Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence during protests

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 options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The expected and the observed daily moral tweet counts by protest type.
Fig. 2: Counts of arrests as a function of moral tweets.
Fig. 3: Acceptability of using violence during a protest as a function of moralization and moral convergence for study 4.

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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

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

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

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

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

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

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

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

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

Affiliations

Authors

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.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Marlon Mooijman or Joe Hoover or Morteza Dehghani.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mooijman, M., Hoover, J., Lin, Y. et al. Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence during protests. Nat Hum Behav 2, 389–396 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0353-0

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing