Letter | Published:

Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence during protests

Nature Human Behaviourvolume 2pages389396 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

In recent years, protesters in the United States have clashed violently with police and counter-protesters on numerous occasions1,2,3. 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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Davey, M. & Bosman, J. Protests flare after Ferguson police officer is not indicted. The New York Times (24 November 2014); https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/ferguson-darren-wilson-shooting-michael-brown-grand-jury.html

  2. 2.

    Heim, J. Recounting a day of rage, hate, violence and death. The Washington Post (14 August 2017); https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/charlottesville-timeline/?utm_term=.b960304937fe

  3. 3.

    Rampell, C. A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech. The Washington Post (18 September 2017); https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html

  4. 4.

    Walker, I. & Pettigrew, T. F. Relative deprivation theory: an overview and conceptual critique. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 23, 301–310 (1984).

  5. 5.

    Olson, M. Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1965).

  6. 6.

    Van Stekelenburg, J. & Klandermans, B. The social psychology of protest. Curr. Soc. 61, 886–905 (2013).

  7. 7.

    Mooijman, M. et al. Resisting temptation for the good of the group: binding moral values and the moralization of self-control. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000149 (2017).

  8. 8.

    Rozin, P. The process of moralization. Psychol. Sci. 10, 218–221 (1999).

  9. 9.

    Skitka, L. J., Hanson, B. E. & Wisneski, D. C. Utopian hopes or dystopian fears? Exploring the motivational underpinnings of moralized political engagement. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 177–190 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W. & Sargis, E. G. Moral conviction: another contributor to attitude strength or something more?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88, 895–917 (2005).

  11. 11.

    Skitka, L. J. & Morgan, G. S. The social and political implications of moral conviction. Polit. Psychol. 35, 95–110 (2014).

  12. 12.

    Manjoo, F. The alt-majority: how social networks empowered mass protests against Trump. The New York Times (30 January 2017); https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/technology/donald-trump-social-networks-protests.html?mcubz=0

  13. 13.

    Steinert-Threlkeld, Z. C. Spontaneous collective action: peripheral mobilization during the Arab spring. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 111, 379–403 (2017).

  14. 14.

    Zeitzoff, T. Anger, legacies of violence, and group conflict: an experiment in post-riot Acre, Israel. Conflict Manag. Peace Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894216647901 (2016).

  15. 15.

    Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 (2017).

  16. 16.

    Crockett, M. J. Moral outrage in the digital age. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 769–771 (2017).

  17. 17.

    Fiske, A. P. & Rai, T. S. Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014).

  18. 18.

    Darley, J. M. Morality in the law: the psychological foundations of citizens desires to punish transgressions. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 5, 1–23 (2009).

  19. 19.

    Zaal, M. P., Laar, C. V., Ståhl, T., Ellemers, N. & Derks, B. By any means necessary: the effects of regulatory focus and moral conviction on hostile and benevolent forms of collective action. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 50, 670–689 (2011).

  20. 20.

    Atran, S. & Ginges, J. Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science 336, 855–857 (2012).

  21. 21.

    Boothby, E. J., Clark, M. S. & Bargh, J. A. Shared experiences are amplified. Psychol. Sci. 25, 2209–2216 (2014).

  22. 22.

    Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. & Bonneau, R. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 26, 1531–1542 (2015).

  23. 23.

    Granger, C. W. J. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37, 424–438 (1969).

  24. 24.

    Cameron, A. C. & Trivedi, P. K. Regression Analysis of Count Data Vol. 53 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2013).

  25. 25.

    McLeod, A. I. & Li, W. K. Diagnostic checking arma time series models using squared-residual autocorrelations. J. Time Ser. Anal. 4, 269–273 (1983).

  26. 26.

    Chatfield, C. The Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2016).

  27. 27.

    Fokianos, K. & Fried, R. Interventions in INGARCH processes. J. Time Ser. Anal. 31, 210–225 (2010).

  28. 28.

    Toda, H. Y. & Yamamoto, T. Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. J. Econom. 66, 225–250 (1995).

  29. 29.

    Liboschik, T., Fokianos, K. & Fried, R. tscount: An R Package for Analysis of Count Time Series following Generalized Linear Models (Universitätsbibliothek Dortmund, Dortmund, 2015); https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tscount/vignettes/tsglm.pdf

  30. 30.

    Mooijman, M. & Stern, C. When perspective taking creates a motivational threat: the case of conservatism, same-sex sexual behavior, and anti-gay attitudes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42, 738–754 (2016).

  31. 31.

    Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J. & Myers, T. A. in Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques (Bucy, E. P. & Holbert, R. L.) 434–465 (Routledge Communication Series, Abingdon, 2011).

  32. 32.

    Dehghani, M. et al. Purity homophily in social networks. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 366–375 (2016).

  33. 33.

    Pew Research Center. Social media fact sheet. Pew Research Center http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media (2017).

  34. 34.

    Doherty, C. 7 things to know about polarization in America. Pew Research Center http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america (2014).

  35. 35.

    Ellemers, N. The group self. Science 336, 848–852 (2012).

  36. 36.

    Dehghani, M. et al. Sacred values and conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 540–546 (2010).

  37. 37.

    Hvistendahl, M. Can predictive policing prevent crime before it happens. Science Magazine (28 September 2016); www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/can-predictive-policing-prevent-crime-it-happens

  38. 38.

    Plato Plato’s The Republic (Books, Inc., New York, NY, 1943).

  39. 39.

    Khomeini, I. & Khomeini, R. Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist (Al-Hoda, London, 2002).

  40. 40.

    Ying, L., Hoover, J., Dehghani, M., Mooijman, M. & Ji, H. Acquiring background knowledge to improve moral value prediction. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05467 (2017).

  41. 41.

    Hoover, J., Johnson, K. M., Dehghani, M. & Graham, J. Moral values coding guide. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5DMGJ (2017).

  42. 42.

    Graham, J., Haidt, J. & Nosek, B. A. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 1029–1046 (2009).

  43. 43.

    Haidt, J. & Joseph, C. in The Innate Mind: Foundations and the Future Vol. 3 (eds Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. & Stich, S.) 367–391 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2007).

  44. 44.

    Haidt, J., Graham, J. & Joseph, C. Above and below left–right: ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychol. Inq. 20, 110–119 (2009).

  45. 45.

    Byrt, T., Bishop, J. & Carlin, J. B. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 46, 423–429 (1993).

  46. 46.

    Sim, J. & Wright, C. C. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys. Ther. 85, 257–268 (2005).

  47. 47.

    Hochreiter, S. & Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. 9, 1735–1780 (1997).

  48. 48.

    R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2013); http://www.R-project.org

  49. 49.

    Ohara, R. B. & Kotze, D. J. Do not log-transform count data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 118–122 (2010).

  50. 50.

    Vuong, Q. H. Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica 57, 307–333 (1989).

  51. 51.

    Banerjee, A., Dolado, J. J., Galbraith, J. W. & Hendry, D. Co-integration, Error Correction, and the Econometric Analysis of Non-Stationary Data (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1993).

  52. 52.

    Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P. & Shin, Y. Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: how sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? J. Econom. 54, 159–178 (1992).

  53. 53.

    Box, G. E. & Pierce, D. A. Distribution of residual autocorrelations in autoregressive-integrated moving average time series models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65, 1509–1526 (1970).

  54. 54.

    Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis using Regression and Multilevel Hierarchical Models (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, NY, 2007).

  55. 55.

    Carpenter, B. et al. Stan: a probabilistic programming language. J. Stat. Softw. 20, 1–37 (2016).

  56. 56.

    Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5 (2011).

  57. 57.

    Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191 (2007).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Damasio, D. Medin, S. Atran, J. Kaplan, K. Man, R. Iliev, S. Sachdeva and UCSB’s Psychology, Environment and Public Policy group for their feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This research was sponsored by the Army Research Lab. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Marlon Mooijman, Joe Hoover.

Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    • Marlon Mooijman
  2. Brain and Creativity Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    • Joe Hoover
    •  & Morteza Dehghani
  3. Psychology Department, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    • Joe Hoover
    •  & Morteza Dehghani
  4. Department of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA

    • Ying Lin
    •  & Heng Ji
  5. Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    • Morteza Dehghani

Authors

  1. Search for Marlon Mooijman in:

  2. Search for Joe Hoover in:

  3. Search for Ying Lin in:

  4. Search for Heng Ji in:

  5. Search for Morteza Dehghani in:

Contributions

M.M., J.H. and M.D. developed the theory. M.M. designed, ran and analysed studies 2–4. J.H. designed, ran and analysed study 1. V.L. and H.J. designed the text analysis method used to classify tweets. M.M., J.H. and M.D. wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Marlon Mooijman or Joe Hoover or Morteza Dehghani.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

Issue Date

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0353-0

Further reading