University of Groningen
The psychology of online activism and social movements
Greijdanus, Hedy; de Matos Fernandes, Carlos A; Turner-Zwinkels, Felicity; Honari, Ali;
Roos, Carla A; Rosenbusch, Hannes; Postmes, Tom
Published in:
Current Opinion in Psychology DOI:
10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.003
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Greijdanus, H., de Matos Fernandes, C. A., Turner-Zwinkels, F., Honari, A., Roos, C. A., Rosenbusch, H., & Postmes, T. (2020). The psychology of online activism and social movements: Relations between online and offline collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 49-54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.003
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
The
psychology
of
online
activism
and
social
movements:
relations
between
online
and
offline
collective
action
Hedy
Greijdanus
1,
Carlos
A
de
Matos
Fernandes
2,
Felicity
Turner-Zwinkels
3,
Ali
Honari
4,
Carla
A
Roos
1,
Hannes
Rosenbusch
3and
Tom
Postmes
1Wereviewonlineactivismanditsrelationswithofflinecollective action.Socialmediafacilitateonlineactivism,particularlyby documentingandcollatingindividualexperiences,community building,normformation,anddevelopmentofsharedrealities. Intheory,onlineactivismcouldhinderofflineprotests,but empiricalevidenceforslacktivismismixed.Insomecontexts, onlineandofflineactioncouldbeunrelatedbecausepeopleact differentlyonlineversusoffline,orbecausepeoplerestricttheir actionstoonedomain.However,mostempiricalevidence suggeststhatonlineandofflineactivismarepositivelyrelated andintertwined(nodigitaldualism),becausesocialmedia postscanmobiliseothersforofflineprotest.Notwithstanding thispositiverelationship,theinternetalsoenhancesthe visibilityofactivismandthereforefacilitatesrepressionin repressivecontexts.
Addresses
1
HeymansInstituteforPsychologicalResearch,UniversityofGroningen, TheNetherlands
2DepartmentofSociology/InteruniversityCenterforSocialScience
TheoryandMethodology(ICS),UniversityofGroningen,The Netherlands
3
DepartmentofSocialPsychology,TilburgUniversity,TheNetherlands
4DepartmentofSociology,UtrechtUniversity,TheNetherlands
Correspondingauthors:Greijdanus,Hedy(h.j.e.greijdanus@rug.nl), Postmes,Tom(t.postmes@rug.nl)
CurrentOpinioninPsychology2020,35:xx–yy
ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonSocialchange(rallies, riotsandrevolutions)
EditedbySeamusPower
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.003
2352-250X/ã2020TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Thisisan openaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Oftentimes, when thinkingof activism people envision mass behaviours such as demonstrations and disruptive activities (blockades, riots). This contrasts sharply with onlineactivismbyindividualsunitedintheirworldviews yetdispersedintimeand/orplace.Thisreviewofonline activism investigatesthe role of onlineactivities in the larger repertoire of contention. We first briefly review
collective action as it occurs online. Many studies on onlineactivismalso considerits relationsto offline pro-test. We discuss evidence for, respectively, negative, inconsistent, and positive relations between onlineand offline actionsand theiroutcomes. Weconclude with a consideration of protest in repressive contexts, and a discussionincludingdirectionsfor futureresearch.
Online
activism
Onlineactivismtakesmanyforms,fromsymbolic signal-ling ofone’sstance onapoliticisedissue (e.g.changing one’s social media profile picture) to more complex engagement (e.g. writing detailed posts about a social issue[1]).Socialmediafacilitateonlineactivisminthree keyways.First,theyallowindividualstoexpress experi-encesandopinions,relatingthemtocollectivecauses(see #metoo [2,3]). Second, they allow online community members to provide support, organise activities, and challengenegative responsesto theiractivities[4].One exampleis‘digilantism’,whereperceivednorm transgres-sions(e.g.misogyny)areexposedandpubliclysanctioned [5].Withinin-groups,thiscanraiseawarenessandnourish activism. Nevertheless,ithasdownsides similarto vigi-lantismandcaninviteaninter-groupbacklash[6].Third, socialmediaallowpeopletoinvolveothersoutsidetheir online community to collectively negotiate new shared realitiesandspreadthese[4,7].Thiscanempower com-munities, as exemplified by women’s #freethenipple posts oftoplessphotosto normaliseunsexualised repre-sentationsofbreastsandreclaimthefemalebody[4].In sum,threetypesofcommunicationviasocialmediacan boostactivism:Relatingindividualperspectivesto activ-istcauses,organisingactivistcommunities,and negotiat-ingshared realitieswithoutsiders.
Relations
between
online
and
offline
action
The formation of online activist communities is rarely isolated: The online and offline are typically closely integrated.Indeed,onlineactivismfacilitatesoffline pro-testbyadvertisingandorganisingit[8].Increasingly,this meansthatmassprotestscanoccurwithoutformal struc-tures(e.g.tradeunions).Somesuggestwearewitnessing thebirthofanentirelynewformofconnectiveaction[9,10]: Bottom-upmobilisationthatoccurswhencallstoaction cascade through interconnected personal networks. Of course, socialmedia vastlyincrease communication fac-ulties, but throughout history comparable bottom-upprotestshaveregularlyoccurred.Pre-19thcentury,these wereprobablypredominant,andstudiesoffoodriotsand riotsduringthereformation[11,12]suggestthat commu-nicationsoftheday(pamphlets,townsquareassemblies, rumours)playedaroleinthegroupdynamicsof mobilisa-tion similarto that played by social media today. Not-withstandingthesesimilarcommunicationfunctions,the literature provides a mixed view on the linksbetween online and offline action —supporting, respectively, a negative, no unequivocal, or a positive relationship betweenonlineandofflineactivism.Wewillnowdiscuss theempiricalbasisof thesethreeperspectives.
Negativerelation:thetrade-offhypothesis
Especially when it was unfamiliar, online activism was dismissedas‘slacktivism’thatwassupposedlyeffort-free, unproductive,andinhibitingmoreeffortful,effective off-lineprotest(thelatterisessentiallyatrade-offhypothesis). Increasingly,thisreasoningisseenassimplistic[13]. Sev-eralfactorsmoderatewhetheronlineandofflineactivism relatenegatively.Forinstance,onlineactivismdoes not inhibitofflineprotestifactivistsperceivetheiractionsas effective[14].Othermoderatorsareage(forolderusers onlineengagementisnotsufficient)andnetwork hetero-geneity(homogeneityincreasescarry-overbetweenonline andofflineactivismthroughsocialsupport[15]). Further-more,effortfulonlineactions(producingvideoclips, man-agingevents)crossovertoofflineaction[16].Other mech-anisms can also cause negative relations between the unfoldingofcollectiveactiononlineandoffline.For exam-ple,activistscanonlinedistancethemselvesfromoffline riots[17],illustratinghowonlineandofflineactionsmay react to each other bycontrasting awayfrom the other domain.Alternatively,onlineandofflineactivitiescanbe complementaryoverphasesofaction:Planningand mobi-lisation, real-time reporting and framing, and aftertalk ‘reviewing’ actionsand demobilisation. Torecap, afew isolatedstudiessuggestthatonlineactivismoccasionally substitutesofflineactivism,butthisappearstoberare.The relationship appears more complex than the trade-off hypothesissuggests.
Inconsistentrelation:digitaldivide,echochambers,and digitaldualism
Othersourcesindicatethatinsomecontexts,onlineand offline protests are neither negatively nor positively related. Three processes can explain this finding: (1) digital divides, (2) spiral of silence and echo chamber effects,and(3)digitaldualism.First,peopleengagingin onlineactionmaydifferfromthoseactingoffline—that is,digitaldivides.Forinstance,working-classpeopleare lesspoliticallyactive onlinebecausetheyfeelless tech-nologysavvy[18].Furthermore,someevidencesuggests thatyoungerpeopleengagemoreonlineand oldermen engagemoreoffline[19].Thisiscontradictedbyfindings thatdigitaldividesdo notplayarolein onlinepetition
signing[20]:Theeffort requiredfor actionsmayplaya moderatingrole.
Second, relations between online and offline activism becomeunreliableifprocessesthatencourageordampen activism evolve differently online versus offline. One sucha process isthe spiral of silence[21]: People self-censor opinions that they expect to be unpopular. But meta-analyticevidencesuggeststhatthespiralofsilence isequallystrongonlineandoffline[22].Also, self-segre-gationintolike-mindednetworksallegedlywouldcause onlineactivism to be different. Social media character-istics(e.g.easeof‘unfriending’)facilitateechochambers [23],inwhich thesame shared realitiesare echoedand socially validated, encouraging the formation of mono-cultures. The resulting perceived sharedness can strengthenpeople’sworldviews[24].But theliterature isnotclearwhetherthisisagreaterproblemonlinethan offline and, moreover, evidence indicates that opinion heterogeneity(the oppositeof echochambers) canalso fuelcollectiveaction[25].
Third,digitaldualismsuggeststhatpeopleenact differ-entpersonaeonlineversusoffline.Relativelyanonymous online environments free people from concerns to be positively evaluated and consequent social restrictions to their behaviour [2,26,27]. This may facilitate online activism without fear of social repercussions. Online disinhibition becomes particularly likely if people lack self-control[28], are low in avoidant or anxious attach-ment[29],orsufferpsychologicaldistress[30].A persis-tentmisconceptionregardingonline(relative)anonymity isthatwhenpeoplefeellessindividuallyidentifiablethey becomedeindividuatedand,hence,lessresponsivetoall socialnorms.Anonymityto outsidersinsteadempowers people to behave more consistently with the norms of their own group of ‘insiders’ [31]. That is, pseudony-misedonlinecommunitymembersareonlymorelikelyto riot if that community consists of violent activists but disorderly behaviour is less likely if their community consists of pacifists. Thus, online activism potentially diverges from offline activism but the exact nature of thisdivergenceiscontext-dependent.
Positiverelation:intrapersonalconsistencyand interpersonalmobilisation
Ample evidence supports positive relations between onlineandofflineactivism [8,32,33,34].Onlineactivism participation can stimulate individuals to also protest offline — an intrapersonal effect. Small online actions caneasepeopleintomorecostlyofflineaction(although this foot-in-the-door technique may backfire especially fornon-profitmovements[35]).Besidesthiscompliance technique,other psychological mechanisms may playa role.For instance,social mediamight encourage transi-tionfromonlineto offlineactivismbyfacilitatingsocial identity formation — albeit recent meta-analytic
2 Socialchange(rallies,riotsandrevolutions)
evidence is mixed [36]. Online activism may thus cultivate the psychological preconditions to embolden individualstoembracemoreburdensomeofflineprotest. These preconditions include tightly knit, thick social identities characterised by online and offline interest alignment [37–40], morality, solidarity, or shared belief regardingtheissueathand[40–44],self-efficacy[44],and unfairness[45].Inadditiontosuchgatewayeffectsfrom onlinetoofflineaction,thereversemayalsooccur;when one’sofflineactionspillsoverintotheonlinedomain[46]. And finally, intrapersonal concurrence between online and offlineactivismmayresultfromtheintertwiningof one’sofflineandonlinelives(e.g.incorporationofTinder in people’sintimate‘offline’life[47]).Thus,onlineand offlineactivismseemstronglyrelatedwithinpersons— arguing againstdigitaldualism[48].
Alternatively,interpersonaleffectsoccurwhenindividuals coordinate, recruit, developsocial identitiesand shared realities,andshareinformationonlinebefore,during,and after movements’ initial rise [14,43,49,50,51,52,53]. Indeed, social media and online activism have been heralded as instrumental (albeit not without obstacles) inmobilisingpotentialnewparticipantsforofflineaction [54]. Both intrapersonal and interpersonal consistency betweenonlineandofflineactivismpaintageneral pic-ture of collective action as positively related across the two domains.
Internet
as
technology
for
democratisation
or
repression
Mostresearchonrelationshipsbetweenonlineandoffline activismconcernswesterndemocracies.Thefewstudies analysing non-democratic, repressive contexts mostly focus on macro-level cross-country analyses [55–57] on howinternetaccessoruseinfluencesprotests.The inter-nethasatwo-facedfunction[58],asliberationtechnology supportingactivism[57]orrepressivecontroltechnology [56].Onlineactionscanbesubjecttohorizontal surveil-lance (social control among citizens, digilantism [5,6]). Repressiveregimescanalsousetheinternetforvertical surveillance,controllingcitizensandsuppressingprotests that threaten their power. Although the internet may supportonlineactivism anditsspreadtoofflineprotest, suchincreasesin (onlineandoffline)protestcan invigo-rate repression [55]. Thus, at the macro level online activism may initially stimulate offline activism under repressive regimes while the relation subsequently becomescomplicatedbytheregimes’responsestothese actions.
Micro-levelanalysesinthesemattersarerare,mainlydue tothelackofindividual-leveldataonactivismin repres-sive contexts.Asoneexception, recentpaneldata indi-cate that Iranian Green Movement supporters who are more activeonlinearealsomoreactive offline,andvice versa [59]. Additional micro-level support for positive
relationsbetweenonlineandofflineactivismcomesfrom a cross-national survey in Muslim-majority countries aroundtheArabSpring[60].Notably,individuals’general internetusewasunrelatedtoofflineprotest.Insum,what people do onlineis more important than mere internet access in the relationship between online and offline activism.
Discussion
and
conclusion
Wehavereviewedonlineactivismanditsrelationswith offlineprotest.Torecap,severalsocialmedia character-istics facilitate online activism: Particularly its role in documenting and collating individual experiences, in community building and norm formation, and in the development of shared social realities. There is mixed empirical evidence that online protest prevents offline protests, resultingin ineffective slacktivism. Other evi-dence suggests that in some cases, online and offline actionsarerelativelyunrelatedbecausepeopleact differ-ently online versus offline (intrapersonal effect) or becausedifferentpeopleengageinonlineversusoffline action (interpersonal effect). Overall,the literature cur-rently suggests that in many cases online and offline activism correlate, either because people’s online and offline behaviours are intertwined or because one person’s online activism can mobilise others for offline protest. That is, the current evidence argues against digitaldualism.Inrepressivecontexts,macro-level anal-ysesindicatethattheinternetcanstimulateactivismand revolutions, but also facilitate top-down repression. Micro-level evidence supports a positive relation betweenonline activismandofflineprotest among citi-zensunder repressiveregimes.
Together, these findings suggest valuable avenues for futureresearch.Moreresearchisneededonunderstudied phenomenasuchasrestrictedcommunicationand repres-sion. Future research could also focus on relations between technology and psychological outcomes, by exploring differences between online platforms (Face-book,Twitter),differentonlinebehaviours(commenting, sharing,liking),ornewtechnologies(e.g.livestreaming, asynchronousvideo-sharing[61]).Furthermore,research could cover more completely the life-cycle of online movements.Specifically,itcouldmovebeyondthe pre-dominant focus on the initial stages of (online) action development (cf. [62]) by investigating unsuccessful social movements or cycles between online and offline action.
Inconclusion,thecurrentstateoftheliteraturepaintsan intriguingpictureabouthowsocialmediaareutilisedfor collectiveaction.The internetiswidely usedfor eman-cipatory actions to raise awareness, rally people, set activistagendas,todebateandevaluateactions,butalso antagonistically (by groups and authorities) to polarise, misinform,andrepressunwantedactions.Unmistakably,
minoritygroupscanmoreeasilymakecontactandmake themselvesheardthroughsocialmedia.Thisgivessocial media a great vibrancy and pluralism, but it may also divide and polarise societies. Increasingly, online and offline activism are inseparable and complementary social-psychological instruments for politicisation, debate,mobilisation,andconflict.
Conflict
of
interest
statement
Nothingdeclared.Author
note
ThisresearchwaspartlyfundedbyagrantoftheNational Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism at the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security (grant number 40100013112) to Tom Postmes and Hedy Greijdanus. Thefundingsourcedidnotplayaroleindesign,analysis, interpretation,writing,orany oftheotherstagesof this research.
TheauthorsthankPatrickDu¨lsen,WouterKiekens,and InkaPapenfussfor theirhelpwiththeliteraturesearch.
CRediT
authorship
contribution
statement
Hedy Greijdanus: Conceptualization, Funding acquisi-tion,Investigation,Methodology,Projectadministration, Writing-originaldraft,Writing-review&editing.Carlos AdeMatosFernandes:Conceptualization,Investigation, Methodology,Writing-originaldraft,Writing-review& editing. Felicity Turner-Zwinkels: Conceptualization, Investigation,Methodology,Writing-originaldraft, Writ-ing - review & editing. AliHonari: Conceptualization, Investigation,Methodology,Writing-originaldraft, Writ-ing-review&editing.CarlaARoos:Conceptualization, Investigation,Methodology,Writing-originaldraft, Writ-ing-review&editing.HannesRosenbusch: Conceptu-alization,Investigation, Methodology,Writing- original draft,Writing-review&editing.TomPostmes: Concep-tualization,Fundingacquisition,Investigation, Method-ology, Project administration, Writing - original draft, Writing-review &editing.References
and
recommended
reading
Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview, havebeenhighlightedas:
ofspecialinterest ofoutstandinginterest
1. GomezEM,KaiserCR:Frompixelstoprotest:usingtheinternet toconfrontbiasatthesocietallevel.In ConfrontingPrejudice andDiscrimination:TheScienceofChangingMindsand Behaviors.EditedbyRobynK,MallettRK,MonteithMJ.Elsevier; 2019:319-335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814715-3.00011-4.
2. BogenKW,BleiweissKK,LeachNR,OrchowskiLM:#MeToo: disclosureandresponsetosexualvictimizationonTwitter.J InterpersViolence2019:0886260519851211http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260519851211.
3. MendesK,RingroseJ,KellerJ:#MeTooandthepromiseand pitfallsofchallengingrapeculturethroughdigitalfeminist
activism.EurJWomen’sStud2018,25:236-246http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1350506818765318.
4. RudolfsdottirAG,JohannsdottirA:Fuckpatriarchy!Ananalysis ofdigitalmainstreammediadiscussionofthe#freethenipple activitiesinIcelandinMarch2015.FemPsychol2018, 28:133-151https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0959353517715876.
5. SchwarzKC,RicheyLA:Humanitarianhumor,digilantism,and thedilemmasofrepresentingvolunteertourismonsocial media.NewMediaSoc2019,21:1928-1946https://doi.org/ 10.1177%2F1461444819834509.
6. JaneEA:Onlinemisogynyandfeministdigilantism.Continuum 2016,30http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2016.1166560. 7. TurleyE,FisherJ:Tweetingbackwhileshoutingback:social
mediaandfeministactivism.FemPsychol2018,28:128-132 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0959353517715875.
8. ZhuravskayaE,PetrovaM,EnikolopovR:PoliticalEffectsofthe InternetandSocialMedia.Forthcoming.AnnuRevEcon.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3439957.
9. BennettWL,SegerbergA:Thelogicofconnectiveaction:digital mediaandthepersonalizationofcontentiouspolitics.Inf CommunSoc2012,15:739-768http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 1369118X.2012.670661.
10. NekmatE,GowerKK,ZhouS,MetzgerM:Connective-collective actiononsocialmedia:moderatedmediationofcognitive elaborationandperceivedsourcecredibilityonpersonalness ofsource.CommunRes2019,46:62-87https://doi.org/ 10.1177%2F0093650215609676.
11. PollmannJ:CounteringthereformationinFranceandthe Netherlands:clericalleadershipandcatholicviolence1560– 1585.PastPresent2006,190:83-120http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ pastj/gtj003.
12. ThompsonEP:ThemoraleconomyoftheEnglishcrowdinthe eighteenthcentury.PastPresent1971,50:76-136http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/past/50.1.76.
13. HalupkaM:Thelegitimisationofclicktivism.AustJPoliticalSci 2018,53:130-141http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10361146.2017.1416586. 14.
Wilkinsaction,DJ,efficacyLivingstoneperceptions,AG,LevineandM:priorAllclick,experiencenoaction?combineOnlineto affectfuturecollectiveaction.Comput.Hum.Behav.HumBehav 2019,91:97-105http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.007. Theauthorsuseactualonlineactivism(i.e.sharinganarticleaboutan issueonparticipants’ownsocialmediapage)asthebasisfora quasi-experimentaldesign.They showthat socialmedia sharingincreases furtheractivism,providedthatpeoplewerealreadyactiveandperceive theiractofonlineactivismaseffective.
15. KwakN,LaneDS,WeeksBE,KimDH,LeeSS,BachledaS: Perceptionsofsocialmediaforpolitics:testingthe slacktivismhypothesis.HumCommunRes2018,44:197-221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx008.
16. ManduleyAE,MertensAE,PlanteI,SultanaA:Theroleofsocial mediainsexeducation:dispatchesfromqueer,trans,and racializedcommunities.FemPsychol2018,28:152-170https:// doi.org/10.1177%2F0959353517717751.
17. LeFebvreRK,ArmstrongC:Grievance-basedsocialmovement mobilizationinthe#FergusonTwitterstorm.NewMediaSoc 2018,20:8-28https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444816644697.
18. SchradieJ:Thedigitalactivismgap:howclassandcosts shapeonlinecollectiveaction.SocProbl2018,65:51-74http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spx042.
19. HoffmannCP,LutzC:Digitaldividesinpoliticalparticipation: themediatingroleofsocialmediaself-efficacyandprivacy concerns.PolicyInternetEarlyView2019:1-24http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/poi3.22.
20. ElliottT,EarlJ:Onlineprotestparticipationandthedigital divide:modelingtheeffectofthedigitaldivideononline petition-signing.NewMediaSoc2018,20:698-719https://doi. org/10.1177%2F1461444816669159.
4 Socialchange(rallies,riotsandrevolutions)
21. Noelle-NeumannE:Thespiralofsilenceatheoryofpublic opinion.JCommun1974,24:43-51http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x.
22. MatthesJ,KnollJ,vonSikorskiC:The“spiralofsilence” revisited:ameta-analysisontherelationshipbetween perceptionsofopinionsupportandpoliticalopinion expression.CommunRes2018,45:3-33https://doi.org/ 10.1177%2F0093650217745429.
23. SasaharaK,ChenW,PengH,CiampagliaGL,FlamminiA, MenczerF:Ontheinevitabilityofonlineechochambers.arXiv 2019.preprintarXiv:1905.03919In:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905. 03919.pdf.
24. EchterhoffG,HigginsET:Sharedreality:constructand mechanisms.CurrOpinPsychol2018,23:iv-viihttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.09.003.
25. GuidettiM,CavazzaN,GrazianiAR:Perceiveddisagreement andheterogeneityinsocialnetworks:distincteffectson politicalparticipation.JSocPsychol2016,156:222-242http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1095707.
26. Kra¨merNC,Scha¨welJ:Masteringthechallengeofbalancing self-disclosureandprivacyinsocialmedia.CurrOpinPsychol 2019,31:67-71http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.003. 27. SulerJ:Theonlinedisinhibitioneffect.CyberPsycholBehav
2004,7:321-326http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
10:1094931041291295.
28. VoggeserBJ,SinghRK,Go¨ritzAS:Self-controlinonline discussions:disinhibitedonlinebehaviorasafailureto recognizesocialcues.FrontPsychol2018,8:2372http://dx.doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02372.
29. ChenL,HuN,ShuC,ChenX:Adultattachmentand self-disclosureonsocialnetworkingsite:acontentanalysisof SinaWeibo.PersIndividDiff2019,138:96-105http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.028.
30. LuoM,HancockJ:Self-disclosureandsocialmedia: motivations,mechanismsandpsychologicalwell-being.Curr OpinPsychol2019,31:110-115http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. copsyc.2019.08.019.
31.
Reicherdeindividuation:SD,SpearsWhyR,negativePostmesgroupT,KendebehavioursA:Disputingderivefrom groupnorms,notgroupimmersion.Behav.BrainSci.BrainSci 2016,39http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15001491. AnalyzingdatafromHungary,Romania,Germany,theUK,theUS,and Australia,theauthorsshowthatindividualdifferencesandexposureto eventsthroughsocialmediapromotegroupconsciousness,whichinturn predictssolidaritywithrefugees.
32. BoulianneS:Twentyyearsofdigitalmediaeffectsoncivicand politicalparticipation.CommunResOnlineFirst2018:1-20. 0093650218808186.https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F0093650218808186.
33. ChaeY,LeeS,KimY:Meta-analysisoftherelationship betweeninternetuseandpoliticalparticipation:examining mainandmoderatingeffects.AsianJCommun2019,29:35-54 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2018.1499121.
34. SlavinaA,BrymR:Demonstratingintheinternetage:atestof Castells’theory.SocMovStud2019:1-21http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14742837.2019.1627866.
35. GreitemeyerT,SagioglouC:Whenpositiveendstarnishthe means:themoralityofnonprofitmorethanoffor-profit organizationsistaintedbytheuseofcompliancetechniques. JExpSocPsychol2018,76:67-75http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jesp.2017.12.007.
36.
collectivePrianteA,EhrenhardactionviaML,computer-mediatedvandenBroekT,Needcommunication:A:Identityanda reviewandagendaforfutureresearch.NewMediaSoc2018, 20:2647-2669https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444817744783.
Inthissystematicreviewofliteratureonidentityandonlineactivism,the authorsprovideanuancedviewofbothlimitsandaffordancesofonline platformsforidentityprocessesrelevanttoactivism.
37. BoulianneS,TheocharisY:Youngpeople,digitalmedia,and engagement:ameta-analysisofresearch.SocSciComputRev 2018,38:111-127http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439318814190. 38. DavisJL,LoveTP,FaresP:Collectivesocialidentity:
synthesizingidentitytheoryandsocialidentitytheoryusing digitaldata.SocPsycholQ2019,82:254-273https://doi.org/ 10.1177%2F0190272519851025.
39. KahneJ,BowyerB:Thepoliticalsignificanceofsocialmedia activityandsocialnetworks.PoliticalCommun2018,35 :470-493http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1426662. 40. RohlingerDA,BunnageLA:Collectiveidentityinthedigitalage:
thinandthickidentitiesinmoveon.Organdtheteaparty movement.Mobilization2018,23:135-157http://dx.doi.org/ 10.17813/1086-671X-23-2-135.
41. AlbericiAI,MilesiP:Onlinediscussionandthemoralpathwayto identitypoliticizationandcollectiveaction.EurJPsychol2018, 14:143https://doi.org/10.5964%2Fejop.v14i1.1507.
42. SmithLG,McGartyC,ThomasEF:AfterAylanKurdi:how tweetingaboutdeath,threat,andharmpredictincreased expressionsofsolidaritywithrefugeesovertime.PsycholSci 2018,29:623-634https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F0956797617741107.
43. ThomasEF,CaryN,SmithLG,SpearsR,McGartyC:Theroleof socialmediainshapingsolidarityandcompassionfade:how thedeathofachildturnedapathyintoactionbutdistresstook itaway.NewMediaSoc2018,20:3778-3798https://doi.org/ 10.1177%2F1461444818760819.
44. VelasquezA,QuenetteAM:Facilitatingsocialmediaandoffline politicalengagementduringelectoralcycles:usingsocial cognitivetheorytoexplainpoliticalactionamongHispanics andLatinos.MassCommunSoc2018,21:763-784http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1484489.
45. ChonM,ParkH:Socialmediaactivisminthedigitalage:testing anintegrativemodelofactivismoncontentiousissues.JMass CommunQ2019,97:72-97http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077699019835896.
46. KimY,RussoS,Amna˚ E:Thelongitudinalrelationbetween onlineandofflinepoliticalparticipationamongyouthattwo differentdevelopmentalstages.NewMediaSoc2016,19 :899-917http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444815624181.
47. NewettL,ChurchillB,RobardsB:Formingconnectionsinthe digitalera:tinder,anewtoolinyoungAustralianintimatelife.J Sociol2018,54:346-361https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F1440783317728584.
48. JurgensonN:Digitaldualismversusaugmentedreality.Soc Pages2011,24.
49. KaunA,UldamJ:‘Volunteeringislikeanyotherbusiness’:civic participationandsocialmedia.NewMediaSoc2018, 20:2186-2207https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444817731920.
50. KaunA,UldamJ:“ItOnlyTakesTwoMinutes”:theSo-called MigrationCrisisandFacebookAsCivicInfrastructure.2019.
51.
strongValenzuelaandS,weakCorreatiesT,toigaexplainH:Ties,differenceslikes,andintweets:protestUsing participationacrossFacebookandTwitteruse.Political Commun2018,35:117-134http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10584609.2017.1334726.
Withacross-sectional,face-to-facesurveyonarepresentativesampleof Chileanyouths,theauthorsfindthatthepathsthroughwhichsocialmedia influence offline activism differ across platforms. Facebook is most influentialthroughstrong-tienetworks,whereasTwitterismostinfluential throughweak-tienetworks.
52. JacksonS:Youngfeminists,feminismanddigitalmedia.Fem Psychol2018,28:32-49https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F0959353517716952.
53. JostJT,Barbera´ P,BonneauR,LangerM,MetzgerM,NaglerJ, SterlingJ,TuckerJA:Howsocialmediafacilitatespolitical protest:information,motivation,andsocialnetworks.Political Psychol2018,39:85-118http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12478.
54. DumitricaD,FeltM:Mediatedgrassrootscollectiveaction: negotiatingbarriersofdigitalactivism.InfCommunSoc 2019:1-17http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1618891. 55. ChristensenB,GroshekJ:Emergingmedia,politicalprotests,
andgovernmentrepressioninautocraciesanddemocracies from1995to2012.IntCommunGazOnlineFirst2019:1-20http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1748048518825323.
56. RødEG,WeidmannNB:Empoweringactivistsorautocrats? Theinternetinauthoritarianregimes.JPeaceRes2015, 52:338-351https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022343314555782.
57. RuijgrokK:Fromthewebtothestreets:internetandprotests underauthoritarianregimes.Democratization2017,24:498-520 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2016.1223630.
58. DiamondL,PlattnerMF:LiberationTechnology:SocialMediaand theStruggleforDemocracy.JHUPress;2012.
59. HonariA:OnlineandOfflinePoliticalParticipationunder Repression:IranianGreenMovementSupportersBetweenTwo Elections,2009-2013.2019.
60. KimHH,LimC:Fromvirtualspacetopublicspace:theroleof onlinepoliticalactivisminprotestparticipationduringthe ArabSpring.IntJCompSociol2020,60:409-434http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0020715219894724.
61. MartiniM:Onlinedistantwitnessingandlive-streaming activism:emergingdifferencesintheactivationofnetworked publics.NewMediaSoc2018,20:4035-4055https://doi.org/ 10.1177%2F1461444818766703.
62.
RohmanmediauseA:Persistentinpost-peaceconnectionmovementandAmbon,participation:Indonesia.NewNew MediaSoc2019,21:1787-1803https://doi.org/10.1177% 2F1461444819831973.
Usinginterviews andparticipant observation, theauthor shows that peacemovementactorsinAmbon,Indonesia,employsocialmediato sustaintheirmovement.Thisisarareexampleofastudythatfollowsa socialmovement’sonlinebehavioursafteritsinitialriseandpeak. 6 Socialchange(rallies,riotsandrevolutions)
