Chapter 9 Mass Communication as a Platform for Social Interaction PDF

Chapter 9 MASS COMMUNICATION AS A PLATFORM FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION 9.1. Aggressive behavior on the Internet: bullying Thus, cyberbullying is most often understood as deliberate actions aimed at causing damage to a person (or group of people), which are carried out using information and communicatio...

Chapter 9 MASS COMMUNICATION AS A PLATFORM FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION 9.1. Aggressive behavior on the Internet: bullying Thus, cyberbullying is most often understood as deliberate actions aimed at causing damage to a person (or group of people), which are carried out using information and communication technologies. These actions can be one-time or multiple. This definition is almost entirely consistent with the definition of aggressive behavior in the previous chapter. In other words, cyberbullying involves various forms of aggressive interaction mediated by technical means. However, aggressive behavior on the Internet is different from face-to-face aggression: -in interpersonal communication, aggression can be verbal or physical, but in online communication, it can only be verbal. \- the aggressor is known in interpersonal communicationинтернет-общении, but can remain anonymous in online communication. --- in interpersonal communication, an act of aggression is observed by individuals, while in online communication, hundreds of users witness it. --- in interpersonal communication, the aggressor can approach the victim only during certain periods of time; in online communication, he can pursue the victim around the clock; -in interpersonal communication, an aggressive act has a one-time impact on the victim, and in online communication, it can have a multiple impact. Thus, while cyberbullying may not cause immediate physical harm, it can have a devastating psychological impact on the victim. Online aggression can take many forms: \- insult --- one-time hostile, rude or vulgar statements about the victim that the aggressor sends to the victim or her entourage; \- harassment --- abusive messages that the aggressor systematically sends to the victim on its own behalf or anonymously; \- stalking --- threatening messages that the aggressor systematically sends to the victim on his own behalf or anonymously; \- defamation: false messages and materials discrediting the victim that the aggressor sends to other people or publishes online on his own behalf or anonymously; \- dissimulation --- messages and materials discrediting the victim that the aggressor sends to others or publishes on the network on behalf of another person; \- fraud --- deceptive actions that force the victim to disclose confidential or defamatory information about themselves; \- cyber extremism --- refusal to communicate with the victim, her exclusion from the online community. Cyber aggressor and cyber victim. Bullying occurs in various forms of communication. People insult or spread negative information about others both online and face-to-face. Research shows that the more often a person becomes an aggressor or a victim of bullying in interpersonal relationships (for example, at school or at work), the more often this happens to them in the Internet environment. This seems to happen because буллингface-to-face bullying and cyberbullying cause similar factors. In addition, bullying is a relatively stable phenomenon. For example, children who participated in cyberbullying at school are more likely to do so in college. In addition, children who were victims of cyberbullying in college are more likely to become cyberbullying victims at university. Secondly, cyberbullying participants have certain psychological characteristics. The lower a person\'s level of emotional self-regulation, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, the stronger their alienation of moral responsibility, and the weaker their empathy, the more often they commit aggressive actions in an online environment. At the same time, the lower a person\'s level of emotional self-regulation, self-esteem and self-effectiveness in the field of defense against attacks, the lower their level of intelligence and social competence, the more often they become a victim of cyberbullying. Witnesses of cyberbullying. For a long time, psychologists have shown interest in two participants in cyberbullying --- the aggressor and the victim. However, in recent years, they are increasingly paying attention to the third participant --- an observer-an Internet user who is neither the initiator nor the object of aggressive actions, but sees what is happening and can react to what is happening. This position is occupied from time to time by many users. Their actions may affect the development of cyberbullying. For example, aggressive behavior is more often demonstrated by witnesses who have little empathy for the victim and have a high level of alienation of moral responsibility and antisocial conformity (willingness to repeat socially undesirable behavior of their peers). At the same time, people with opposite characteristics are more likely to defend the victim. In addition, witnesses are more likely to protect the victim with whom they are friends from the aggressor with whom they are in a bad relationship. At the same time, they are more likely to blame the victim of cyberaggression who publishes a lot of information about their personal preferences, feel less empathy towards them and are less willing to protect them from the aggressor than the victim who publishes little private information. Finally, the victim is more often protected by users who feel that they can influence what is happening and are the only witnesses of cyberbullying. In particular, in an online context, people show an eye-witness effect: they behave more passively if they think there are other witnesses to the incident, but they are more likely to intervene to help the victim if they believe there are no other witnesses. Thus, in public situations, users are often relieved of responsibility for what happens on the network. Reduced cyberbullying. Since cyberbullying has a negative impact on the condition and behavior of participants, psychologists create special programs to prevent it. In another program, participants read written messages posted on the site against cyberbullying. The messages included either a positive frame (\"The world will be happier without cyberbullying\") or a negative frame (\"A world where cyberbullying is a disgusting place\"). In addition, some messages called for their distribution among users, while others did not. The results of the study showed that messages with a positive frame and a call to spread have a greater impact. Programs of the second type are serious computer games. One of them starts with a short video explaining the goal of the game. It says that the school where the player was transferred has a student who created an aggressive page on the social network. On this page, he posts drawings and offensive comments about other students. The player\'s task is to talk to other students and speak out against the aggressor on the social network in order to eliminate cyberbullying. Communication with other fictional participants takes place as follows. When a person clicks on a character\'s image, they see their latest comments on the social network, as well as the number of \"likes\" and \"dislikes\" on them. Each time, the player is given a list of four behavioral strategies (oppose bullying, do nothing, and independently implement a soft or hard version of cyberbullying). When a player chooses a positive strategy, he hears a pleasant sound, and when a negative one --- an unpleasant one. The game features a fictional character, Bob, who follows and helps the player. When a player performs a pre-determined number of actions directed against bullying, the game episode ends. On the monitor, the player sees the number of points received and detailed feedback on their actions. This feedback explains why each behavior option chosen by the player is good or bad. The game takes place in an anonymous environment, and the player can create their own avatar. ОSeparate lessons or entire training courses are held in schools. For example, the American program to promote social media security and prevent cyberbullying includes a presentation in which participants are told what dangers they may face on social networks and how they can be prevented. First, we are talking about the general principles of cybersecurity, and then-about cyberbullying. The moderator invites participants through the school page. Before starting classes , they visit the personal pages of future participants and collect examples of information that people post about themselves on the social network. During the lesson, he shows how dangerous this information is for participants, how to hide this information from outsiders, how to find and remove it from unwanted sites, etc. For illustration, real stories about cyberbullying are used, and then measures to prevent it are considered. Most often, presenters work with schoolchildren. However, in some cases, the impact is complex: high school students, teachers, and parents are involved in the work. Such programs take into account individual (for example, alienation of moral responsibility, empathy), school (for example, social norms, school climate) and family (communication with parents) factors of cyberbullying. 9.2. Prosocial behavior on the Internet Internet users have great opportunities for prosocial behavior. They can help each other in a variety of ways, from spreading information and advice to giving gifts and giving money. For example, Chinese researchers described four forms of online help: social support, mentoring (training), free distribution of knowledge and products, and reminder (warning). However, most research on prosocial behavior on the Internet addresses two forms of help. Social support is a friendly response to a message in which the user talks about their problem and expresses negative emotions about it. Their partner expresses sympathy and / or advice. Initially, such support was studied in the context of thematic groups where participants had similar problems (for example, health difficulties, death of loved ones, difficulties in communicating with children, etc.). In such communities, people respond to other participants based on actual personal experience. However , recently there have been studies on social support in social networks, where participants have completely different experiences. They study how people react to a user who posted a status or wrote a post about their positive or negative state/the event. First, people are more likely to comment on positive messages (statuses about the anniversary of living together with their romantic partner or getting a job) than negative messages (statuses about the anniversary of breaking up with their partner or losing their job). This happens because users believe that it is more appropriate to report their achievements in the status than to report failures. Negative messages are considered less relevant, regardless of whether they were written by a close friend or acquaintance. Secondly, people are more sympathetic to a user who sends negative messages with intimate details of their life (for example, \"I feel like I shouldn\'t leave the house tonight. Last time, my impulsiveness and alcohol got the better of me\") to a specific person, not a group of people. This is because people think it\'s more appropriate to tell intimate details in a private stop than in a public one. Third, people are more willing to respond to private requests for help. Users who read a post asking for help addressed to a whole group of people are less likely to help the author and write less useful comments than users who read a post addressed to a specific person. This happens because, according to users, the person who publicly asks for help is less eager to get it and more eager to impress than the author who does it privately Fourth, people are more willing to comment on positive statuses publicly, and negative statuses privately. In this way, users try to translate a public discussion of negative experiences into a private form. However, this happens more often when the author of the negative message is a close friend. A familiar person just gets fewer responses. In general, Internet users provide psychological support to a person who asks for help, but they do it in some conditions more often than in others. Free dissemination of knowledge. The second form of assistance that attracts the attention of scientists is the free dissemination of the user\'s knowledge. Most often, this form of help is used by members of online communities: groups in social networks, web blogs, information sites (for example, Wikipedia), and teams in multiplayer games. They exchange information: talk about phenomena and events, give advice, answer questions, and so on. Psychological studies dedicated to the free dissemination of knowledge on the Web have been conducted for 15 years. They allowed us to identify two main groups of factors that predict the activity of spreading knowledge. A recent meta-analysis of research has shown that some factors have a greater impact on the intention to disseminate knowledge and real actions, while others have a greater impact on the quality and quantity of information. User motivation includes internal and external motivations that people are willing to share information about. Although тоall four motivations increase the willingness to spread knowledge, they can partially block each other. For example, one study found that the reciprocity motif can reduce the impact of the knowledge motif, while the reputation motif reduces the impact of the pleasure motif. Motivation Internal motivation: the desire to share knowledge that can be useful for the online community (knowledge in a specific subject area), or to enjoy your activities (pleasure) External motivation: the desire to create a positive image of yourself from other users (reputation) or the expectation of future help from other members of the community (reciprocity)