Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities.

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Campbell Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-01-16 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1002/cl2.70018
Pablo Madriaza, Ghayda Hassan, Sébastien Brouillette-Alarie, Aoudou Njingouo Mounchingam, Loïc Durocher-Corfa, Eugene Borokhovski, David Pickup, Sabrina Paillé
{"title":"Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities.","authors":"Pablo Madriaza, Ghayda Hassan, Sébastien Brouillette-Alarie, Aoudou Njingouo Mounchingam, Loïc Durocher-Corfa, Eugene Borokhovski, David Pickup, Sabrina Paillé","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>The problem: </strong>People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>Searches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>This review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Fifty-five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psychological effects. When two or more outcomes from the studies addressed the same construct, they were synthesized together. A separate meta-analysis was conducted for each identified outcome from different samples. Additionally, experimental and quasi-experimental studies were synthesized separately from correlational studies. Twenty-four meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model, and meta-regressions and moderator analyses were conducted to explore factors influencing effect size estimates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 55 studies included in this systematic review were published between 1996 and 2021, with most of them published since 2015. They include 25 correlational studies, and 22 randomized and 8 non-randomized experimental studies. Most of these studies provide data extracted from individuals (e.g., self-report); however, this review includes 6 studies that are based on quantitative analysis of comments or posts, or their relationship to specific geographic areas. Correlational studies encompass sample sizes ranging from 101 to 6829 participants, while experimental and quasi-experimental studies involve participant numbers between 69 and 1112. In most cases, the exposure to hate content occurred online or within social media contexts (37 studies), while only 8 studies reported such exposure in traditional media platforms. In the remaining studies, the exposure to hate content was delivered through political propaganda, primarily associated with extreme right-wing groups. No studies were removed from the systematic review due to quality assessment. In the experimental studies, participants demonstrated high adherence to the experimental conditions and thus contributed significantly to most of the results. The correlational and quasi-experimental studies used consistent, valid, and reliable instruments to measure exposure and outcomes derived from well-defined variables. As with the experimental studies, the results from the correlation and quasi-experimental studies were complete. Meta-analyses related to four dimensions were performed: Attitudinal changes, Intergroup dynamics, Interpersonal behaviors, and Psychological effects. We were unable to conduct a meta-analysis for the \"Political Beliefs\" dimension due to an insufficient number of studies. In terms of attitude changes, exposure to hate leads to negative attitudes (<i>d</i> <sub>Ex</sub> = 0.414; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.005, 0.824; <i>p</i> < 0.05; <i>n</i> = 8 and <i>d</i> <sub>corr</sub> = 0.322; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.504; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>n</i> = 2) and negative stereotypes (<i>d</i> <sub>Ex</sub> = 0.28; 95% CI = -0.018, 0.586; <i>p</i> < 0.10; <i>n</i> = 9) about individuals or groups with protected characteristics, while also hindering the promotion of positive attitudes toward them (<i>d</i> <sub>exp</sub> = -0.227; 95% CI = -0.466, 0.011; <i>p</i> < 0.10; <i>n</i> = 3). However, it does not increase support for hate content or political violence. Concerning intergroup dynamics, exposure to hate reduces intergroup trust (<i>d</i> <sub>exp</sub> = -0.308; 95% CI = -0.559, -0.058; <i>p</i> < 0.05; <i>n</i> = 2), especially between targeted groups and the general population, but has no significant impact on the perception of discrimination among minorities. In the context of Interpersonal behaviors, the meta-analyses confirm a strong association between exposure to hate and victimization (<i>d</i> <sub>corr</sub> = 0.721; 95% CI = 0.472, 0.97; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>n</i> = 3) and moderate effects on online hate speech perpetration (<i>d</i> <sub>corr</sub> = 0.36; 95% CI = -0.028, 0.754; <i>p</i> < 0.10; <i>n</i> = 2) and offline violent behavior (<i>d</i> <sub>corr</sub> = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.328, 0.612; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>n</i> = 2). Exposure to online hate also fuels more hate in online comments (<i>d</i> = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.034-0.984; <i>p</i> < 0.05; <i>n</i> = 2) but does not seem to affect hate crimes directly. However, there is no evidence that exposure to hate fosters resistance behaviors among individuals who are frequently subjected to it (e.g. the intention to counter-argue factually). In terms of psychological consequences, this review demonstrates that exposure to hate content negatively affects individuals' psychological well-being. Experimental studies indicate a large and significant effect size concerning the development of depressive symptoms due to exposure (<i>d</i> <sub>exp</sub> = 1.105; 95% CI = 0.797, 1.423; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>n</i> = 2). Additionally, a small effect size is observed concerning the link between exposure and reduced life satisfaction(<i>d</i> <sub>corr</sub> = -0.186; 95% CI = -0.279, -0.093; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>n</i> = 3), as well as increased social fear regarding the likelihood of a terrorist attack (<i>d</i> <sub>corr</sub> = -0.206; 95% CI = 0.147, 0.264; <i>p</i> < 0.01 <i>n</i> = 5). Conversely, exposure to hate speech does not seem to generate or be linked to the development of negative emotions related to its content.</p><p><strong>Author's conclusions: </strong>This systematic review confirms that exposure to hate in online and in traditional media has a significant negative impact on individuals and groups. It emphasizes the importance of taking these findings into account for policymaking, prevention, and intervention strategies. Hate speech spreads through biased commentary and perceptions, normalizing prejudice and causing harm. This not only leads to violence, victimization, and perpetration of hate speech but also contributes to a broader climate of hostility. Conversely, this research suggests that people exposed to this type of content do not show increased shock or revulsion toward it. This may explain why it is easily disseminated and often perceived as harmless, leading some to oppose its regulation. Focusing efforts solely on content control may then have a limited impact in driving substantial change. More research is needed to explore these variables, as well as the relationship between hate speech and political beliefs and the connection to violent extremism. Indeed, we know very little about how exposure to hate influences political and extremist views.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 1","pages":"e70018"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The problem: People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate.

Objective: The objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups.

Search methods: Searches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers.

Selection criteria: This review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups.

Data collection and analysis: Fifty-five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psychological effects. When two or more outcomes from the studies addressed the same construct, they were synthesized together. A separate meta-analysis was conducted for each identified outcome from different samples. Additionally, experimental and quasi-experimental studies were synthesized separately from correlational studies. Twenty-four meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model, and meta-regressions and moderator analyses were conducted to explore factors influencing effect size estimates.

Results: The 55 studies included in this systematic review were published between 1996 and 2021, with most of them published since 2015. They include 25 correlational studies, and 22 randomized and 8 non-randomized experimental studies. Most of these studies provide data extracted from individuals (e.g., self-report); however, this review includes 6 studies that are based on quantitative analysis of comments or posts, or their relationship to specific geographic areas. Correlational studies encompass sample sizes ranging from 101 to 6829 participants, while experimental and quasi-experimental studies involve participant numbers between 69 and 1112. In most cases, the exposure to hate content occurred online or within social media contexts (37 studies), while only 8 studies reported such exposure in traditional media platforms. In the remaining studies, the exposure to hate content was delivered through political propaganda, primarily associated with extreme right-wing groups. No studies were removed from the systematic review due to quality assessment. In the experimental studies, participants demonstrated high adherence to the experimental conditions and thus contributed significantly to most of the results. The correlational and quasi-experimental studies used consistent, valid, and reliable instruments to measure exposure and outcomes derived from well-defined variables. As with the experimental studies, the results from the correlation and quasi-experimental studies were complete. Meta-analyses related to four dimensions were performed: Attitudinal changes, Intergroup dynamics, Interpersonal behaviors, and Psychological effects. We were unable to conduct a meta-analysis for the "Political Beliefs" dimension due to an insufficient number of studies. In terms of attitude changes, exposure to hate leads to negative attitudes (d Ex = 0.414; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.005, 0.824; p < 0.05; n = 8 and d corr = 0.322; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.504; p < 0.01; n = 2) and negative stereotypes (d Ex = 0.28; 95% CI = -0.018, 0.586; p < 0.10; n = 9) about individuals or groups with protected characteristics, while also hindering the promotion of positive attitudes toward them (d exp = -0.227; 95% CI = -0.466, 0.011; p < 0.10; n = 3). However, it does not increase support for hate content or political violence. Concerning intergroup dynamics, exposure to hate reduces intergroup trust (d exp = -0.308; 95% CI = -0.559, -0.058; p < 0.05; n = 2), especially between targeted groups and the general population, but has no significant impact on the perception of discrimination among minorities. In the context of Interpersonal behaviors, the meta-analyses confirm a strong association between exposure to hate and victimization (d corr = 0.721; 95% CI = 0.472, 0.97; p < 0.01; n = 3) and moderate effects on online hate speech perpetration (d corr = 0.36; 95% CI = -0.028, 0.754; p < 0.10; n = 2) and offline violent behavior (d corr = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.328, 0.612; p < 0.01; n = 2). Exposure to online hate also fuels more hate in online comments (d = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.034-0.984; p < 0.05; n = 2) but does not seem to affect hate crimes directly. However, there is no evidence that exposure to hate fosters resistance behaviors among individuals who are frequently subjected to it (e.g. the intention to counter-argue factually). In terms of psychological consequences, this review demonstrates that exposure to hate content negatively affects individuals' psychological well-being. Experimental studies indicate a large and significant effect size concerning the development of depressive symptoms due to exposure (d exp = 1.105; 95% CI = 0.797, 1.423; p < 0.01; n = 2). Additionally, a small effect size is observed concerning the link between exposure and reduced life satisfaction(d corr = -0.186; 95% CI = -0.279, -0.093; p < 0.01; n = 3), as well as increased social fear regarding the likelihood of a terrorist attack (d corr = -0.206; 95% CI = 0.147, 0.264; p < 0.01 n = 5). Conversely, exposure to hate speech does not seem to generate or be linked to the development of negative emotions related to its content.

Author's conclusions: This systematic review confirms that exposure to hate in online and in traditional media has a significant negative impact on individuals and groups. It emphasizes the importance of taking these findings into account for policymaking, prevention, and intervention strategies. Hate speech spreads through biased commentary and perceptions, normalizing prejudice and causing harm. This not only leads to violence, victimization, and perpetration of hate speech but also contributes to a broader climate of hostility. Conversely, this research suggests that people exposed to this type of content do not show increased shock or revulsion toward it. This may explain why it is easily disseminated and often perceived as harmless, leading some to oppose its regulation. Focusing efforts solely on content control may then have a limited impact in driving substantial change. More research is needed to explore these variables, as well as the relationship between hate speech and political beliefs and the connection to violent extremism. Indeed, we know very little about how exposure to hate influences political and extremist views.

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
在网络和传统媒体中暴露于仇恨:对这种暴露对个人和社区的影响的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
问题是:人们使用社交媒体平台聊天、搜索、分享信息、表达意见以及与他人联系。但这些平台也为发布分裂、有害和仇恨的信息提供了便利,这些信息针对的是种族、宗教、性别、性取向或政治观点不同的群体和个人。仇恨内容不仅在互联网上存在,在传统媒体上也存在,特别是在互联网不普及的地方或农村地区。尽管越来越多的人意识到暴露在仇恨中会造成伤害,尤其是对受害者,但对于作为旁观者的这种暴露对个人、群体和整个人群产生的具体影响,文献中没有明确的共识。现有的研究大多集中在分析问题的内容和程度上。需要在这一领域进行更多的研究,以制定更好的干预计划,以适应当前的仇恨现实。目的:本综述的目的是综合关于媒体接触仇恨如何影响或与个人和群体的各种结果相关的经验证据。搜索方法:搜索时间覆盖至2021年12月,以评估暴露于仇恨的影响。这些搜索是通过20个数据库、51个相关网站、谷歌搜索引擎以及其他系统评论和相关论文的搜索词进行的。选择标准:本综述包括任何相关的、实验性的和准实验性的研究,这些研究建立了网络和传统媒体上的仇恨暴露与对个人或群体产生的后果之间的影响关系和/或关联。数据收集和分析:筛选过程后,确定了55项研究,分析了101个效应量,分为43种不同的结果。最初,根据设计类型和研究中使用的统计量计算效应量,然后转换为标准化平均差异。在对研究中存在的操作结构进行详尽的审查后,对每个结果进行了分类。这些结果分为五个主要方面:态度变化、群体间动态、人际行为、政治信仰和心理影响。当两个或两个以上的研究结果处理相同的结构时,它们被综合在一起。对来自不同样本的每个确定结果进行单独的荟萃分析。此外,实验和准实验研究与相关研究分开合成。采用随机效应模型进行了24项荟萃分析,并进行了荟萃回归和调节分析,以探讨影响效应大小估计的因素。结果:本系统综述纳入的55项研究发表于1996年至2021年之间,其中大部分发表于2015年以后。其中包括25项相关研究,22项随机实验和8项非随机实验。这些研究大多提供来自个人的数据(例如,自我报告);然而,本综述包括6项研究,这些研究是基于对评论或帖子的定量分析,或它们与特定地理区域的关系。相关研究的样本量从101到6829人不等,而实验和准实验研究的参与者人数在69到1112人之间。在大多数情况下,仇恨内容的暴露发生在网上或社交媒体环境中(37项研究),而只有8项研究报告了在传统媒体平台上的这种暴露。在其余的研究中,仇恨内容是通过政治宣传传播的,主要与极端右翼团体有关。没有研究因质量评估而被从系统评价中删除。在实验研究中,参与者表现出对实验条件的高度依从性,从而对大多数结果做出了重大贡献。相关和准实验研究使用一致、有效和可靠的工具来测量暴露和由定义明确的变量得出的结果。与实验研究一样,相关研究和准实验研究的结果是完整的。对态度变化、群体间动态、人际行为和心理效应四个维度进行meta分析。由于研究数量不足,我们无法对“政治信仰”维度进行荟萃分析。在态度变化方面,接触仇恨导致消极态度(d Ex = 0.414;95%置信区间[CI] = 0.005, 0.824;P = 8, d - corr = 0.322;95% ci = 0.14, 0.504;p n = 2)和负性刻板印象(d Ex = 0.28;95% ci = -0.018, 0。 586年;P = 9),同时也阻碍了对他们的积极态度的促进(d exp = -0.227;95% ci = -0.466, 0.011;p n = 3)。然而,它不会增加对仇恨内容或政治暴力的支持。在群体间动力学方面,暴露于仇恨会降低群体间信任(d exp = -0.308;95% ci = -0.559, -0.058;P n = 2),特别是目标群体与一般人群之间,但对少数群体的歧视感知没有显著影响。在人际行为的背景下,荟萃分析证实了暴露于仇恨和受害之间的强烈关联(d相关系数= 0.721;95% ci = 0.472, 0.97;P n = 3)和适度影响对网络仇恨言论犯罪的影响(d corr = 0.36;95% ci = -0.028, 0.754;P n = 2)和线下暴力行为(d corr = 0.47;95%ci = 0.328, 0.612;p n = 2)。接触网络仇恨也会在网络评论中引发更多的仇恨(d = 0.51;95% ci = 0.034-0.984;P n = 2),但似乎并不直接影响仇恨犯罪。然而,没有证据表明,在经常遭受仇恨的个体中,暴露于仇恨会培养抵抗行为(例如,意图以事实反驳)。在心理后果方面,本研究表明,接触仇恨内容会对个体的心理健康产生负面影响。实验研究表明,暴露对抑郁症状的发展有很大且显著的影响(d exp = 1.105;95% ci = 0.797, 1.423;p n = 2)。此外,观察到暴露与生活满意度降低之间的联系存在较小的效应量(d相关系数= -0.186;95% ci = -0.279, -0.093;P n = 3),以及对恐怖袭击可能性的社会恐惧增加(d corr = -0.206;95% ci = 0.147, 0.264;p n = 5)。相反,接触仇恨言论似乎不会产生或与其内容相关的负面情绪的发展有关。作者的结论:这一系统综述证实,在网络和传统媒体上接触仇恨对个人和群体都有显著的负面影响。它强调了将这些发现纳入决策、预防和干预策略的重要性。仇恨言论通过有偏见的评论和看法传播,使偏见正常化并造成伤害。这不仅会导致暴力、伤害和仇恨言论,还会助长更广泛的敌对气氛。相反,这项研究表明,接触这类内容的人不会对它表现出更多的震惊或厌恶。这也许可以解释为什么它很容易传播,而且经常被认为是无害的,导致一些人反对对其进行监管。仅仅把精力集中在内容控制上,在推动实质性变革方面可能会产生有限的影响。需要更多的研究来探索这些变量,以及仇恨言论与政治信仰之间的关系以及与暴力极端主义的联系。事实上,我们对仇恨如何影响政治和极端主义观点所知甚少。
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
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Critical appraisal of methodological quality and completeness of reporting in Chinese social science systematic reviews with meta-analysis: A systematic review. The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing problematic substance use, mental ill health, and housing instability in people experiencing homelessness in high income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities. PROTOCOL: Non-criminal justice interventions for countering cognitive and behavioural radicalisation amongst children and adolescents: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation. Protocol: The impact of integrated thematic instruction model on primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching: A protocol of systematic review.
×
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