ArticlePloS one2024
Moral judgment of objectionable online content: Reporting decisions and punishment preferences on social media.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Harmful and inappropriate online content is prevalent, necessitating the need to understand how individuals judge and wish to mitigate the spread of negative content on social media. In an online study with a diverse sample of social media users (n = 294), we sought to elucidate factors that influence individuals' evaluation of objectionable online content. Participants were presented with images varying in moral valence, each accompanied by an indicator of intention from an ostensible content poster. Half of the participants were assigned the role of user content moderator, while the remaining participants were instructed to respond as they normally would online. The study aimed to establish whether moral imagery, the intention of a content poster, and the perceived responsibility of social media users, affect judgments of objectionability, operationalized through both decisions to flag content and preferences to seek punishment of other users. Our findings reveal that moral imagery strongly influences users' assessments of what is appropriate online content, with participants almost exclusively choosing to report and punish morally negative images. Poster intention also plays a significant role in user's decisions, with greater objection shown to morally negative content when it has been shared by another user for the purpose of showing support for it. Bestowing a content moderation role affected reporting behaviour but not punishment preferences. We also explore individual user characteristics, finding a negative association between trust in social media platforms and reporting decisions. Conversely, a positive relationship was identified between trait empathy and reporting rates. Collectively, our insights highlight the complexity of social media users' moderation decisions and preferences. The results advance understanding of moral judgments and punishment preferences online, and offer insights for platforms and regulatory bodies aiming to better understand social media users' role in content moderation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.