Morally Homogeneous Networks and Radicalism
Published version of a preprint
Abstract
Online radicalization is among the most vexing challenges the world faces today. Here, we demonstrate that homogeneity in moral concerns results in increased levels of radical intentions. In Study 1, we find that in Gab—a right-wing extremist network—the degree of moral convergence within a cluster predicts the number of hate-speech messages members post. In Study 2, we replicate this observation in another extremist network, Incels. In Studies 3 to 5 ( N = 1,431), we demonstrate that experimentally leading people to believe that others in their hypothetical or real group share their moral views increases their radical intentions as well as willingness to fight and die for the group. Our findings highlight the role of moral convergence in radicalization, emphasizing the need for diversity of moral worldviews within social networks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The amount of moral convergence in online groups predicts radicalization.
“Moreover, the amount of moral convergence in online groups (e.g., people in a group sharing the same moral views) predicts radicalization (Atari et al. 2022), and, as we mentioned above, tweets containing moral-emotional language are more likely to receive hate speech in the replies (Solovev & Pröllochs 2023).”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Atari et al. 2022
Cites
Byrt, T., Bishop, J., & Carlin, J. B. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-v · Cited by 2,179 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…coefficients for multiple annotators (Fleiss, 1971), after correction for the low prevalence of labels, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK; Byrt et al., 1993) was computed for each of the 10 moral values categories and for the hate-based rhetoric label (PABAKs in Table 3).”
MethodHomophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies
Shalizi, C. R., & Thomas, A. C. (2011) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124111404820 · Cited by 994 · cited 1× · see citing works
“No direction of causality, though, could be inferred from these observational social-network studies (DellaPosta et al., 2015; Shalizi & Thomas, 2011).”
BackgroundConstraints on Generality (COG): A Proposed Addition to All Empirical Papers
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617708630 · Cited by 986 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Finally, a constraint on generality of these findings is worth mentioning for replication and follow-up studies (Simons et al., 2017).”
BackgroundPolitical Sectarianism in America
Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., Mason, L., McGrath, M. C., Nyhan, B., Rand, D. G., et al. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abe1715 · Cited by 931 · see citing works
Online hatred of women in the Incels.me forum: Linguistic analysis and automatic detection
Jaki, S., De Smedt, T., Gwóźdź, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G. (2019) · Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict · doi:10.1075/jlac.00026.jak · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships
Fiske, A. P., Rai, T. S., & Pinker, S. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316104668 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Moral foundations twitter corpus: a collection of 35k tweets annotated for moral sentiment
Hoover, J., Portillo-Wightman, G., Yeh, L., Havaldar, S., Davani, A. M., Lin, Y., Kennedy, B., Atari, M., Kamel, Z., Mendlen, M., et al. (2020) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550619876629 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Van Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
- Authors
- Atari, M., Davani, A. M., Kogon, D., Kennedy, B., Ani Saxena, N., Anderson, I., & Dehghani, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
- Corresponding author
- Atari, Mohammad
- Venue
- Social Psychological and Personality Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-12-16
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 999-1009
- ISSN
- 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-5514
- OpenAlex
- W4205646634
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 9.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- online radicalization, extremist networks, Gab, incels, hate speech, moral diversity
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
