The Mediation (Emotional Self-Control) and Moderation (Fun) of the Relationship Between Receiving and Perpetrating Hate Speech Among Boys and Girls in Almeria (Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me to review this article.

I would also like to thank the author(s) for their efforts in addressing the challenges of the research.

 

Regarding the review of the text, I would first like to point out that I find it difficult to interpret/evaluate the research, objectives, and results presented in the article.

Basically, I observe an intense and extensive work with statistical data, and I miss a theoretical framework that argues and delves into the basic concepts addressed in the text.

 

(p. 2 L. 50 et seq.)

The first two paragraphs of the article define hate speech and introduce the concepts of victimization and perpetration of hate speech. If I understand correctly, these concepts are the basis of the analysis. Wouldn't it be necessary to include their definitions, characteristics, how they manifest themselves in the examples discussed with the surveys, or how they are classified for the analysis?

 

(p. 2 L. 54 et seq.)

In the following paragraphs, two basic motives for the use of hate speech are listed: revenge and fun. I understand that these are the only two motives included in the questionnaire: “The motives participants used to justify hate speech were revenge (J1) and entertainment (J2).” (On first reading, this caught my attention and later explained why I think it's necessary to delve deeper into these issues.)

Does the study consider the possibility of identifying other motives? If these are the basis of the analysis, wouldn't it be necessary to understand the characteristics and circumstances in which these motives arise?

Finally, wouldn't it be appropriate to provide more information about emotional intelligence and how it is observed, classified, or quantified in the data analysis?

 

 

From this point on, I find it difficult to interpret the analysis and results (which could be due to my own limitations). I'll try to explain this with an example:

 

(p. 6 L. 208 ff.) The text says:

"A percentile scale of the Emotional Self-Control Index was constructed, considering that if the sum of items L1, L2, L3, and L4 is less than 12, it is considered very low emotional self-control; if the scores are between 13 and 15, moderately low; between 17 and 18, moderately high; and more than 19, very high (Table 2)."

I interpret each item as being scored from 0 to 5, but I consider this excessively subjective. For example, I might rate L4 ("I care about how others feel") a "5," but in a different context or referring to a specific group, I might answer "1."

Wouldn't it be appropriate for each score on the scale to include more "objectifiable" elements? For example: L2: "I can control my behavior."

From 1: No — I respond automatically and aggressively, I don't tolerate criticism or offenses

to 5: I never respond and I don't get offended at all.

and look for feelings and actions that reflect differences at levels 2-3-4

 

But the main problem is that, based on the article, I can't interpret what is meant by emotional control; in what situations this emotional control is contextualized; and, therefore, I can't interpret what the participants answered or why.

 

I can't understand these statements without context. Therefore, I'm not convinced it's possible to draw conclusions like:

"Our results indicate that receiving hate speech does not imply perpetrating hate speech (c'=.40, p-value >.05 - not significant)." (p. 12 L 306 ff.) (p. 12 L. 306 ff.)

 

(p. 8 L. 234 ff.)

I have the same problem with the concept of "Perpetrifying hate speech." I can't interpret what was analyzed, nor what the objective was. A fundamental question is: in what context do participants respond about hate speech?

What do we consider hate speech? A joke? An insult? A call to discrimination or violence?

Is the response to a joke in bad taste the same as to loud insults in the middle of school, university, or work? Would the degree of violence involved require a different response?

(By the way, an aside. Receiving hate speech several times a week (in the participants' everyday life) is a serious social problem, not simply hate speech.)

 

Discussion (p. 12 L. 306 ff.)

Finally, after the results section, I would consider a broader space appropriate for the discussion and interpretation of the findings, as well as a conclusions section, which in this article is limited to just six paragraphs.

I'll try to give an example of the difficulties I have understanding this final section of the article:

(p. 12 L. 327 ff.)

As I mentioned earlier, I find it difficult to interpret the conclusions, written in two lines, which contradict the findings of numerous previous studies:

Regarding hate speech motivations, we found that revenge motivation was not significant as a moderating variable (Table 10), which contradicts the findings of Kowalski & Limber (2007) and Fluck (2017)…”

 

And I can't understand why the basis of the analysis considers only "revenge" or "fun" as motivations for hate speech in the analysis.

Other possible motives would be acting out of a need to protest; to set boundaries; as an emotional release from frustration; seeking support; making violence visible…

I would like to reiterate my gratitude to the author(s) for their efforts and hope that my comments will be of benefit to them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study on a highly relevant topic, which seeks to challenge some common assumptions about the psychosocial mechanisms underlying the use of hate speech on social media.

The first issue we consider important is that the study should precisely conceptualize the phenomenon it addresses: Is it incivility, digital violence, or hate speech? The distinctions and nuances in this regard are not trivial and have been the subject of debate and scrutiny.

Secondly, we believe it is crucial to emphasize the study’s justification. It is necessary to underscore, both at the beginning and the end of the text, the reasons that warrant the publication of such research.

From a methodological standpoint, it is essential to better justify the adequacy of the sample size, report the non-response rate, and—above all—defend, on methodological grounds, the appropriateness of addressing this type of issue through a questionnaire. We hope the authors can implement these minor revisions to enhance the overall impact and appreciation of their research.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is relevant, current and interesting, dealing with the important social problem of hate speech among adolescents. The authors explored the complex relationships between experiencing and spreading hate speech, taking into account the role of emotional self-control, motives of revenge and fun, and also gender differences. The article is well-structured, with clear aims, methodology and interpretation of results. The introduction is comprehensive and well establishes the research context. The research methodology is described in detail and is appropriate to the study's aims. The research results are clearly presented, using tables and graphs. The discussion is thorough and well connects the research results with previous findings. The work makes a significant contribution to science.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors First of all, thank you for the opportunity to review this article. I would divide the theoretical background part into subsections. This would help the reader in reading.
I would dedicate more space to cyberbullying, it becomes essential to give a precise definition since it is being talked about. In addition to this I would add the possible risk factors. In this regard I suggest reading the following articles:
Marinoni, C., Rizzo, M., & Zanetti, M. A. (2024). Fake profiles and time spent online during the COVID 19 pandemic: a real risk for cyberbullying?. Current Psychology, 43(32), 26639-26647.
Marinoni, C., Rizzo, M., & Zanetti, M. A. (2024). Social media, online gaming, and cyberbullying during the COVID-19 pandemic: the mediation effect of time spent online. Adolescents, 4(2), 297-310.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Scheithauer, H., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Frisén, A., ... & Blaya, C. (2013). Definitions of cyberbullying. In Cyberbullying through the new media (pp. 23-36). Psychology Press.
Indicate the assumed statistical power.
Indicate in which period the data was collected.

Explain well the need to develop an ad hoc questionnaire, rather than using an already validated one.

Please indicate precisely the scientific literature supporting the hypotheses.

I would take up the hypotheses to discuss them in discussions and expand the discussions. There is no balance between theoretical background and discussions  




 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

My negative opinion of the article remains. I believe the review did not make sufficient and appropriate changes to propose its publication.

As I mentioned in the first review,
* I find it difficult to interpret/evaluate the research, objectives, and results presented in the article. I miss a theoretical framework that argues and delves into the basic concepts of the text.
* I cannot find definitions, which I consider essential, of hate speech or the concepts of victimization and perpetration of hate speech, which are the basis of the analysis. I believe they are essential to understand what we are discussing.
* Since no other motives are analyzed, I believe a reason should be given as to why only revenge and amusement are considered triggers for hate speech.

In my review, I mentioned that if the discussion addresses issues such as emotional intelligence, it's important that the theoretical framework include its definition, characteristics, and classifications. I believe the clarifications the author(s) mention in the review are not reflected in the article.

In the previous review, I mentioned that, based on the theoretical framework, I cannot interpret "what is meant by emotional control; in what situations this emotional control is contextualized; and, therefore, I cannot interpret the participants' responses or why."
In the author(s)' response, they say: "These are the participants' responses to a questionnaire and are based on previous experiences that cannot be accurately known."
Consequently, if we haven't studied what emotional control is and we don't have context for the responses, what data allows us to interpret the participants' emotional control? I don't understand, sorry.

In the previous review, I commented: "I cannot understand these statements without context. Therefore, I am not convinced that it is possible to draw conclusions such as: 'Our results indicate that receiving hate speech does not imply perpetrating it (c' = 0.40, p-value > 0.05 - not significant)' (p. 12 L 306 ff.)."
I regret to reiterate this. I miss the definitions of concepts in the theoretical framework, which later serve as the basis for interpreting data in the discussion. Again, I cannot find definitions of hate speech, what it means, and how receiving or perpetrating hate speech is interpreted (or with what values).

In conclusion, let's see if I can explain myself.
In their review, the author(s) propose different objectives for this research:
1. To identify whether emotional self-regulation is a mediating variable between the predictor variable of receiving hate speech and the dependent variable of perpetrating it.
2. To determine whether revenge is a motivation that moderates this mediation.
3. To assess whether viewing hate speech as fun moderates the mediating role of emotional self-regulation between receiving hate speech and perpetrating it.

And I have a problem interpreting these objectives discussed in the text. It is the following:
The theoretical framework does not define, classify, or assess basic concepts such as "emotional self-regulation" and how (or under what conditions) it measures or predicts hate speech.
The theoretical framework does not define, classify, or assess basic concepts such as what motivations such as "revenge" or "fun" are and how (or under what conditions) self-regulation is moderated.
And I believe that these issues are essential and must be reflected in the text.

I appreciate the comments from the author(s) and I regret if my comments have not contributed enough.

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s)    

First, I would like to explain that I have encountered some difficulties or confusion with the review submissions. Regarding this latest review by the authors, I would like to comment on two issues that I consider relevant.     

 

1. You include a definition of hate speech, but I believe the article should explain the meaning, situations, consequences, and values ​​for interpreting the concepts of "receiving" or "perpetrifying" hate speech, which constitute the basis of the article's discussion and which I do not find in the theoretical framework. I believe that discussing/interpreting these concepts with the results obtained will improve the article.   

 

  2. The text has improved its definition of "emotional self-regulation." However, I am unable to understand how this concept (or under what conditions) measures or predicts hate speech. I do not find this argument in the theoretical framework or the methodology. As in the previous comment, these are basic concepts for interpreting the results and improving the discussion.     

 

I hope the comments will help improve the article, and finally, I congratulate the author(s) for their efforts and appreciate the invitation to review.

Author Response

See atachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf