Steven Windisch|Susann Wiedlitzka|Ajima Olaghere
PROTOCOL: Online interventions for reducing hate speech and cyberhate: A systematic review
Temple University|University of Auckland|Temple University
campbell systematic reviewsvolume 17 issue 1 e1133 protocolopen access protocol online interventions reducing hate speech cyberhate systematic review steven windisch corresponding author steven windisch stevenwindischtempleedu department criminal justice temple university philadelphia pennsylvania correspondence steven windisch department criminal justice temple university 1115 w polett walk 539 gladfelter hall philadelphia 19122 pennsylvania email stevenwindischtempleedusearch papers authorsusann wiedlitzka susann wiedlitzka school social sciences university auckland auckland new zealandsearch papers authorajima olaghere ajima olaghere department criminal justice temple university philadelphia pennsylvaniasearch papers author steven windisch corresponding author steven windisch stevenwindischtempleedu department criminal justice temple university philadelphia pennsylvania correspondence steven windisch department criminal justice temple university 1115 w polett walk 539 gladfelter hall philadelphia 19122 pennsylvania email stevenwindischtempleedusearch papers authorsusann wiedlitzka susann wiedlitzka school social sciences university auckland auckland new zealandsearch papers authorajima olaghere ajima olaghere department criminal justice temple university philadelphia pennsylvaniasearch papers author first published 13 january 2021 httpsdoiorg101002cl21133aboutsectionspdf toolsrequest permissionexport citationadd favoritestrack citation shareshare give accessshare full text accessshare fulltext accessplease review terms conditions use check box share fulltext version articlei read accept wiley online library terms conditions useshareable linkuse link share fulltext version article friends colleagues learn morecopy url share linkshare onfacebooktwitterlinked inredditwechat 1 background 11 problem condition issue internet become everyday tool communicate network people around globe perceived anonymity availability instant access made environment conducive spreading hateful content connecting likeminded individuals similar hateful ideologies hate speech prejudicemotivated behavior however need considered continuum victimization like social processes seen dynamic state constant movement change rather static fixed bowling 1993 p 238 social process marked multiple repeat constant victimization bowling 1993 victims longer distinguishing specific hateful events rather normalizing experiences hateful conduct everyday unwanted routine reality different chakraborti 2016 p 581 understanding hateful behavior victimization process allows us connect lowlevel incidents hateful behavior serious lifethreatening incidents extreme end spectrum bowling phillips 2002 christchurch attacks new zealand link hateful communication online platform 8chan one example online hate speech cyberhate escalate real life attacks leaving online sphere spilling offline world per allports 1954 scale prejudice extreme forms prejudicemotivated violence founded lower level acts prejudice bias therefore hateful content online ignored intervening online interrupt counter hateful behavior already lower end scale prejudice becomes important online interventions identified synthesized systematic review allports 1954 scale prejudice basis systematic review early allport 1954 asserted individuals negative attitudes toward groups likely act prejudices somehow somewhere p 14 intense negative attitudes hostile action allport 1954 put forward scale acts prejudice illustrate different degrees acting negative attitudes scale starts antilocution call hate speech described explicitly expressing prejudices negative verbal remarks either friends strangers allport 1954 avoidance next level scale prejudice people avoiding members certain groups followed discrimination distinctions made people based prejudices leads active exclusion members certain groups allport 1954 level acting prejudices routed institutional systemic prejudices example differential treatment people within employment education practices also within criminal justice system social exclusion certain minority group members physical attack next level scale prejudice includes violence members certain groups physically acting negative attitudes prejudices last level extermination ultimate act violence members specific groups expression prejudice systematically eradicates entire group people eg genocide lynchings allport 1954 allports 1954 scale prejudice makes clear hate speechcyberhate connected extreme forms violence motivated specific prejudices biases hate speech antilocutions starting point 5point continuum bilewicz soral 2020 importance scale prejudice clearly illustrates range different ways intensity levels act prejudices also progression verbal aggression physical violence words performative potential hate speech allport 1954 kopytowska baider 2017 p 138 interventions lower level scale prejudices interventions targeting hate speechcyberhate become important universal definition hateful conduct online consensus hate speech targets disadvantaged social groups jacobs potter 1998 bakalis 2018 narrowly defines cyberhate use technology express hatred towards person persons protected characteristicnamely race religion gender sexual orientation disability transgender identity p 87 another definition also points ambiguity challenges involved identifying subtle forms hate speech also making reference potential threat hate speech escalating offline violence put forward fortuna nunes 2018 analyzed various definitions hate speech hate speech language attacks diminishes incites violence hate groups based specific characteristics physical appearance religion descent national ethnic origin sexual orientation gender identity occur different linguistic styles even subtle forms humour used p 5 systematic review also distinguish hate speechcyberhate specifically forms harmful online activity cyberbullying harassment trolling flaming perpetrators online behavior repeatedly systematically target specific individuals cause upset seek negative reactions create discord internet contrast hate speechcyberhate general necessarily target specific individual alhassan aldossari 2019 instead hate speechcyberhate heavily features prejudice bias intolerance toward certain groups within society majority hate speech happening online interventions take place online important way challenge prejudice bias potentially reaching masses people across globe unique feature internet individual negative attitudes toward minority groups extreme hateful ideology find way onto certain platforms instantly connect people sharing similar prejudices closing social spatial distance internet creates form collective identity perry 2000 p 123 convince individuals even extreme ideologies others share views gerstenfeld et al 2003 addition enormous frequency hate speechcyberhate within online environments creates sense normativity hatred potential acts intergroup violence political radicalization bilewicz soral 2020 p 9 therefore important challenge hate speech epidemic bilewicz soral 2020 especially since hate movements increasingly crossed mainstream perry 2000 hate speechcyberhate posing threat social order violating social norms soral et al 2018 perceptions social norms either supporting opposing prejudice found influence individuals react online hsueh et al 2015 seeing people post prejudiced opposed antiprejudiced comments online lead adoption online groups biases influence individuals perceptions feelings toward targeted stigmatized group hsueh et al 2015 addition research around desensitization also suggests exposed hate speech leads desensitization leads increase outgroup prejudice toward groups targeted speech soral et al 2018 society increasingly recognizing inappropriate express prejudices public settings many interventions include form social norms nudging reduce prejudices interventions nudge behavior desired direction titley et al 2014 p 60 therefore hate speech affects minority group members also influence opinions majority group members soral et al 2018 makes strategies elicit change peoples prejudicerelated attitudes crucial see eg zitek hebl 2007 governments around world face increased demand understanding countering hateful ideology violent extremism online offline eg christchurch call new zealand us governments 2011 cve strategy highlights importance ongoing research analysis sharing knowledge best practices internationally countering hateful ideologies propaganda see also department homeland security 2016 2019 goal systematic review use integrated interdisciplinary approach examine effectiveness online campaigns strategies reducing hate speech cyberhate 12 intervention internet also provides opportunity reach masses people exposed hateful content ideology online therefore systematic review focus online interventions addressing online hate speech cyberhate specific settings would expect see online interventions deployed websites text messaging applications online social media platforms including limited facebook instagram tiktok whatsapp google youtube snapchat mentioned previously many online interventions based social norm nudges reduce online hate interventions aim change peoples online behavior encourage individuals groups conform established social norms communication social norms happen establishing community standards online platforms eg facebook twitter etc formal online training courses antihate speechanticyberhate campaigns teaching people recognize hate embrace diversity stand bias prevention campaigns designed challenge bias build ally behaviors supplying people constructive responses combat example antisemitism racism homophobia well provide resources help people explore critically reflect current events interventions may add messages hateful online comments counter hateful content extremist ideology redirect people credible sources 13 intervention might work peers parents found foster racial consciousness identity development define interracial relationships cultivate ethnic heritage culture hagerman 2016 socialization influences children understand groups social position membership within group providing understanding racial religious sexual privilege bowman howard 1985 socialization often reflects peers parents experiences racism discrimination ideological perspectives race religion sexuality umaataylor fine 2004 important peers parents feel discriminated believe threat may impart prejudices children friends could lead interpret social world similar discriminatory views andor behavior individuals feel socially alienated rejected especially vulnerable socialization practices feel adopting views provide sense acceptance belonging leiken 2012 regardless individual develops certain racial religious sexual biases online interventions review expected target reduce production original hateful content antisemitic tweets andor homophobic blog posts well consumption hate speech material eg watching reading hate speech videos blogs example interventions take rather broad messaging approach implementing racial sensitivity diversity training public service announcements peertopeer dialogue workshops films provide opportunities youth adults selfreflect learn historical oppression people color women lgbtqia community credible sources factual understanding diverse groups often supplemented experiences people within group educational programs often identify cultural guide willing introduce youth new experiences aid processing thoughts feelings behaviors interventions intend dispute contradict negative stereotypes associated specific cultures people institutions sharing different points view based human rights values openness respect difference freedom equality gomes 2017 moreover interventions tend involve blanket bans specific behaviors enforced public promotion norms individual sanctions enforced moderators interventions redirect method narrower messaging interventions generate curated playlists collections authentic content challenge hate speechcyberhate narratives propaganda helmus klein 2018 instance people directly searching extremist content online may linked videos written content confronts claims videos designed objective appearance instead containing material explicitly counters extremist propaganda underlying goal type interventions provide credible content effectively undermines extremist messaging overtly attack source propaganda addition confronting hate speech narratives interventions provide users links numerous social services anger management training drug alcohol treatment mental health resources online platforms twitter facebook also started employ similar method redirecting people comment share fake news conspiracy theories often fraught prejudicial undertones harmful minority groups credible content news sources aforementioned interventions designed counterbalance biased perceptions eg unsupported claims black community criminal lgbtqia community pathologized blacks criminals lgbtqia pathologized blunting occurrence racist discourse reducing likelihood individuals internalize normalize racial religious andor sexual prejudices qian et al 2019 new situations uncomfortable often awakens fears apprehensions block experiential development acquiring information exposed minorityrun businesses poverty writings minority authors allows person understand thoughts hopes fears aspirations people outside racial perspective rather perspective majority society dunham et al 2013 lee et al 2017 counters racist programming challenging hegemonic beliefs lead acceptance tolerant attitudes reduction hateful expressions online 14 important review findings proposed review enhance understanding effectiveness online antihate speechantihate interventions help ensure programming funds dedicated mosteffective efforts play critical role helping individual programs improve quality service provisions inform governments policymakers current state online efforts works modes interventions implement help guide economically viable investments nationstate security 15 prior reviews search scholarly literature identified one review blaya 2019 similar proposed topic blayas 2019 review however focused prevalence type characteristics existing interventions counteracting cyberhate include metaanalysis two similar reviews focused exposure extremist online content hassan et al 2018 communication channels associated cyberracism bliuc et al 2018 search campbell library using key terms hate radical returned two protocols one review identified inspection assess potential overlap protocols include psychosocial processes intervention strategies behind islamist deradicalization scoping review de carvalho et al 2019 police programs seek increase community connectedness reducing violent extremism behavior attitudes beliefs mazerolle et al 2020 review similar topic recently completed campbell review january 2020 counternarratives prevention violent radicalization systematic review targeted interventions carthy et al 2018 national university ireland galway proposed review distinguished de carvalho et al 2019 review focusing hate speech cyberhate generally without delimiting approach specific type radicalization eg islamist furthermore electing complete systematic review metaanalysis likewise protocol mazerolle et al 2020 focuses interventions involving police officers either initiators recipients implementers community connectedness interventions review focus specifically online intervention may may involve police police focus basis online intervention strategy judging carthy et al 2018 protocol anticipate review also capture counternarrative interventions differ based setting timing scope interventions specifically interested online interventions extend beyond countermessaging campaigns include broad array interventions outlined extend beyond radicalization include everyday hate prejudice addition conducting metaanalysis proposed review would build blayas 2019 work expanding population parameters include adolescents well adults blaya 2019 limited search include interventions aimed toward youth young people children young adults adolescents children teenagers focus extremism 2 objectives main objective review synthesize available evidence effectiveness online interventions aimed reducing creation andor consumption online hate speechcyberhate material specific research questions guiding review include 1 extent online interventions effective reducing online hate speechcyberhate 2 effectiveness related type online hate speechcyberhate intervention used 3 effectiveness related characteristics individuals experiencing online hate speechcyberhate intervention eg age gender raceethnicity offense history childhood trauma 3 methods 31 inclusion criteria 311 types study designs experimental quasiexperimental quantitative studies included study designs address research questions 1 3 eligible quantitative study designs include following 3111 experimental designs eligible experimental designs must involve random assignment participants distinct treatment control groups designs involve quasirandom assignment participants alternate case assignment also eligible coded experimental designs 3112 quasiexperimental designs eligible quasiexperimental designs must include comparison group participants compared participants treatment condition eligible studies include report matching procedures individual grouplevel statistical procedures employed achieve equivalency groups statistical procedures may include limited propensity score matching regression analysis analysisofcovariance furthermore anticipation limited quantitative evidence base also include quasiexperimental studies unmatched comparison groups provide baseline assessment outcomes groups finally timeseries analyses also included eligible timeseries design include shortinterrupted time series designs control group 25 prepost observations longinterrupted time series designs without control group 25 prepost observations ineligible quasiexperimental designs include studies utilize comparison group consisting participants either refused participate study initially participated study dropped prior start study 312 nature eligible comparison conditions eligible comparison conditions include online interventions conditions participants receive experience online intervention 313 types participants youth adult participants racialethnic background religious affiliation gender identity sexual orientation nationality citizenship status eligible review eligible youth population study participants minimum age 10 age 17 eligible adult population study participants minimum age 18 older studies subset sample eligible inclusionfor example study subject participates online offline hate speech interventionswill excluded anticipate excluding studies based sample eligibility inclusion criteria wideranging take reasonable steps locate studies involves online interventions resolve differences opinion regarding eligibility study inclusion discussion consensus agreement cannot reached elicit opinion subject matter expert whereby final list included excluded studies decided since studies excluded unavailable cannot calculated metaanalysis related subgroupsensitivity analysis 314 types interventions adopt blayas 2019 fourpart typology intervention strategies outline potential universe eligible interventions first intervention strategy adaptation legal responses hate speechcyberhate includes countering violent extremism aims address cybercrime specifically online interventions eligible range disrupting hateful content online via specific crackdowns eg server shutdowns deletion social media accounts responding online hate using targeted strategies eg counternarratives modifying hateful content examples previous studies focusing online crackdowns include monitoring investigation online accounts content takedowns online content monitoring censorship alvarezbenjumea winter 2018 modifying hateful online comments nonhateful comments salminen et al 2018 possibly changing algorithms divert users online echo chambers also interested interventions recent takedown 8chan online platform linked real life attacks new zealand united states interventions exist disrupt hateful online content radicalization similar trigger events disrupting hateful content online via crackdowns brought free speech concerns well concerns around online users hateful groups moving online platforms responding hateful content online using targeted strategies therefore suggested effective online intervention examples include message priming using endorsement religious elites siegel badaan 2020 use bots sanction online harassers munger 2017 automatically generating responses intervene online conversations hate speech detected qian et al 2019 redirecting online users youtube videos debunking example isis recruiting themes httpsredirectmethodorg systematic review include broader range online interventions many recently emerged two strategies identified blaya 2019 automatic identification regulation hate speechcyberhate using technology well creation online counterspaces countercommunication initiatives interventions include online counternarrative marketing campaigns establishment andor use online counter spaces online educationbased interventions online citizenship training online legislative initiatives narrowly defined address extremist ideologies hate speech incites targeted violence radicalization general interventions seek prevent minimize occurrence violent extremism radicalization including spread hate speech extremist propaganda disrupting recruitment channels creating opportunities leave groups fourth final intervention strategy eligible systematic review involves educational programs example provide people online literacy skills challenge racism blaya 2019 include online empowermentresilience approaches policy programs online component eg prevent exit programs educational awarenessraising online interventions interventions may evaluate behavioral changes individuals longer engaging creation andor consumption cyberhate extremist material online online interventions may sponsored nonprofit nongovernmental organizations internet service providers policy governmental agencies case legislative interventions comparison condition may routine exposure engagement hate speechcyberhate another online intervention 315 types outcome measures primary outcome interest creation andor consumption hateful content online creation refer production authorship original hateful content posting antisemitic tweets uploading racist youtube videos andor writing homophobic blog posts consumption hate speech material may include visiting member hate websiteonline group watching reading hate speech videos blogs target online hate speechcyberhate reporting hate speech material secondary outcomes interest include affective emotional states study participants anger fear emotional unrest depression anxiety mood swings attitudes toward hate speechcyberhate eligible studies must report primary secondary outcome included exclusion criteria source outcome data data primary secondary outcome measures obtained courses including institutional records direct observations survey