Discurso de ódio e aceitação social em relação aos migrantes na Europa: Análise de tweets com geolocalização

 Carlos Arcila-Calderón, Salamanca (Espanha)

 Patricia Sánchez-Holgado, Salamanca (Espanha)

 Cristina Quintana-Moreno, Salamanca (Espanha)

 Javier-J. Amores, Salamanca (Espanha)

 David Blanco-Herrero, Salamanca (Espanha)

https://doi.org/10.3916/C71-2022-02

Palavras chave

Imigração, refugiados, atitude, discurso de ódio, big data, Twitter

Resumo

O discurso de ódio contra públicos vulneráveis é reconhecido como um grave problema de integração e respeito pela diversidade social na União Europeia. O aumento desse tipo de discurso tem sido reforçado pela expansão das redes sociais - espaços virtuais que, conforme demonstrado - atuam como mecanismo de propagação de crimes contra grupos como migrantes e refugiados, principais afetados. Por esta razão, o desenvolvimento do primeiro estudo europeu sobre a aceitação social de migrantes e refugiados é abordado através da pesquisa acerca da presença do discurso de ódio. A pesquisa baseia-se na perspectiva da teoria do contato intergrupal e do contato intergrupal mediado. A metodologia inclui uma análise longitudinal em larga escala (2015-2020) do discurso de ódio online no Twitter (N=847.978) e contraste com os indicadores oficiais existentes. Os resultados indicam que o contato intergrupal pessoal está positivamente correlacionado com o apoio da população a migrantes e refugiados, mas o contato intergrupal mediado não está correlacionado com a diminuição do discurso de ódio. Encontramos evidências mostrando que nas regiões onde o apoio ao coletivo era maior, havia um menor nível de discurso de ódio no Twitter. Isso representa um avanço no estudo do discurso de ódio pelos territórios e pode ajudar na proposição de estratégias de ação.

Referências

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M.A. (2017). Twenty years of group processes and intergroup relations research: A review of past progress and future prospects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 561-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217709536

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Abrams, J.R., McGaughey, K.J., & Haghighat, H. (2018). Attitudes toward Muslims: a test of the parasocial contact hypothesis and contact theory. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 47(4), 276-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2018.1443968

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Link Google Scholar

Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (Ed.) (1951). Convención sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados. https://bit.ly/2Zz2Y70

Link Google Scholar

Arcila-Calderón, C., Amores, J.J., & Stanek, M. (2021). Predicting integration of refugees: Using machine learning and synthetic populations to predict social acceptance of asylum seekers in European regions. In S. Korkmaz, & B. Bircan (Eds.), Data science for migration and mobility. Oxford University Press.

Link Google Scholar

Arcila-Calderón, C., Amores, J.J., Sánchez-Holgado, P., & Blanco-Herrero, D. (2022, en preparación). Developing and evaluating an automatic detector of racist and xenophobic hate speech on Twitter in Spanish using shallow and deep learning [Unpublished].

Link Google Scholar

Arcila-Calderón, C., Blanco-Herrero, D., & Valdez-Apolo, M.B. (2020). Rechazo y discurso de odio en Twitter: Análisis de contenido de los tuits sobre migrantes y refugiados en español. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 172, 21-40. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.172.21

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Arcila-Calderón, C., Blanco-Herrero, D., Frías-Vázquez, M., & Seoane-Pérez, F. (2022). Refugees welcome? Online hate speech and sentiments in Twitter in Spain during the reception of the boat Aquarius. Sustainability, 13(5), 2728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052728

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bayer, J., & Bárd, P. (2020). Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation ofonline content regulation approaches. Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. https://doi.org/10.2861/28047

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bollen, J., Mao, H., & Pepe, A. (2011). Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio-economic phenomena. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 5(1), 450-453. https://bit.ly/3DO1hRR

Link Google Scholar

Broad, G.M., Gonzalez, C., & Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (2014). Intergroup relations in South Los Angeles. Combining communication infrastructure and contact hypothesis approaches. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38(1), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.06.001

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Cabo-Isasi, A., & García-Juanatey, A. (2017). Hate speech in social media: A state-of-the-art-review. https://bit.ly/33bfHi3

Link Google Scholar

Canelón, A.R., & Almansa, A. (2018). Migración: Retos y oportunidades desde la perspectiva de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS). Retos, 8(16), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.17163/ret.n16.2018.08

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Cinelli, M., Morales, G.D.F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2023301118

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Ekman, M. (2019). Anti-immigration and racist discourse in social media. European Journal of Communication, 34(6), 606-618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323119886151

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Esipova, N., Ray, J., & Pugliese, A. (2020). World grows less accepting of migrants. Gallup. https://bit.ly/3uDGL3r

Link Google Scholar

ESS-ERIC Consortium (Ed.) (2021). European Social Survey (ESS). https://bit.ly/3ilifiq

Link Google Scholar

Eurobarómetro (Ed.) (2020). Public opinion in the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2775/460239

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Eurobarómetro (Ed.) (s.f). Sondeos periódicos de opinión del Parlamento Europeo. https://bit.ly/3up3rnR

Link Google Scholar

European Commission (Ed.) (2016). The Census Hub: Easy and flexible access to European census data. Publications office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2785/52653

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Felt, M. (2016). Social media and the social sciences: How researchers employ Big Data analytics. Big Data & Society, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716645828

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Gallacher, J.D., Heerdink, M.W., & Hewstone, M. (2021). Online engagement between opposing political protest groups via social media is linked to physical violence of offline encounters. Social Media + Society, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984445

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Inter-Parliamentary Union (Ed.) (2015). Migration, human rights and governance. The International Labour Organization/ The United Nations. https://bit.ly/3F0KDjz

Link Google Scholar

Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(3), 433-438. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200723

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Larson, R.B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2020). Fanning the flames of hate: Social media and hate crime. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(4), 2131-2167. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvaa045

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Organización de las Naciones Unidas (Ed.) (2015). Agenda 2030 - Objetivo 10. Reducción de las desigualdades. ONU. https://bit.ly/3ulmcZi

Link Google Scholar

Organización de las Naciones Unidas (Ed.) (2018). Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration. ONU. https://bit.ly/3op7VtL

Link Google Scholar

Organización de las Naciones Unidas (Ed.) (2019). International migration policies. Data booklet. Statistical Papers - United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/0a2bc93d-en

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65-85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Salvini, M. [@matteosalvinimi] (2020, October 26). Ecco Il bel regalo di Natale di chi ci odia. Autore di questo scempio schifoso un palestinese [Tweet]. Twitter. https://bit.ly/3IHDIxK

Link Google Scholar

Sampieri, R.H., Collado, C.F., Lucio, P.B., Valencia, S.M., & Torres, C.P.M. (2014). Metodología de la investigación. McGraw-Hill Education. https://bit.ly/3ESaIRq

Link Google Scholar

Sayce, D. (2020). The number of tweets per day in 2020. https://bit.ly/3CZbUB2

Link Google Scholar

Siapera, E., Boudourides, M., Lenis, S., & Suiter, J. (2018). Refugees and network publics on Twitter: Networked framing, affect, and capture. Social Media + Society, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764437

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Vox [@Vox_es] (2021, March 27). Mientras impiden la movilidad a los españoles, más de 700 inmigrantes ilegales han asaltado nuestras fronteras en los últimos días [Tweet]. Twitter. https://bit.ly/3GAmGQe

Link Google Scholar

Vrysis, L., Vryzas, N., Kotsakis, R., Saridou, T., Matsiola, M., Veglis, A., Arcila-Calderón, C., & Dimoulas, C. (2021). A Web interface for analyzing hate speech. Future Internet, 13(3), 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13030080

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

We are social/Hootsuite (Ed.) (2021). Digital 2021 October Global Statshot Report. Digital 2021 Global Digital Overview. https://bit.ly/32c89el

Link Google Scholar

Zhang, J.S., Tan, C., & Lv, Q. (2019). Intergroup contact in the wild: Characterizing language differences between intergroup and single-group members in NBA-related discussion forums. In A. Lampinen, D. Gergle & D.A. Shamma (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359295

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fundref

Crossmark

Technical information

Recebido: 04-10-2021

Revisado: 22-11-2021

Aceite: 03-12-2021

OnlineFirst: 01-02-2022

Data de publicação: 01-04-2022

Tempo de revisão do artigo: 49 dias | Tempo médio de revisão do número 71: 45 dias

Tempo de aceitação do artigo: 60 dias | Tempo médio de aceitação do número 71: 70 dias

Tempo de edição da pré-impressão: 134 dias | Tempo médio de edição pré-impressão do número 71: 144 dias

Tempo de processamento do artigo: 179 dias | Tempo médio de processamento do número 71: 189 dias

Métricas

Métricas deste artigo

Vistas: 20227

Leituras dos resumos: 17940

Descargas em PDF: 2287

Métricas completas do Comunicar 71

Vistas: 170095

Leituras dos resumos: 147320

Descargas em PDF: 22775

Citado por