Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Understanding the Bystander Effect on Toxic Twitter Conversations (2211.10764v1)

Published 19 Nov 2022 in cs.SI and cs.CY

Abstract: In this study, we explore the power of group dynamics to shape the toxicity of Twitter conversations. First, we examine how the presence of others in a conversation can potentially diffuse Twitter users' responsibility to address a toxic direct reply. Second, we examine whether the toxicity of the first direct reply to a toxic tweet in conversations establishes the group norms for subsequent replies. By doing so, we outline how bystanders and the tone of initial responses to a toxic reply are explanatory factors which affect whether others feel uninhibited to post their own abusive or derogatory replies. We test this premise by analyzing a random sample of more than 156k tweets belonging to ~9k conversations. Central to this work is the social psychological research on the "bystander effect" documenting that the presence of bystanders has the power to alter the dynamics of a social situation. If the first direct reply reaffirms the divisive tone, other replies may follow suit. We find evidence of a bystander effect, with our results showing that an increased number of users participating in the conversation before receiving a toxic tweet is negatively associated with the number of Twitter users who responded to the toxic reply in a non-toxic way. We also find that the initial responses to toxic tweets within conversations is of great importance. Posting a toxic reply immediately after a toxic comment is negatively associated with users posting non-toxic replies and Twitter conversations becoming increasingly toxic.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Ana Aleksandric (6 papers)
  2. Mohit Singhal (7 papers)
  3. Anne Groggel (2 papers)
  4. Shirin Nilizadeh (32 papers)
Citations (5)