Examination of Polarization in Social Media in Aggressor-Oriented and Victim-Oriented Discourse Following Vigilantism

IF 6.9 3区 管理学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS Information Systems Frontiers Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1007/s10796-024-10578-8
Shalini Kapali Kurumathur, Paras Bhatt, Rohit Valecha, Govind Hariharan, H. Raghav Rao
{"title":"Examination of Polarization in Social Media in Aggressor-Oriented and Victim-Oriented Discourse Following Vigilantism","authors":"Shalini Kapali Kurumathur, Paras Bhatt, Rohit Valecha, Govind Hariharan, H. Raghav Rao","doi":"10.1007/s10796-024-10578-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the year 2020, two real-world vigilantism incidents invited nationwide discourses on social media: the fatal shooting of two men by Kyle Rittenhouse (an aggressor) and the murder of Ahmaud Arbery (a victim). The public engaged vigorously in social media discussions of approval or disapproval of the aggressor or victim in such vigilantism incidents. While diversity of opinions is a healthy driver of advancement, extreme polarization can be a powerful barrier to achieving societal progress and human flourishing. In this paper, we first examine public opinion regarding these vigilantism incidents. We identify various issues expressed in social media conversations and find that compared to victim-oriented discourse, aggressor-oriented discourse on vigilantism displays more opinion polarization. The discourses show that aggressor-oriented vigilantism discussions largely support vigilantism, self-defense, and the right to bear arms. On the other hand, victim-oriented discourses largely disapprove of vigilantism incidents. We also find that positive emotions in discourses are more polarized compared to negative emotions. Our work has practical implications concerning polarization on social media after devastating events.</p>","PeriodicalId":13610,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Frontiers","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Systems Frontiers","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10578-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the year 2020, two real-world vigilantism incidents invited nationwide discourses on social media: the fatal shooting of two men by Kyle Rittenhouse (an aggressor) and the murder of Ahmaud Arbery (a victim). The public engaged vigorously in social media discussions of approval or disapproval of the aggressor or victim in such vigilantism incidents. While diversity of opinions is a healthy driver of advancement, extreme polarization can be a powerful barrier to achieving societal progress and human flourishing. In this paper, we first examine public opinion regarding these vigilantism incidents. We identify various issues expressed in social media conversations and find that compared to victim-oriented discourse, aggressor-oriented discourse on vigilantism displays more opinion polarization. The discourses show that aggressor-oriented vigilantism discussions largely support vigilantism, self-defense, and the right to bear arms. On the other hand, victim-oriented discourses largely disapprove of vigilantism incidents. We also find that positive emotions in discourses are more polarized compared to negative emotions. Our work has practical implications concerning polarization on social media after devastating events.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会媒体在“自卫主义”之后的攻击导向与受害者导向话语中的两极分化
2020年,两起现实世界的义务警员事件在社交媒体上引发了全国性的讨论:凯尔·里滕豪斯(Kyle Rittenhouse)枪杀两名男子和艾哈迈德·阿贝里(Ahmaud Arbery)被谋杀(受害者)。公众积极参与社交媒体讨论,对此类自私自利事件中的施暴者或受害者表示赞同或反对。虽然意见的多样性是进步的健康动力,但极端两极分化可能成为实现社会进步和人类繁荣的强大障碍。在本文中,我们首先考察了公众对这些治安事件的看法。我们识别了社交媒体对话中表达的各种问题,发现与受害者导向的话语相比,以攻击者为导向的关于自卫主义的话语表现出更多的意见两极分化。这些论述表明,以侵略者为导向的治安维持主义讨论在很大程度上支持治安维持主义、自卫和携带武器的权利。另一方面,以受害者为导向的话语在很大程度上不赞成自卫行为。我们还发现,话语中的积极情绪比消极情绪更加两极化。我们的研究对灾难性事件后社交媒体上的两极分化具有实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Information Systems Frontiers
Information Systems Frontiers 工程技术-计算机:理论方法
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
18.60%
发文量
127
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: The interdisciplinary interfaces of Information Systems (IS) are fast emerging as defining areas of research and development in IS. These developments are largely due to the transformation of Information Technology (IT) towards networked worlds and its effects on global communications and economies. While these developments are shaping the way information is used in all forms of human enterprise, they are also setting the tone and pace of information systems of the future. The major advances in IT such as client/server systems, the Internet and the desktop/multimedia computing revolution, for example, have led to numerous important vistas of research and development with considerable practical impact and academic significance. While the industry seeks to develop high performance IS/IT solutions to a variety of contemporary information support needs, academia looks to extend the reach of IS technology into new application domains. Information Systems Frontiers (ISF) aims to provide a common forum of dissemination of frontline industrial developments of substantial academic value and pioneering academic research of significant practical impact.
期刊最新文献
Is Cybersecurity a Social Responsibility? Intelligent Network Element: A Programmable Switch Based on Machine Learning to Defend Against DDoS Attacks Can Gamification Foster Trust-Building in Human-Robot Collaboration? An Experiment in Virtual Reality Sustainable Development Through Technological Innovations and Data Analytics Examination of Polarization in Social Media in Aggressor-Oriented and Victim-Oriented Discourse Following Vigilantism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1