UC Santa Barbara

The dissertation proposes a theoretical framework that elucidates the decision-making process behind uncivil bystander behavior (counter-intervention). As an adaptation of the classic bystander intervention model (Latané & Darley, 1970), the Bystander Counter-intervention Model is developed to inform a multi-step process that outlines the psychological antecedents that contribute to online counter-intervention. Using mixed research methods, the dissertation explores facilitators of counter-intervention and weaves the findings into the new predictive model. The investigation also tackles other behavioral paths for bystanders, such as confronting (intervention) and ignoring (non-intervention), to validate the original bystander intervention model in the context of online incivility. Two studies are presented that used a non-representative sample of U.S. adults who have experiences with online incivility as bystanders. First, a preliminary interview study (N = 26) was conducted to obtain qualitative insights into potential predictors of counter-intervention. The interview findings were assessed to inform the survey design. Three different surveys were conducted with those who have experiences of counter-intervening, intervening, and/or non-intervening in uncivil online discussions. Participants joined in one to three surveys depending on which type(s) of bystander behavior they had ever engaged in (Total N = 372; counter-intervention survey: N = 206; intervention survey: N = 311; non-intervention survey: N = 300). The data from each survey were analyzed separately to illustrate different procedural steps that lead bystanders to enact each behavior. Though the survey findings on counter-intervention did not fully support the initial hypotheses, post-hoc analyses led to a reformulated model. Findings from the alternative model reveal that bystanders who justify incivility perceive greater benefits than costs of supporting it as they become more habitually exposed to uncivil online discussions. Such perception of the benefits (vs. costs) of incivility support moves bystanders to feel a need to show that support personally (counter-intervention responsibility) but only when they have sufficient confidence to take such actions (counter-intervention efficacy). If all these steps are completed successfully, the likelihood of counter-intervention increases. Meanwhile, the survey findings on intervention and non-intervention did not sufficiently substantiate Latané and Darley’s (1970) model. However, the reduced model tests corroborated that intervention is more likely, whereas non-intervention is less likely, when bystanders perceive incivility to be more severe and, in turn, feel greater responsibility and efficacy to confront it. The dissertation demonstrates the merits of traditional bystander scholarship as well as advances it by documenting the hitherto unknown social psychological mechanisms of negative bystander behavior. The dissertation also illuminates online bystanders as dynamic and multi-faceted actors with shifting responses––prosocial, antisocial, or passive––as result of different step-by-step processes that occur depending on internal motivational states and situational demands. Findings are also of great practical significance to professionals and policymakers invested in bystander-focused approaches to online incivility prevention. The dissertation highlights the importance of multilayered behavior-modification guidelines to address this complex problem.