The increased abuse of players at the recent FIFA World Cup on social media has raised further questions about why people feel less inhibited about posting aggressive commentary or engaging in toxic behaviour, online.
FIFA said its Social Media Protection Service (SMPS) had flagged 89,000 hate speech posts during the group stages alone at this year’s tournament in the United States, Mexico and Canada, with 11% of them racist.
Dr Amy Grubb, Associate Professor of Forensic Psychology at University of Gloucestershire, says the reasons people make hostile comments online are complex, but can often be explained by the way digital environments reduce normal social restraints.
Dr Grubb said: “Historically, we have used the phrase ‘keyboard warrior’ to refer to a person who is more willing to communicate stronger and more controversial messages in writing than in person.
“I think this basic principle still holds true when it comes to online communication patterns and what people feel willing and able to communicate when online, when they’re behind a screen, compared to in a verbal context.”
One key explanation is the ‘online disinhibition effect’, a well-established psychological principle which suggests that people may behave differently online because the usual social cues and consequences of face-to-face interaction are weakened or absent, leading them to display ‘flaming’ behaviour.
Flaming is a form of hostile, aggressive, or insulting communication that occurs in online interactions and typically involves personal attacks, insults, ridicule, profanity, or inflammatory comments directed at another individual or group.
Dr Grubb said: “The anonymity afforded by some social media communication reduces personal accountability around behaviour and there is a perceived invisibility, even on non-anonymous platforms which enables people to feel psychologically hidden behind a screen.
“Research has identified limited accountability as one of the primary causes of online toxicity, while online interactions also often lack the immediate social feedback and consequences present in face-to-face communication, increasing the likelihood of hostile behaviour.
“As such, communicators are insulated and protected from the immediate social consequences of their behaviour, enabling this behaviour to go unchecked and continued due to a lack of negative consequences.
“The person posting the comment does not see the emotional impact on the intended recipient and therefore does not receive real-time feedback regarding how that message may make the recipient feel, such as facial expressions or body language, so there are a lack of negative consequences for the behaviour.
“Research has demonstrated that anonymity, invisibility, and the absence of eye contact increase toxic online disinhibition and flaming behaviour by removing interpersonal cues that normally regulate social conduct.
“To some extent, these psychological mechanisms serve to create a ‘perfect storm’ whereby individuals feel, consciously or subconsciously, more able to communicate things that they wouldn’t necessarily communicate in a face-to-face context.”
Dr Grubb said while it was easy to assume that individuals who demonstrate aggressive behaviour online were equally likely to be aggressive in an offline context, that was not necessarily the case.
Dr Grubb said: “Online aggression is a risk marker but not a direct indicator of physical violence. Most people who engage in online aggression are not necessarily violent offline, but research indicates that online and offline aggression are positively associated and share many of the same psychological risk factors, including trait aggression, hostility, and low empathy.
“Most people are not inherently aggressive, but certain online conditions make aggressive behaviour easier, less accountable, and more rewarding.
“Studies generally find that online aggression is often less about people becoming completely different individuals in an online context and more about existing emotions, biases, and social pressures being expressed under conditions where the usual limits on behaviour, such as personal accountability, are lacking.”
