Identifying Hate Speech and Attribution of Responsibility: An Analysis of Simulated WhatsApp Conversations during the Pandemic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- First, an innovative methodology was followed, previously used in only one other study [16]. This can be a useful way for young people to identify violent situations or contexts;
- Among the new technologies, WhatsApp is the only one that does not provide users with anonymity, and it is not possible to create a fictitious profile or use pseudonyms to be included in a group of friends. It was considered that this element could be fundamental when discriminating between violent and non-violent speech.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Instruments
- Speech that offends or causes personal moral harm;
- Speech that offends or causes collective moral damage;
- Hate speech referring to physical harm against one or more persons.
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Personality, Conflict Resolution Style and Identification with the Characters
3.2. Experience of a Similar Situation
3.3. Perceived Aggressiveness
3.4. Responsibility Attributed to the Characters
3.5. Correlations between “Frequency of Lived Experience”, “Perceived Aggressiveness” and “Character Responsibility”
4. Discussion
- -
- Some personality traits and/or strategies for coping with problems can influence the perception of aggressiveness [34].In fact, the trait of “kindness” is directly correlated with this perception, while an “aggressive” conflict management is inversely correlated with it.
- -
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kocoń, J.; Figas, A.; Gruza, M.; Puchalska, D.; Kajdanowicz, T.; Kazienko, P. Offensive, aggressive, and hate speech analysis: From data-centric to human-centered approach. Inf. Process. Manag. 2021, 58, 102643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabo, A.; García, A. El Discurso del Odio en las Redes Sociales: Un Estado de la Cuestión. Ayuntamiento de Barcelona. Available online: https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/bcnvsodi/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/Informe_discurso-del-odio_ES.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2023).
- Blaya, C. Cyberhate: A review and content analysis of intervention strategies. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2019, 45, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagliardone, I.; Gal, D.; Alves, T.; Martinez, G.; Unesco. Countering Online Hate Speech; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015; p. 72. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233231 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
- Cuadrado-Gordillo, I.; Fernández-Antelo, I. Adolescents’ perception of the characterizing dimensions of cyberbullying: Differentiation between bullies’ and victims’ perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 55, 653–663. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284133134_Adolescents%27_perception_of_the_characterizing_dimensions_of_cyberbullying_Differentiation_between_bullies%27_and_victims%27_perceptions (accessed on 20 February 2023). [CrossRef]
- Wachs, S.; Wright, M.F. Associations between bystanders and perpetrators of online hate: The moderating role of toxic online disinhibition. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2018, 15, 2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wachs, S.; Wright, M.F.; Sittichai, R.; Singh, R.; Biswal, R.; Kim, E.; Yang, S.; Gamez-Guadix, M.; Almendros, C.; Flora, K.; et al. Associations between witnessing and perpetrating online hate in eight countries: The buffering effects of problem-focused coping. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arcentales, K.O.; Alvarado, D.; Martínez, L.Y.C.; López, R.F.U. Discursos de odio y comunicación violenta ante contenidos de prensa digital en Ecuador. Maskana 2022, 13, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De la Fuente, O.P. Libertad de expresión y lenguaje del odio como un dilema entre libertad e igualdad. Rev. Asoc. Esp. Investig. Comun. 2019, 6, 5–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llinares, F.M. Taxonomía de la comunicación violenta y el discurso del odio en Internet. IDP. Rev. Internet Derecho Política 2016, 22, 82–107. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/788/78846481007.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2023). [CrossRef]
- Torres, N.; Taricco, V. Los Discursos de Odio como Amenaza a los Derechos Humanos; Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información de la Universidad de Palermo: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2019; Available online: https://www.palermo.edu/Archivos_content/2019/cele/Abril/Los-discursos-de-odio_Torres-y-Taricco.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2023).
- Müller, K.; Schwarz, C. Fanning the flames of hate: Social media and hatecrime. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2021, 19, 2131–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jolley, D.; Douglas, K.M. Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 47, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgiou, N.; Delfabbro, P.; Balzan, R. COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs and their relationship with perceived stress and pre-existing conspiracy beliefs. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2020, 166, 110201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Der Linden, S.; Roozenbeek, J.; Compton, J. Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 566790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sánchez-Jiménez, V.; Arriba, M.L.R.D.; Ortega-Rivera, J.; Muñoz-Fernández, N. The Nature of Dating Violence and Challenges for Prevention. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Bullying: A Comprehensive and International Review of Research and Intervention, 2nd ed.; Smith, P.K., Ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torreblanca Murillo, L. Desarrollo de un Nuevo Instrumento de Evaluación: El Cuestionario Breve de Personalidad (CBP). Rev. Pers. Psicol. 2017, 31, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
- Kimsey, W.D.; Fuller, R.M. CONFLICTALK: An instrument for measuring youth and adolescent conflict management message styles. CRQ 2003, 21, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garaigordobil, M.; Machimbarrena, J.M.; Maganto, C. Adaptación española de un instrumento para evaluar la resolución de conflictos (Conflictalk): Datos psicométricos de fiabilidad y validez. Rev. Psicol. Clin. Niños. Adolesc. 2016, 3, 59–67. [Google Scholar]
- Igartua, J.J.; Páez, D. Validez y fiabilidad de una escala de empatía e identificación con los personajes. Psicothema 1998, 10, 423–436. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/727/72710215.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2023).
- Hopp, T.; Ferrucci, P.; Vargo, C.J. Why do people share ideologically extreme, false, and misleading content on social media? A self-report and trace data–based analysis of counter media content dissemination on Facebook and Twitter. Hum. Commun. Res. 2020, 46, 357–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.; de Carvalho-Filho, M.A.; Schweller, M.; Thiemann, P.; Salgueira, A.; Benson, J.; Quince, T. Measuring medical students’ empathy: Exploring the underlying constructsofand associations between two widely used self-report instruments in five countries. Acad. Med. 2017, 92, 860–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salwen, M.B.; Dupagne, M. Third_person perception of television violence: The role of self_perceived knowledge. Media Psychol. 2001, 3, 211–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, V.H.; Wei, R.; Zhang, X.; Guo, L. Theoretical and methodological patterns of third-person effect research: A comparative thematic analysis of Asia and the world. Asian J. Commun. 2016, 26, 583–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffner, C.; Buchanan, M. Parents’ responses to television violence: The third-person perception, parental mediation, and support for censor ship. Media Psychol. 2002, 4, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, D.; Kim, J.K. Alcohol Product Placements and the Third-Person Effect. TV New Media 2011, 12, 412–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsfati, Y.; Cohen, J. Object-subject distance and the third person perception. Media Psychol. 2004, 6, 335–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ang, J.M.S. Moral Dilemmas and Moral Injury. Int. J. Appl. Philos. 2017, 31, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crosslin, K.; Golman, M. “Tal vez no quieras enfrentarlo”—Perspectivas de los estudiantes de la universidad sobre el ciberacoso. Comput. Comport. Hum. 2014, 41, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grigg, D.W. Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. J. Psychol. Couns. Sch. 2010, 20, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casas, J.A.; Del Rey, R.; Ortega-Ruiz, R. Bullying and cyberbullying: Convergent and divergent predictor variables. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 580–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pozzoli, T.; Gini, G.; Thornberg, R. Getting angry matters: Going beyond perspective taking and empathic concern to understand bystanders’ behavior in bullying. J. Adolesc. 2017, 61, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poyhonen, V.; Juvonen, J.; Salmivalli, C. Standing up for the victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Soc. Dev. 2012, 21, 722–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaver, P.R.; Mikulincer, M. (Eds.) Human Aggression and Violence: Causes. Manifestations, and Consequences; American Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 2011; Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1chrzs7 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
- Carlo, G.; Mestre, M.V.; Samper, P.; Tur, A.; Armenta, B.E. Feelings or cognitions? Moral cognitions and emotions as longitudinal predictors of prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2010, 48, 865–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mestre, V.; Tur, A.; Samper, P.; Latorre, A. Relaciones entre la inestabilidad emocional y la agresión. La acción de los estilos de crianza. Ansiedad. Estrés. 2010, 16, 33–45. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260883770_Mestre_M_V_Tur_A_M_Samper_P_Nacher_M_J_Cortes_M_T_2007_Estilos_de_crianza_en_la_adolescencia_y_su_relacion_con_el_comportamiento_prosocial_Revista_latinoamericana_de_psicologia_392 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
- Murrieta, P.; Ruvalcaba, N.A.; Caballo, V.E.; Lorenzo, M. Cambios en la percepción de la violencia y el comportamiento agresivo entre niños a partir de un programa de habilidades socioemocionales. Behav. Psychol. 2014, 22, 569–584. Available online: https://www.behavioralpsycho.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/10.Murrieta_22-3oa-1.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2023).
- Segura, S. Razonamiento contrafáctico, responsabilidad y culpa de la violencia contra las mujeres en la pareja: Educación y medios de comunicación como factores preventivos. Escritos Psicol. 2012, 5, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabrera, P.Á; Gutiérrez, M.C.; Mutis, J.F. Relación de la empatía y género en la conducta prosocial y agresiva, en adolescentes de distintos tipos de establecimientos educacionales. Rev. Iberoam. Psicol. 2010, 3, 27–36. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4905137 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
Variable | n = 567 |
---|---|
Age | 21 (20–22) |
Sex | |
Female | 413 (72.8%) |
Male | 153 (27.0%) |
Other | 1(0.2%) |
Year of study | |
First | 109 (19.6%) |
Second | 184 (33.0%) |
Third | 209 (37.5%) |
Fourth | 55 (9.9%) |
Faculty | |
Public | 360 (63.5%) |
Concerted | 207 (36.5%) |
Personality dimensions | |
Extroversion | 12 (11–13) |
Agreeableness | 13 (11–14) |
Responsibility | 12 (11–13) |
Neuroticism | 11 (10–12) |
Openness/intellect | 13 (12–14) |
Conflict resolution style | |
Cooperative | 16 (14–18) |
Avoidant | 17 (13–19) |
Aggressive | 12 (12–18) |
Identification with the characters | 52 (42–60) |
Scenarios | 1 M (RIC) | 2 M (RIC) | 3 M (RIC) | 4 M (RIC) | 5 M (RIC) | Comparison between Scenarios χ2(4) * | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Experience of a similar situation | 3 (2–4) a | 2 (1–3) b | 2 (1–3) c | 3 (2–4) a | 2 (1–3) b,c | 122.314 | 0.000 |
Perceived Aggressiveness | 4 (3–4) b | 3 (3–4) c | 4 (3–5) a | 4 (3–4) b,c | 4 (3–5) a | 203.367 | 0.000 |
In favor of the vaccine | 4 (2–5) b | 4 (3–5) b | 3 (2–4) a | 4 (3–5) b | 3 (2–4) a | 67.029 | 0.000 |
Against vaccination | 2 (1–4) a,b | 2 (1–3) b | 2 (1–3) a,b | 2 (1–3) a,b | 2 (1–3) a | 24.350 | 0.000 |
Spectator | 2 (2–3) | 2 (2–3) | 15.940 | 0.000 | |||
Comparison between characters in each scenario χ2(1) * | 68.432 | 154.568 | 132.506 | 206.660 | 176.850 | ||
p | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Personality | Type of Conflict to Approach | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ext | Agr | Resp | Neuro | Open/Intel | Coop | Avo | Aggres | IP | |
Scenario 1 | |||||||||
VSS | −0.022 | −0.036 | −0.015 | −0.010 | −0.036 | 0.059 | 0.051 | 0.075 | 0.235 ** |
AP | −0.057 | 0.713 ** | 0.043 | 0.029 | 0.066 | 0.223 ** | 0.230 ** | −0.938 ** | 0.007 |
RPFV | 0.015 | 0.061 | 0.121 ** | 0.054 | 0.128 ** | −0.014 | −0.004 | −0.106 * | 0.085 * |
RPCV | 0.005 | −0.011 | −0.054 | −0.003 | −0.103 * | 0.045 | 0.022 | 0.069 | −0.061 |
Scenario 2 | |||||||||
VSS | 0.025 | −0.018 | −0.027 | 0.015 | −0.050 | 0.045 | 0.033 | 0.100 * | 0.170 ** |
AP | −0.071 | 0.689 ** | 0.055 | 0.067 | 0.073 | 0.180 ** | 0.165 ** | −0.874 ** | 0.154 ** |
RPFV | 0.061 | 0.031 | 0.061 | 0.074 | 0.072 | −0.007 | 0.071 | −0.053 | 0.141 ** |
RPCV | −0.062 | 0.007 | −0.042 | −0.002 | −0.047 | −0.015 | −0.080 | 0.048 | −0.122 ** |
Scenario 3 | |||||||||
VSS | 0.045 | −0.057 | −0.028 | 0.008 | −0.056 | 0.087 * | 0.084 * | 0.060 | 0.215 ** |
AP | 0.010 | 0.367 ** | 0.099 * | 0.065 | 0.105 * | 0.008 | −0.039 | −0.348 ** | −0.016 |
RPFV | 0.123 * | 0.046 | 0.073 | 0.046 | −0.009 | 0.063 | 0.101 * | −0.036 | 0.120 ** |
RPCV | −0.029 | 0.003 | −0.065 | 0.006 | −0.002 | −0.005 | −0.088 * | 0.064 | −0.085 * |
Scenario 4 | |||||||||
VSS | −0.030 | −0.027 | −0.004 | 0.066 | −0.014 | 0.093 * | 0.092 * | 0.099 * | 0.190 ** |
AP | 0.062 | 0.258 ** | 0.087 * | 0.015 | 0.064 | 0.054 | 0.050 | −0.314 ** | 0.108 * |
RPFV | 0.147 ** | 0.020 | 0.090 * | 0.046 | 0.072 | −0.047 | −0.019 | −0.041 | 0.091 * |
RPCV | −0.058 | 0.045 | 0.019 | 0.041 | 0.039 | 0.013 | −0.051 | 0.028 | −0.070 |
ROP | 0.077 | 0.019 | −0.020 | −0.003 | 0.047 | 0.031 | 0.014 | −0.020 | 0.122 ** |
Scenario 5 | |||||||||
VSS | 0.030 | −0.026 | −0.033 | 0.004 | −0.074 | 0.076 | 0.078 | 0.037 | 0.202 ** |
AP | 0.046 | 0.183 ** | 0.106 * | 0.076 | 0.095 * | 0.011 | 0.028 | −0.214 ** | 0.053 |
RPFV | 0.083 * | 0.028 | 0.046 | 0.017 | 0.029 | −0.015 | −0.030 | −0.023 | 0.030 |
RPCV | −0.014 | 0.107 * | −0.010 | 0.067 | 0.022 | 0.006 | −0.052 | −0.030 | −0.093 * |
ROP | 0.104 * | 0.031 | 0.055 | 0.093 * | 0.064 | 0.018 | 0.023 | −0.029 | 0.092 * |
Scenario 1 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VSS | AP | RPFV | RPCV | ||
VSS | -- | ||||
AP | 0.066 | -- | |||
RPFV | −0.047 | 0.095 * | -- | ||
RPCV | −0.022 | −0.060 | −0.684 ** | -- | |
Scenario 2 | |||||
VSS | AP | RPFV | RPCV | ||
VSS | -- | ||||
AP | 0.053 | -- | |||
RPFV | −0.083 * | 0.097 * | -- | ||
RPCV | 0.068 | −0.129 ** | −0.569 ** | -- | |
Scenario 3 | |||||
VSS | AP | RPFV | RPCV | ||
VSS | -- | ||||
AP | −0.174 ** | -- | |||
RPFV | 0.074 | −0.002 | -- | ||
RPCV | 0.059 | −0.082 | −0.258 ** | -- | |
Scenario 4 | |||||
VSS | AP | RPFV | RPCV | ROP | |
VSS | -- | ||||
AP | −0.015 | -- | |||
RPFV | −0.122 ** | 0.096 * | -- | ||
RPCV | 0.073 | −0.087 * | −0.344 ** | -- | |
0.139 ** | −0.072 | −0.242 ** | 0.120 ** | -- | |
Scenario 5 | |||||
VSS | AP | RPFV | RPCV | ROP | |
VSS | -- | ||||
AP | −0.102 * | -- | |||
RPFV | −0.102 * | 0.130 ** | -- | ||
RPCV | −0.026 | −0.091 * | 0.048 | -- | |
ROP | 0.115 ** | −0.188 ** | −0.119 ** | 0.106 * | -- |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Palazón-Fernández, J.L.; Mata-Perez, C.; Gilart, E.; Cotobal Calvo, E.M.; Cruz-Barrientos, A.; Bocchino, A. Identifying Hate Speech and Attribution of Responsibility: An Analysis of Simulated WhatsApp Conversations during the Pandemic. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111564
Palazón-Fernández JL, Mata-Perez C, Gilart E, Cotobal Calvo EM, Cruz-Barrientos A, Bocchino A. Identifying Hate Speech and Attribution of Responsibility: An Analysis of Simulated WhatsApp Conversations during the Pandemic. Healthcare. 2023; 11(11):1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111564
Chicago/Turabian StylePalazón-Fernández, José Luis, Concepción Mata-Perez, Ester Gilart, Eva Manuela Cotobal Calvo, Alberto Cruz-Barrientos, and Anna Bocchino. 2023. "Identifying Hate Speech and Attribution of Responsibility: An Analysis of Simulated WhatsApp Conversations during the Pandemic" Healthcare 11, no. 11: 1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111564
APA StylePalazón-Fernández, J. L., Mata-Perez, C., Gilart, E., Cotobal Calvo, E. M., Cruz-Barrientos, A., & Bocchino, A. (2023). Identifying Hate Speech and Attribution of Responsibility: An Analysis of Simulated WhatsApp Conversations during the Pandemic. Healthcare, 11(11), 1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111564