Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39754501›Full record

ArticleTrauma, violence & abuse2025

Listen to Me! Target Perceptions of Digital Hate: A Scoping Review of Recent Research.

Maryam Khaleghipour, Kevin Koban, Jörg Matthes

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Trauma, violence & abuse, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maryam KhaleghipourUniversity of Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5337-0820
Kevin KobanUniversity of Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-9275-9270
Jörg MatthesUniversity of Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9408-955X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital hate is typically targeted toward individuals or groups based on distinct attributes. Despite numerous studies on targets of digital hate, there is a lack of a systematic meta-perspective on targets' perceptions of digital hate. Therefore, this scoping review aims to assess available definitions and characteristics of targets, consequences of digital hate together with targets' reactions and coping strategies, dominant methodologies, and identified future outlooks of digital hate victimization research. To achieve this goal, we systematically searched two established databases (i.e., Web of Science and Scopus) for research published from 2020 onwards using a comprehensive search string of digital hate terms. Out of the 12,978 publications screened for eligibility, 230 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. All selected studies were in English and featured targets of digital hate as the sample. The findings indicate a lack of conceptual clarity, a strong dominance of Global North perspectives, a scarcity of research on children, older adults, men, and people from minority groups, and a need for experimental and longitudinal quantitative research methods, as well as qualitative and mixed-method research. Most importantly, we found that victimization consequences and coping strategies adopted by targets have been researched without sufficiently accounting for inconsistently privileged and intersectional identities and without examining contextual effectiveness. This review, therefore, emphasizes the necessity of taking an intersectional approach to gain a thorough understanding of targets' digital hate victimization experiences and both short- and long-term coping effectiveness.

Indexed as

Crime VictimsHateAdaptation, PsychologicalHumanscopingdigital hatehate targetsintersectionalityscoping reviewvictimization

Identifiers

PMID39754501
PMCPMC12569144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.