Cited by 30Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionBullying, Victimization, and Aggression

Cyber neutralisation and flaming

Hwang, Jiyeon, Lee, Hwansoo, Kim, Keesung, Zo, Hangjung, Ciganek, Andrew P.·2016·Behaviour & Information Technology

Abstract

Individuals are increasingly subjected to flaming or negative behaviours as society becomes digitally adept. Existing research on flaming is largely fragmented and insufficient to understand what induces individuals to engage in flaming actions online. Neutralisation theory, the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), and motivational theory are integrated to develop a theoretical model to better understand flaming in virtual communities. A large-scale online questionnaire targeting individuals who had experience with flaming in a virtual community was employed to analyse the research model. The results indicate that neutralisation techniques acceptability, enjoyment, subjective norms, and low self-control significantly influence flaming. Enjoyment, low moral beliefs, subjective norms, and low self-control influence neutralisation techniques acceptability, or efforts made by individuals to rationalise their deviant behaviour. Neutralisation techniques acceptability is highly correlated with flaming in virtual communities, which has not previously been examined. Intrinsic motivation or enjoyment influences flaming, which is important because neutralisation theory and the TPB do not account for motivation. Virtual communities have a tremendous amount of influence towards an individual's rationalisation of and repeated engagement in flaming. The government, Internet service providers, the media, virtual communities, and Internet activists have an opportunity to define appropriate online behavioural standards that diminish the prevalence of flaming.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0144929x.2015.1135191

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hwang, J., Lee, H., Kim, K., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P.
Affiliations
  • Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
  • Dankook University (KR)
  • University of Wisconsin–Whitewater (US)
Corresponding author
Zo, Hangjung
Venue
Behaviour & Information Technology
Published
2016-02-15
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
210-224
ISSN
  • 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-3001
OpenAlex
W2278478698
Cited by
30
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Keywords
flaming, theory of planned behavior, online communities, self-control, subjective norms, moral beliefs, intrinsic motivation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review