Adolescents’ motivations to perpetrate hate speech and links with social norms

 Sebastian Wachs, Potsdam (Germany)

 Alexander WeJEtstein, Berna (Switzerland)

 Ludwig Bilz, Senftenberg (Germany)

 Manuel Gámez-Guadix, Madrid (Spain)

https://doi.org/10.3916/C71-2022-01

Keywords

Hate speech, cyberhate, motives, social norms, injunctive norms, peer pressure

Abstract

Hate speech has become a widespread phenomenon, however, it remains largely unclear why adolescents engage in it and which factors are associated with their motivations for perpetrating hate speech. To this end, we developed the multidimensional “Motivations for Hate Speech Perpetration Scale” (MHATE) and evaluated the psychometric properties. We also explored the associations between social norms and adolescents’ motivations for hate speech perpetration. The sample consisted of 346 adolescents from Switzerland (54.6% boys; Mage=14; SD=0.96) who reported engagement in hate speech as perpetrators. The analyses revealed good psychometric properties for the MHATE, including good internal consistency. The most frequently endorsed subscale was revenge, followed by ideology, group conformity, status enhancement, exhilaration, and power. The results also showed that descriptive norms and peer pressure were related to a wide range of different motivations for perpetrating hate speech. Injunctive norms, however, were only associated with power. In conclusion, findings indicate that hate speech fulfills various functions. We argue that knowing the specific motivations that underlie hate speech could help us derive individually tailored prevention strategies (e.g., anger management, promoting an inclusive classroom climate). Furthermore, we suggest that practitioners working in the field of hate speech prevention give special attention to social norms surrounding adolescents.

References

Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. https://bit.ly/3s5s35M

Link Google Scholar

Ballaschk, C., Wachs, S., Krause, N., Schulze-Reichelt, F., Kansok-Dusche, J., Bilz, L. & Schubarth, W. (2021). Dann machen halt alle mit.“ Eine qualitative Studie zu Beweggründen und Motiven für Hatespeech unter Schüler*innen. [“Then everyone just goes along with it." A qualitative study on reasons and motives of hate speech among students]. Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung / Discourse. Journal of Childhood and Adolescence Research, 16(4-2021), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3224/diskurs.v16i4.01

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bastiaensens, S., Pabian, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2016). From normative influence to social pressure: How relevant others affect whether bystanders join in cyberbullying. Social Development, 25(1), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12134

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Cialdini, R.B., & Trost, M.R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.

Link Google Scholar

Cook, C.R., Williams, K.R., Guerra, N.G., Kim, T.E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020149

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Erjavec, K., & Kova?i?, M.P. (2012). “You don't understand, this is a new war!” Analysis of hate speech in news web sites' comments. Mass Communication and Society, 15(6), 899-920. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.619679

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fluck, J. (2017). Why do students bully? An analysis of motives behind violence in schools. Youth & Society, 49(5), 567-587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14547876

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2012). Motives for bullying others in cyberspace: A study on bullies and bully-victims in Austria. In Q. Li, D. Cross, & P.K. Smith (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground: Research from international perspectives (pp. 263–284). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119954484.ch13

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hartley, J.E.K., Levin, K., & Currie, C. (2016). A new version of the HBSC Family Affluence Scale-FAS III: Scottish qualitative findings from the international FAS development study. Child Indicators Research, 9(1), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9325-3

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hayduk, L.A., & Littvay, L. (2012). Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-159

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Krause, N., Ballaschk, C., Schulze-Reichelt, F., Kansok-Dusche, J., Wachs, S., Schubarth, W., & Bilz, L. (2021). Ich lass mich da nicht klein machen!“ Eine qualitative Studie zur Bewältigung von Hatespeech durch Schüler/innen. [“I don’t let them get me down!”—A qualitative study on students’ coping with hate speech]. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 11(1), 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-021-00291-w

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Lee, S.S.T., & Wong, D.S.W. (2009). School, parents, and peer factors in relation to Hong Kong students' bullying. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 15(3), 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2009.9748030

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Lehman, B. (2020). Hate at school: Victimization and disorder associated with school avoidance. Sociological Spectrum, 40(3), 172-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2020.1734890

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. Irvington Publishers.

Link Google Scholar

Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén. https://bit.ly/3IJorwi

Link Google Scholar

Möller, K., Grote, J., Nolde, K., & Schuhmacher, N. (2016). Die kann ich nicht ab!: Ablehnung, Diskriminierung und Gewalt bei Jugendlichen in der (Post-) Migrationsgesellschaft. Analysen zu gesellschaftlicher Integration und Desintegration. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02302-7

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Olthof, T., Goossens, F.A., Vermande, M.M., Aleva, E.A., & van-der-Meulen, M. (2011). Bullying as strategic behavior: Relations with desired and acquired dominance in the peer group. Journal of School Psychology, 49(3), 339-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.003

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Viking.

Link Google Scholar

Reichelmann, A., Hawdon, J., Costello, M., Ryan, J., Blaya, C., Llorent, V., Oksanen, A., Rasanen, P.,& Zych, I. (2020). Hate knows no boundaries: Online hate in six nations. Deviant Behavior, 42(9)1100-1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1722337

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Runions, K.C., Salmivalli, C., Shaw, T., Burns, S., & Cross, D. (2018). Beyond the reactive?proactive dichotomy: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status. Aggressive Behavior, 44(5), 501-511. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21770

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. (2009). Bullies, victims, and bully-victim relationships in middle childhood and early adolescence. In K.H. Rubin, W.M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 322–340). The Guilford Press.

Link Google Scholar

Santor, D.A., Messervey, D., & Kusumakar, V. (2000). Measuring peer pressure, popularity, and conformity in adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school performance, sexual attitudes, and substance abuse. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(2), 163-182. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005152515264

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Sokolowski, K., & Heckhausen, H. (2010). Soziale Bindung: Anschlussmotivation und Intimitätsmotivation. In J. Heckhausen, & H. Heckhausen (Eds), Motivation und Handeln [Motivation and Action] (pp. 193-210). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12693-2_7

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J.T. Jost, & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276-293). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Tanrikulu, I., & Erdur-Baker, O. (2021). Motives behind cyberbullying perpetration: A test of uses and gratifications theory. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13-14), 6699-6724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518819882

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Van-de-Bongardt, D., Reitz, E., Sandfort, T., & Dekovi?, M. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relations between three types of peer norms and adolescent sexual behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(3), 203-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544223

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Van-de-Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Váradi, L., Barna, I., & Németh, R. (2021). Whose norms, whose prejudice? The dynamics of perceived group norms and prejudice in new secondary school classes. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.524547

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Wachs, S., & Wright, M.F. (2021). Associations between online hate victimization and perpetration: The buffering effects of technical and assertive coping. MedienPädagogik, 16, 109-128. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/jb16/2021.01.14.X

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Wachs, S., Mazzone, A., Milosevic, T., Wright, M.F., Blaya, C., Gámez-Guadix, M., & O'Higgins Norman, J. (2021). Online correlates of cybeMHATE involvement among young people from ten European countries: An application of the routine activity and problem behaviour theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 123, 106872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106872

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Wachs, S., Schubarth, W., & Bilz, L. (2020). Hate speech als schulproblem? Erziehungswissenschaftliche perspektiven auf ein aktuelles phänomen. In I. van-Ackeren, H. Bremer, F. Kessl, H.C. Koller, N. Pfaff, C. Rotter, D. Klein, & U. Salaschek (Eds.), Bewegungen – Beiträge aus dem 26. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 223-236). Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10h9fjc.19

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Wachs, S., Wettstein, A., Bilz, L., Krause, N., Ballaschk, C., Kansok-Dusche, J., & Wright, M.F. (in press). Playing by the Rules? An Investigation of the Relationship Between Social Norms and Adolescents’ Hate Speech Perpetration in Schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211056032

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Wettstein, A. (2008). Beobachtungssystem zur Analyse aggressiven Verhaltens in schulischen Settings (BASYS). [Observation system for the analysis of aggressive behavior in school settings]. Huber.

Link Google Scholar

Fundref

This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), grant number WA 4275/2-1, BI 1046/9-1 and the University of Teacher Education Bern, grant number 19s 0008 01.

Crossmark

Technical information

Received: 22-09-2021

Revised: 09-11-2021

Accepted: 03-12-2021

OnlineFirst: 01-02-2022

Publication date: 01-04-2022

Article revision time: 48 days | Average time revision issue 71: 45 days

Article acceptance time: 72 days | Average time of acceptance issue 71: 70 days

Preprint editing time: 146 days | Average editing time preprint issue 71: 144 days

Article editing time: 191 days | Average editing time issue 71: 189 days

Metrics

Metrics of this article

Views: 18998

Abstract readings: 17036

PDF downloads: 1962

Full metrics of Comunicar 71

Views: 171403

Abstract readings: 148528

PDF downloads: 22875

Cited by