skip to main content
10.1145/2470654.2470770acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Does slacktivism hurt activism?: the effects of moral balancing and consistency in online activism

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper we explore how the decision of partaking in low-cost, low-risk online activism - slacktivism - \'14may affect subsequent civic action. Based on moral balancing and consistency effects, we designed an online experiment to test if signing or not signing an online petition increased or decreased subsequent contribution to a charity. We found that participants who signed the online petition were significantly more likely to donate money to a related charity, demonstrating a consistency effect. We also found that participants who did not sign the petition donated significantly more money to an unrelated charity, demonstrating a moral balancing effect. The results suggest that exposure to an online activism influences individual decision on subsequent civic actions.

References

  1. Dolin, D. J., Booth-Butterfield, S. Foot-in-the-door and cancer prevention. Health Communication 7, 1 (1995), 55--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Effron, D. and Monin, B. Letting people off the hook: When do good deeds excuse transgressions? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (2010), 1618--1634.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, 1957.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Gladwell, M. Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, 4 October 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Guéguen, N. Foot-in-the-door technique and computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior 18, 1 (2002), 11--15Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Khan, U. and Dhar, R. Where there is a way, there is a will? The effect of future choices on self-control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 (2007), 277--288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Land, M. B. Networked activism. Harvard Human Rights Journal. NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper 22, 09/10 (2009), #13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mazar, N. and Zhong, C. B. Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science 21 (2010), 494-- 498.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Merritt, A. M., Effron, D. A. and Monin, B. Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4 (2010), 344357.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Miller, D. T. and Effron, D. A. Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. In Zanna, M. P. and Olson, J. M. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 43, San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier (2010), 117--158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Monin, B. and Miller, D. T. Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2001), 33--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Morozov, E. The brave new world of slacktivism. Net Effect - Foreign Policy. Slate Group, 19 May 2009. Web. 5 Apr. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nisan, M. (1991). The moral balance model: Theory and research extending our understanding of moral choice and deviation. In Kurtines, W. M. and Gewirtz, J. L. (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum (1991), 213--249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide and Georgetown University's Center for Social Impact Communication. Dynamics of Cause Engagement. At http://csic.georgetown.edu/research/215767.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Olson, M. The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press (1965).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Pepitone, J. Text donations raise $7m for Red Cross Haiti effort. CNNMoney, January 16, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B., Pirolli, P. and Glaisyer, T. From slacktivism to activism: participatory culture in the age of social media. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2011, ACM Press (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R. and Medin, D. L. Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral selfregulation. Psychological Science 20, 4(2009), 523--528.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Shulman, S. W. The case against mass e-mails: Perverse incentives and low quality public participation in U.S. federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet 1, 1 (2009), article 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Schwarzwald, J., Bizman, A. and Raz, M. The foot-in-the-door paradigm: Effects of second request size on donation probability and donor generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9, 3 (1983), 443--450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Vieweg, S., Hughes, A., Starbird, K. and Palen, L. Microblogging during two natural hazards events: What Twitter may contribute to situational awareness. Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Does slacktivism hurt activism?: the effects of moral balancing and consistency in online activism

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2013
      3550 pages
      ISBN:9781450318990
      DOI:10.1145/2470654

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 April 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate392of1,963submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader