IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v2y2018i6d10.1038_s41562-018-0353-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence during protests

Author

Listed:
  • Marlon Mooijman

    (Northwestern University)

  • Joe Hoover

    (University of Southern California
    University of Southern California)

  • Ying Lin

    (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

  • Heng Ji

    (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

  • Morteza Dehghani

    (University of Southern California
    University of Southern California
    University of Southern California)

Abstract

In recent years, protesters in the United States have clashed violently with police and counter-protesters on numerous occasions1–3. Despite widespread media attention, little scientific research has been devoted to understanding this rise in the number of violent protests. We propose that this phenomenon can be understood as a function of an individual’s moralization of a cause and the degree to which they believe others in their social network moralize that cause. Using data from the 2015 Baltimore protests, we show that not only did the degree of moral rhetoric used on social media increase on days with violent protests but also that the hourly frequency of morally relevant tweets predicted the future counts of arrest during protests, suggesting an association between moralization and protest violence. To better understand the structure of this association, we ran a series of controlled behavioural experiments demonstrating that people are more likely to endorse a violent protest for a given issue when they moralize the issue; however, this effect is moderated by the degree to which people believe others share their values. We discuss how online social networks may contribute to inflations of protest violence.

Suggested Citation

  • Marlon Mooijman & Joe Hoover & Ying Lin & Heng Ji & Morteza Dehghani, 2018. "Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence during protests," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(6), pages 389-396, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:2:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0353-0
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0353-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0353-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-018-0353-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niklas Potrafke & Felix Roesel, 2022. "Online Versus Offline: Which Networks Spur Protests?," CESifo Working Paper Series 9969, CESifo.
    2. Colin Klein & Ritsaart Reimann & Ignacio Ojea Quintana & Marc Cheong & Marinus Ferreira & Mark Alfano, 2022. "Attention and counter-framing in the Black Lives Matter movement on Twitter," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Kyriaki Kalimeri & Mariano G. Beiró & Andrea Bonanomi & Alessandro Rosina & Ciro Cattuto, 2020. "Traditional versus Facebook-based surveys: Evaluation of biases in self-reported demographic and psychometric information," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 42(5), pages 133-148.
    4. Masías, Víctor Hugo & Crespo R., Fernando A. & Navarro R., Pilar & Masood, Razan & Krämer, Nicole C. & Hoppe, H. Ulrich, 2021. "On spatial variation in the detectability and density of social media user protest supporters," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 65, pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:2:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0353-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.