The Viciousness and Caring of Sharing: Conflicts and Motivations of Online Shamers

Public shaming is defined as informally punishing individuals who have deviated socially or morally, by informing the public about their conduct (Petley 2013). Our research focuses on individuals who engage in public shaming on social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) against a wrongdoer who has acted immorally. While public shaming has long been a tool of education, its embrace by the digital world enabling users to easily and effectively spread information about the misconduct (Goldman 2015; Jacquet 2015). The decision to engage in public shaming consists of two contradictory motivations: informal enforcement against deviant behavior (thereby preventing offenses such as animal abuse or discriminatory customer service) and the violation of privacy rights and dignity (exposing the personal details of the wrongdoer). We suggest that a person considering participating in online shaming may try to balance these opposing considerations. Specifically, when a wrongdoer identifiability is high (e.g., when a post describing the behavior is accompanied by a clear image or a full name), shaming that individual can give rise to both potential consequences described above. When the wrongdoer identifiability is low (e.g., a vague image is shown, or only a first name is presented), shaming is more likely to give rise to the potential positive consequences than to trigger the potential negative consequences. This tradeoff may lead prospective shamers to experience a moral dilemma, since moral concerns involve the desire to protect others but also restrain them from doing harm (Graham et al. 2011; Janoff-Bulman and Carnes 2013, Crocket, 2017). Therefore, users with high levels of moral concern are more likely to join in on public shaming when the wrongdoer’s identifiability level is low rather than high.