion that 'hurt people hurt people', online shaming as now a social norm, and the distinction between the online shaming of public and private figures. These findings can be used to inform the general public and advise appropriate responses from service providers and policy makers to mitigate damaging impacts of this phenomenon.