ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
1!
This is a pos -p in e sion o he a icle:
Kaakinen, M., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2017). Did he Risk o Exposu e o Online Ha e
Inc ease A e he No embe 2015 Pa is A acks? A G oup Rela ions App oach. Compu e s
in Human Beha io 2017, ol. 78, pp. 90-97. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.022
Did he Exposu e o Online Ha e Inc ease A e he No embe 2015 Pa is A acks? A
G oup Rela ions App oach
Abs ac
This s udy analyzed he impac o he No embe 2015 Pa is a acks on online ha e. On he
basis o social iden i y based heo ies o g oup ela ions, we hypo hesized ha exposu e o
online ha e will inc ease in social clima e o ea , unce ain y, and pola iza ion. We expec ed
ha he inc ease o ha e will be e iden in he case o online ha e associa ed o e hnici y o
na ionali y, eligion, poli ical iews, o e o ism, bu no speci ically o he ha e-associa ed
ca ego ies. Socie al le el de e minan s o he empo al changes in online ha e exposu e ha e
no been es ed be o e. Ou s udy u ilized wo c oss-sec ional, demog aphically balanced
da ase s o analyze he change in online ha e exposu e among Finnish young people aged 15
o 30. The i s sample was collec ed in May–June 2013 and he second one in Decembe
2015, only 1 mon h a e he No embe 2015 Pa is a acks. The esul s suppo ed he
hypo heses indica ing ha he quan i y and quali y o online hos ili ies a e a ec ed by he
wide socie al condi ions. We sugges ha mo e e idence o socie al le el de e minan s o
online hos ili y is needed in o de o unde s and online ha e exposu e a es a di e en imes.
Keywo ds: online ha e, unce ain y–iden i y heo y, social ca ego ies, social iden i y,
g oups, e o ism, immig a ion
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
2!
Did he Exposu e o Online Ha e Inc ease A e No embe 2015 Pa is A acks? A
G oup Rela ions App oach
Online ha e (i.e., cybe ha e, online ha e speech, and o he ha e ma e ial) is a global
phenomenon and may ake many o ms and a ge o he s based on hei eligion, ace,
e hnici y, gende , sexual o ien a ion, na ional o igin, o some o he g oup-de ining
cha ac e is ic (Banks, 2010; Hawdon, Oksanen, & Räsänen, 2016; Pe y & Olsson, 2009).
No ably, online ha e is no an excep ion o he ules o in e ac ion in he online se ing bu
a he oo ed in mains eam expe ience, and exposu e o online ha e has a ied om 31
pe cen o 67 pe cen in di e en samples ac oss coun ies (Cos ello, Hawdon, Ra li , &
G an ham, 2016b; Hawdon e al., 2016; Oksanen, Hawdon, Holke i, Näsi, & Räsänen, 2014).
The widely p esen ha e ul and xenophobic con en online has aised conce n in
a e age online use s bu also in policymaking on a na ional and in e na ional le el (Council
o Eu ope, 2015; Eu opean Commission Agains Racism and In ole ance, 2016; Gaglia done,
Gal, Al es, & Ma inez, 2015). Hos ile online beha io bea s hu ul consequences o i s
ic ims (Keipi e al., 2017; Näsi e al., 2015; Tynes, 2006; Yba a, Mi chell, Wolak, &
Finkelho n, 2006), bu i can also be conside ed a h ea o socie al inclusi eness and a
po en ial mo i a o o ha e ul ac s o line (Awan & Zempi, 2016; Douglas, 2007; Wald on,
2012). Especially in he imes o social c ises, such as e o is a acks, online ha e becomes
an example o he inc easing ac s o iolence and abuse aced by e hnic and eligious
mino i ies (Awan & Zempi, 2016).
When ackling online ha e phenomena, we need wide empi ical in o ma ion on he
p e equisi es o online hos ili y. Ea lie esea ch has iden i ied se e al co ela es o iolen
online beha io on he le els o indi idual cha ac e is ics (e.g. low sel -con ol, and high
impulsi i y, psychopa hy o in e nalizing symp oms) and social in e ac ion (e.g. anonymi y,
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
3!
low social con ol and g oup no ms) ( o e iew see e.g. Pe e son & Densley, 2017). These
co ela es can explain why ce ain indi iduals and in e ac ional con ex s make hos ile online
beha io mo e p obable. Howe e , we lack empi ical esea ch on how wide socie al (o
mac o) le el phenomena can mo i a e changes in he quan i y and quali y o online ha e o e
ime and how his change is mani es ed in he iewe ship o such con en .
Wi nessing agic and unexpec ed socie al e en s may explain why mani es a ions o
ange and ha e ake new o ms online. P e ious s udies ha e shown ha online discussions
escala e a e d ama ic e en s such as ampage shoo ings (Lindg en, 2011). These ypes o
a acks may also ac as igge e en s and di ec con en s o online ha e. Williams and Bu nap
(2016) ha e ecen ly demons a ed how pa icula ly acial and eligious cybe ha e in Twi e
escala ed a e a mu de by Islamic ex emis s in he Uni ed Kingdom. Howe e , ea lie
s udies ha e s essed ela i ely sho ime pe iods and speci ic discussion opics on ce ain
social media pla o ms. Thus, he e is a need o esea ch-based knowledge abou he
dynamics o online ha e du ing longe pe iods o ime and he wide iewe ship-cen e ed
poin o iew. Only his would allow us o assess how equen is he expe ience o being
exposed o online ha e among social media use s and whe he he p obabili y o exposu e
changes o e ime. This s udy is also he i s one o app oach empo al change in online ha e
om he pe spec i e o g oup ela ions.
In his pape , we analyze how social condi ions ma ked by ea , pola iza ion, and
unce ain y a e mani es ed in online ha e exposu e a e he e o is a acks in Pa is in 2015.
On No embe 13, 130 people in Pa is we e killed in a acks by he e o is o ganiza ion ISIS,
and he assaul caused majo socie al eac ions h oughou Eu ope. The a mosphe e in Eu ope
was al eady insecu e a he ime, as se e al s ikes by in e na ional e o is o ganiza ions had
occu ed a ound he wo ld ha yea (Hauge ud, 2016). One de as a ing example in he
Eu opean con ex was he a ack on he sa i ical magazine Cha lie Hebdo in Janua y, which
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
4!
led o he dea h o 12 people. These a acks also mo i a ed an agonis ic eac ions owa d
immig an s, and conce ns we e aised ha e ugees we e po en ial e o is s despi e he ac
ha many o hem we e escaping he e o caused by ISIS in he Middle Eas (Nail, 2016).
Immig a ion was al eady a ma e o g owing socie al deba e h oughou Eu ope due o he
so-called “immig a ion c isis” caused by he con lic s in Sy ia and I aq, o cing o e 1.2
million people o seek ou asylum in Eu ope, and he igu es o incoming i s - ime asylum
seeke s peaked du ing Sep embe –No embe 2016 (Eu oS a , 2016).
Online Ha e and G oup ela ions
Ou in e g oup s ance o online ha e is based on he ich adi ion o social
psychological esea ch explaining how p ejudices a e g ounded on in e g oup beha io
(Allpo , 1954; B own, 2010; Taj el, 1970). The s a ing poin is g ounded on p e ious
empi ical s udies showing ha online ha e is ypically a ge ed owa d di e en social g oups
(Banks, 2010; Gaglia done e al., 2015; Hawdon e al., 2016; Pe y & Olsson, 2009). Since
he ea ly days o domes ic In e ne , he e ha e been bo h o mal and in o mal ha e g oups
dissemina ing ha e ul speech o ideology online. They ha e a wide a ie y o a ge s and
ideological iews, anging om e o is o ganiza ions o gangs o a ious ypes (Ge s en eld,
2013, pp. 130–131).
Cu en ly, di e en a o dances o social media make i possible o people o g oup
up wi h likeminded indi iduals wi hou spa ial es ic ions and hen dissemina e hei
hough s. Thus, social media can p o ide a social con ex o opinion cong uence and
empowe men in which people a e mo e willing o exp ess hough s and ideologies ha migh
be ejec ed elsewhe e (Chun & Lee, 2017; Lee & Chun, 2015). This makes social media a
pa icula ly sui able pla o m o dissemina ing ha e ul o “ inge” opinions and ideologies
(Ba kun, 2017). In addi ion, he socio- echnological en i onmen o online in e ac ion ha
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
5!
enhances he g oup iden i ica ions and he in ag oup p ocesses o online g oups can
legi ima e and ampli y ex eme a i udes (Douglas, 2007; McGa y, Lala, & Douglas, 2011;
Pos mes, Spea s, Sakhel, & De G oo , 2001; Spea s, Pos mes, Lea, & Wolbe , 2002). I is
pe haps no a su p ise ha ha e is o en dissemina ed h ough hose channels ha make g oup
o ma ion and engagemen e y easy and ha acili a e he clash be ween di e en
ideological iews (E ja ec & Ko ačič, 2012; Hu chens, Cicchi illo, & Hmielowski, 2015).
Ou heo e ical amewo k o g oup ela ions is based on wo k done on social iden i y
heo y (SIT; Taj el & Tu ne , 1979) and sel -ca ego iza ion heo y (SCT; Tu ne , 1985;
Tu ne , Hogg, Oakes, Reiche , & We he ell, 1987). Fi s , SIT sugges s ha indi idual
iden i y is based on social ca ego iza ion and compa ison be ween di e en ca ego ies (Taj el
& Tu ne , 1979). People concei e hemsel es as membe s o ce ain g oups ( he in-g oups)
and as non-membe s in o he s ( he ou -g oups) ha s i e o main ain posi i e social iden i y
by a o able compa ison be ween hose g oups. This sea ch o sel -enhancemen leads o so-
called in e g oup bias in which he in-g oup is a o ed o e he ou -g oups. The ac i a ion o
in e g oup bias is dependen on he le el o indi iduals’ iden i ica ion wi h he in-g oup, he
ele ance o he compa ison be ween he g oups in a gi en social si ua ion, and he ele ance
o he ou -g oup as a e e ence poin (Taj el & Tu ne , 1979).
Second, acco ding o SCT (Tu ne , 1985; Tu ne e al., 1987), an in eg al pa o he
social iden i y app oach, iden i ying onesel as a ep esen a i e o a ce ain ca ego y also
leads o depe sonaliza ion (i.e. a endency o concei e he sel in e ms o g oup iden i y
ins ead o pe sonal iden i y). As a consequence, one s ongly iden i ies wi h he s e eo ypical
concep ion o an in-g oup membe and wi h he g oup a ibu es and no ms (B own, 2010;
Ma qués, Ab ams, Paez, & Hogg, 2001; Tu ne , 1985; Tu ne e al., 1987).
In social eali y, a o ing one’s in-g oup o e pe cei ed ou -g oups anges om
“me e ca ego ical exagge a ions” o ex eme o ms o ou -g oup hos ili y (Billing, 2002,

ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
6!
178). Thus, a p ope unde s anding o socie al ci cums ances can help us o explain why and
when biased pe cep ions o ou -g oup membe s a e likely o escala e. When socie al
condi ions h ea en he sa is ac ion o basic human needs, such as he need o secu i y and
con ol o e one’s own li e, hose ou -g oups pe cei ed as esponsible o he unsa is ac o y
ci cums ances a e o en a ge ed by inc easing hos ili ies (S aub & Ba -Tal, 2003). Indeed,
he e is plen y o his o ical e idence showing how di e en g oup con lic s a ise in imes o
ea , economic ha dship, social and poli ical seg ega ion, and pe cei ed in-g oup h ea s (see,
e.g., Baumeis e , 1997; S aub, 1989; S aub & Ba -Tal, 2003).
Acco ding o he e o managemen heo y (TMT) (G eenbe g, Pyszczynski, &
Solomon, 1986), anxie y caused by he awa eness o one’s own ulne abili y and dea h
unc ions as a mo i a o o inc ease in e g oup bias. In o he wo ds, people will seek o bu e
he e o o mo ali y salience by mo e s ongly iden i ying wi h wo ld iews sha ed wi hin
one’s in-g oup. In addi ion, people a e mo e likely o disc imina e agains ou -g oups ha
h ea en, o do no alida e, hei anxie y-bu e ( he in-g oup cul u al wo ld iew)
(G eenbe g, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Lyon 1990). TMT has gained suppo om se e al
s udies epo ing ha mo ali y salience is ela ed o ou -g oup disc imina ion and suppo o
ex eme and iolen a i udes (Bu ke, Ma ens, & Fauche , 2010; Das, Bushman, Bezeme ,
Ke kho , & Ve meulen, 2009; G eenbe g e al., 1990).
The heo y o unce ain y-iden i y (UIT) (Hogg, 2007, 2014; Hogg e al., 2013)
p edic s ha , a imes o social unce ain y, indi iduals pe cei e he sa e y o manageabili y
o hei e e yday li e as endange ed and, hus, end o ca ego ize he social eali y acco ding
o mo e igidly and exclusiona y de ined g oups o o e coming he expe ienced unce ain y.
As a consequence, he in a-g oup bias becomes in la ed, leading o he adop ion o mo e
adical a i udes owa d ou -g oup membe s. A se ies o esea ch has shown ha , as a
consequence o unce ain y, indi iduals end o iden i y mo e wi h clea ly dis inc i e g oups
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
7!
and app o e mo e ex eme ideologies and beha io s (Doosje, Lose man, & an den Bos,
2013; Esses, S elian Medianu, & Lawson, 2013; Fede ico, Hun , & Fishe , 2013; G an &
Hogg, 2012; Hogg, 2010; Hogg & Adelman, 2013).
In addi ion o mo ali y salience (TMT) and unce ain y (UIT), pe cei ed h ea s om
ou -g oups on physical well-being and powe ( ealis ic h ea ) o alues and belie s
(symbolic h ea ) o he in-g oup end o mo i a e ou -g oup disc imina ion (S ephan, Yba a,
& Rios Mo ison, 2009; S ephan & Ren o, 2002). In addi ion o ealis ic and symbolic
h ea s, he in e g oup h ea heo y (ITT) has been complemen ed wi h elemen s o g oup
es eem h ea s, being pe sonally h ea ened in in e g oup in e ac ions and ha ing nega i e
expec a ions conce ning he ou -g oup, o example (B own, 2010; Koomen, W. & Van de
Plig , 2016; S ephan & S ephan, 2000). Indeed, pe cei ed g oup h ea s ha e been epo ed o
p edic ou -g oup disc imina ion in a ious s udies (Kau e al., 2015; Riek, Mania, &
Gae ne , 2006; Wi z, an de Plig & Doosje, 2016).
Ou heo e ical amewo k sugges s ha socie al e en s and condi ions can shape he
quan i y and quali y o online ha e. Fi s ly, ou -g oup hos ili ies will inc ease a imes o ea ,
unce ain y and pe cei ed h ea s. Secondly, people will wi ness mo e hos ile messages in
online space, as he social media p o ides an accessible o um o exp essing and sp eading
ha e ul hough s wi hou he es ic ions p esen in o line social ne wo ks and o he media
(Ba kun, 2017). Finally, ins ead o all possible social ca ego ies, online ha e is a ge ing
ca ego ies pe cei ed as ela ing o unsa is ac o y condi ions (S aub & Ba -Tal, 2003). The
endency o socie al c ises o escala e ha e ul eac ions owa d ce ain social ca ego ies in
social media has al eady been demons a ed in he s udies o online ha e as well (see Awan &
Zempi, 2016; Williams & Bu nap, 2016).
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
8!
Immig a ion C isis and Social Unce ain y in Finland
Finland is a No dic coun y wi h 5.5 million habi an s and a ela i ely low e hnic
di e si y (Uni ed Na ions, 2013). Finland, like o he No dic coun ies (Sweden, No way,
Denma k, and Iceland), has been cha ac e ized by a s ong wel a e adi ion ha includes ee
educa ion and heal hca e and ex ensi e income dis ibu ion (Esping-Ande sen, 1999).
Finland, like he es o he wo ld, was hi by he economic ecession in 2007–2008, and he
economy has been la e e since. Economic p oblems ha e also conce ned a e age ci izens
who ha e aced eco d igu es o paymen de aul (Oksanen, Aal onen, & Ran ala, 2015).
The so-called “immig a ion c isis” in Eu ope, caused by he con lic s in Sy ia and
I aq, s a ed du ing he ime when people al eady el unce ain abou he u u e due o he
s agna ing economy. Du ing 2015, Finland ecei ed o e i e imes as many asylum seeke s
as in he p e ious yea , and he o al amoun o immig an s ose o e 32,000. The peak o he
c isis was du ing he au umn pe iod, and di e en immig a ion cen e s we e opened
h oughou he coun y. Clea ly, he bigges g oup o immig an s came om I aq (20,485),
ollowed by A ganis an (5,214), Somalia (1,981), and Sy ia (877).
The heme o immig a ion was a ma e o hea ed deba e in Finnish socie y
(Sil ennoinen, 2016). One example was he Raja Kiinni (close he bo de s) Facebook g oup,
which o ganized an i-immig a ion e en s s a ing om Sep embe 2015. Many o hese an i-
immig a ion e en s o en a ge ed Islam as well. Along wi h an i-immig a ion e en s, he
yea 2015 in Finland wi nessed a 50 pe cen inc ease in ha e c imes and he ise o igh -wing
ex emism and s ee pa ol g oups such as Soldie s o Odin ha we e o ganized ia
Facebook (Finnish Minis y o he In e io , 2016a). Accused o sexual ha assmen and ape
cases, immig an s we e also widely discussed in bo h adi ional media and social media
(Sil ennoinen, 2016). Also, scandalous “ ake media” online jou nals, such as MV-leh i,
s a ed o gain massi e popula i y.
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
9!
The economic ecession has also been isible in he Finnish socie al immig a ion
discou se (Keskinen, 2016). T adi ionally, he Finnish na ional iden i y has been based on he
No dic egali a ian wel a e model, bu his policy has aced inc easing p essu e a he imes o
ecession and g owing demands o economic aus e i y in Finland. In some public opinions
immig an s ha e been seen as a h ea o he wel a e s a e and some ha e eques ed mo e
na ionalis ic and exclusi e wel a e policies ha would deny he wel a e bene i s om he
immig an s.
In social media, Finns we e di ided be ween hose opposing immig a ion and hose
aking a mo e libe al s ance. This is he esul o a longe con inuum in which he changing
mediascape and new media echnology ha e allowed o he o ma ion o an i-immig a ion
online communi ies (e.g., Homma o um) and hei social and poli ical mobiliza ion (Ho s i,
2015). The escala ed di ision be ween g oups wi h an i-immig a ion s ances and mo e
ole an ideologies has c ea ed an ongoing deba e ha is salien in Finnish online o ums bu
also in mains eam media. The mains eam media was also o en c i icized o le ing he
an i-immig a ion mo emen se he agenda o public discussion and, o cou se, o s aying
silen abou immig a ion- ela ed opics by he an i-immig a ion mo emen (Ho s i, 2015).
The yea 2015 can be ega ded as he yea ha inged social con on a ion and
culmina ed in he Pa is agedy o No embe 13. The ic ims and he p oximal consequences
o he assaul we e loca ed in Pa is and F ance, bu he media-based con ac ex ended i s
psychosocial impac h oughou Eu ope and he es o he wo ld. This phenomenon o
“secondhand e o ism” (see Come & Kendal, 2007) is mani es ed in ex ended unce ain y
(i.e., a social clima e ha is de e mined by con inuous insecu i y and ea o u u e a acks
based on possibili ies ins ead o p obabili ies). This e ec o ex ended unce ain y can be
e en s onge in coun ies wi h in equen e o is assaul s such as Finland (Come , B y,
Poznanski, & Golik, 2016). The social clima e o ea is pe haps mi o ed in he ac ha he
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
16!
Discussion
In his a icle, we analyzed how he exposu e o online ha e had changed in quan i y
and quali y as a consequence o public unce ain y a e he Pa is a acks p eceded by
p olonged economic ecession and escala ed immig a ion deba e. The measu emen o online
ha e was done o e he ime pe iod o 2013 and 2015, jus a mon h a e he Pa is a acks.
Ou heo e ical p esump ion was ha ou -g oup hos ili ies will inc ease a imes o ea ,
unce ain y and pe cei ed h ea (Hogg, 2007; G eenbe g, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986;
S ephan, Yba a, & Rios Mo ison, 2009) and, he e o e, people will encoun e mo e ha e
con en in online space. In addi ion, we p esumed ha bo h he quan i y and quali y o online
ha e will change as hos ili ies will be a ge ed owa ds social ca ego ies pe cei ed as ela ed
o ea , unce ain y and h ea s (Awan & Zempi, 2016; S aub & Ba -Tal, 2003; Williams &
Bu nap, 2016).
Analysis con i med ha encoun e ing ha e con en online was mo e equen a e he
Pa is a acks, as young people we e 27 pe cen mo e likely o be exposed o online ha e a he
end o 2015 han hey we e in he 2013 sample. The inding is in line wi h ea lie esea ch
showing ha , as a consequence o agic socie al e en s, ha e ul messaging will inc ease in
social media (Awan & Zempi, 2016; Williams & Bu nap, 2016). When in e p e ed h ough
ou heo e ical amewo k o social psychological heo ies o g oup ela ions (G eenbe g e
al., 1986; Hogg, 2007, 2014; S ephan & S ephan, 2000), his esul shows how imes o
insecu i y and unce ain y end o in la e he in e g oup bias o a o ing in-g oup membe s
o e he ou -g oup membe s. As a esul , people a e mo e willing o adop c i ical and e en
ex eme s ances and beha io owa d ou -g oups. In online spaces, his is mani es ed in
inc eased p obabili y o encoun e hos ili ies exp essed owa d social g oups. I is also likely
ha indi iduals wi h ha e ul opinions pe cei e inc easing p esence in online ha e con en as

ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
17!
empowe ing which, in u n, u he lowe s he h eshold o exp essing one’s own hos ile
hough s (Ba kun, 2017; Chun & Lee, 2017).
In addi ion, we expec ed ha people would wi ness mo e hos ili y associa ed wi h
social ca ego ies ela ing o he Pa is a acks, as well as he poli ical and e hnic di ides
p eceding hem (e.g e hnici y o na ionali y, eligious con ic ion, poli ical iews, e o ism).
We also expec ed ha no simila e ec would be ound in he case o ca ego ies no ela ed o
he social clima e o ex ended unce ain y (e.g. gende , sexual o ien a ion, disabili y and
appea ance).
Ou analysis con i med ha young people encoun e ed mo e online ha e in ca ego ies
ela ed o a social clima e o ea and unce ain y, bu he e was no simila e ec in he case
o non ela ed ca ego ies. Acco ding o ou heo e ical amewo k, he ac i a ion o in e g oup
bias is dependen on he ele ance o he in e g oup compa ison and he ou -g oup as a
e e ence poin , in addi ion o indi iduals’ iden i ica ion wi h he in-g oup (Taj el & Tu ne ,
1979). He e, ca ego ies o e hnici y o na ionali y, eligious con ic ion, poli ical iews and
e o ism ha e become mo e accessible e e ences o compa ison and concep ualiza ion o
social eali y. Inc eased hos ili ies owa d indi iduals and social g oups pe cei ed o sha e
some ea u es wi h pe pe a o s o c iminal public e en s has also been epo ed in ea lie
esea ch (Awan & Zempi, 2016; Williams & Bu nap, 2016), e en hough he e is ob iously
is no ac ual connec ion be ween hem.
Limi a ions
In ou analyses, he p oblems ela ing o causal in e e ence using obse a ional da a
we e aken in o accoun by using a wo-s ep analy ical s a egy in which a nea es -neighbo
ma ching, based on es ima ed p opensi y sco es, was i s pe o med o enhance he
compa abili y be ween wo da ase s (o he ea men and con ol g oups). Then a logis ic
eg ession was conduc ed wi h he ma ched da ase o es ima ing he change in online ha e
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
18!
exposu e a e he Pa is a acks. E en hough his analy ical s a egy is a ecommended way
o assessing causal e ec s wi h obse a ional da a (Rubin & Thomas, 2000), he
hypo hesized causal ela ionship be ween he Pa is a acks and he inc ease in online ha e
canno be unques ionably con i med by using c oss-sec ional da a.
Ano he possible limi a ion o he p esen s udy is he subjec i e and ca ego y heme-
based measu emen o he online ha e. This app oach has, howe e , also been u ilized
elsewhe e (Cos ello e al., 2016a; Cos ello e al., 2016b; Hawdon e al., 2016; Oksanen e al.,
2014). Fo example, as we assessed how he sel - epo ed exposu e o ha e ul ma e ial online
had changed be ween he wo chosen ime poin s, he inc ease in ha e con en exposu e could
be, a leas pa ly, explained by some indi iduals becoming mo e sensi i e o ecognizing
hos ile online con en .
On he basis o he ca ego y heme-based measu emen , in u n, we canno ell which
speci ic g oups we e a ge ed by he encoun e ed hos ili ies. Howe e , we decided o u ilize
he ca ego y heme-based app oach ins ead o he speci ic g oup-based one in o de o
analyze which social di ides had escala ed in social media. As he e is a mul i ude o possible
g ouping c i e ia o poli ical iews, o example, ou ocus he e was no o examine which
ideological g oups we e hose a ge ed by online ha e bu o analyze whe he he poli ical
iews we e used as a social disc imina ion c i e ion in he i s palace. O cou se, he e is a
long and highly impo an adi ion o social psychological esea ch examining xenophobic
a i udes and p ejudiced hinking owa d speci ic social g oups (see, e.g., B own, 2010) as
well as s udies analyzing how ce ain g oups a e being exposed o online ha e ( o ha e
exp essed owa d he Muslim popula ion, see, e.g., Awan & Zempi, 2016; Williams &
Bu nap, 2016). We belie e he e is a need o esea ch-based knowledge on online ha e
gene a ed by bo h app oaches.
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
19!
Conclusions
The ha e ul online con en is appa en in social media in e ac ions (Cos ello e al.,
2016a; Hawdon e al., 2016; Oksanen e al., 2014). As he online ha e is damaging o bo h
indi idual ic ims (Keipi e al., 2017; Näsi e al., 2015; Tynes, 2006; Yba a, Mi chell,
Wolak, & Finkelho n, 2006) and socie ies as collec i es (Awan & Zempi, 2016; Wald on,
2012), i has become a a ge o na ional and in e na ional policy making and in e en ions
(Council o Eu ope, 2015; Eu opean Commission Agains Racism and In ole ance, 2016;
Gaglia done e al, 2015). Howe e , mo e esea ch based knowledge is needed on why hos ile
online beha io eme ges and how i changes o e ime. Indi idual and in e ac ion le el
explana ions (see Pe e son & Densley, 2017) can e eal why some indi iduals and social
con ex s a e mo e p one o online hos ili y. Howe e , hese explana ions do no co e he ac
ha ha e con en sp eading in social media appea o mainly a ack ce ain social ca ego ies
and his selec i i y is shaped by empo al socie al condi ions. Thus, u u e esea ch and
policy in e en ions ackling he consequences o hos ile online beha iou should s ess how
socie al condi ions always con ibu e o p esen and u u e o ms o online ha e.
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
20!
Re e ences
Allpo , G. W. (1954). The na u e o p ejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Awan, I., & Zempi, I. (2016). The a ini y be ween online and o line an i-Muslim ha e
c ime: Dynamics and impac s. Agg ession and Violen Beha io , 27, 1–8.
doi:10.1016/j.a b.2016.02.001
Banks, J. (2010). Regula ing ha e speech online. In e na ional Re iew o Law, Compu e s &
Technology, 24(3), 233–239.
Ba kun, M. (2017). P esiden T ump and he ‘‘F inge’’. Te o ism and Poli ical Violence, 29,
437–443.
Baumeis e , R. F. (1997). E il: Inside human c uel y and iolence. New Yo k, NY: WH
F eeman.
Billig, M. (2002). Hen i Taj el's ‘Cogni i e aspec s o p ejudice’ and he psychology o
bigo y. B i ish Jou nal o Social Psychology, 41(2), 171‒188.
B own, R. (2010). P ejudice: I s social psychology. Chiches e : John Wiley & Sons.
Bu ke, B. L., Ma ens, A., & Fauche , E. H. (2010). Two Decades o Te o Managemen
Theo y: A Me a-Analysis o Mo ali y Salience Resea ch. Pe sonali y and Social
Psychology Re iew, 14(2), 155–195.
Chun, J. W. & Lee M. J.(2017). When does indi iduals’ willingness o speak ou inc ease on
social media? Pe cei ed social suppo and pe cei ed powe /con ol. Compu e s in
Human Beha io , 74, 120–129.
Come , J. S., & Kendall, P. C. (2007). Te o ism: The psychological impac on you h.
Clinical Psychology: Science and P ac ice, 14(3), 179–212. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2850.2007.00078.x
Come , J. S., B y, L. B., Poznanski, B., & Golik, A. M. (2016). Child en’s men al heal h in
he con ex o e o is a acks, ongoing h ea s, and possibili ies o u u e e o ism.
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
21!
Cu en Psychia y Repo s, 18(9), 79. doi:10.1007/s11920-016-0722-1
Cos ello, M., Hawdon, J., & Ra li , T. (2016a). Con on ing online ex emism: The e ec o
sel -help, collec i e e icacy, and gua dianship on being a a ge o ha e speech.
Social Science Compu e Re iew, 1–19. Ad ance online publica ion.
doi:10.1177/0894439316666272
Cos ello, M., Hawdon, J., Ra li , T., & G an ham, T. (2016b). Who iews online ex emism?
Indi idual a ibu es leading o exposu e. Compu e s in Human Beha io , 63, 311–
320.
Council o Eu ope. (2015). No ha e speech mo emen : Campaign o human igh s online.
Re ie ed om h p://www.noha espeechmo emen .o g/
Danielsson, P. & Kää iäinen, J. (2016). Suomalaise äki allan ja omaisuus ikos en koh eena
2015 – Kansallisen ikosuh i u kimuksen uloksia. Ka sauksia 13/2016. Helsinki:
Helsingin yliopis on k iminologian ja oikeuspoli iikan ins i uu i.
Das, E. Bushman, B. J., Bezeme , M. D., Ke kho , P., & Ve meulen, I. E. (2009). How
e o ism news epo s inc ease p ejudice agains ou g oups: A e o managemen
accoun . Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology, 45, 453–459.
Doosje, B., Loseman, A., & an den Bos, K. (2013). De e minan s o adicaliza ion o
Islamic you h in he Ne he lands: Pe sonal unce ain y, pe cei ed injus ice, and
pe cei ed g oup h ea . Jou nal o Social Issues, 69(3), 586–604. doi:
10.1111/josi.12030
Douglas, K. M. (2007). Psychology, disc imina ion, and ha e g oups online. In A. Joinson, K.
McKenna, T. Pos mes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Ox o d handbook o In e ne
psychology (pp. 155–164). New Yo k, NY: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.

ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
22!
Esses, V. M., Medianu, S., & Lawson, A. S. (2013). Unce ain y, h ea , and he ole o he
media in p omo ing he dehumaniza ion o immig an s and e ugees. Jou nal o
Social Issues, 69(3), 518–536. doi: 10.1111/josi.12027
Esping-Ande sen, G. (1999). Social ounda ions o pos indus ial economies. Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
E ja ec, K., & Ko ačič, M. P. (2012). You don’ unde s and, his is a new wa ! Analysis o
ha e speech in news web si es’ commen s. Mass Communica ion and Socie y, 15(6),
899–920. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2011.619679
Eu opean Commission Agains Racism and In ole ance. (2016). ECRI gene al policy
ecommenda ion no. 15 on comba ing ha e speech. S asbou g, F ance: Council o
Eu ope. Re ie ed om
www.coe.in / /dghl/moni o ing/ec i/ac i i ies/GPR/EN/Recommenda ion_N15/REC-
15-2016-015-ENG.pd .
Eu os a . (2016). Asylum qua e ly epo . Re ie ed om
h p://ec.eu opa.eu/eu os a /s a is ics-explained/index.php/Asylum_qua e ly_ epo
Fede ico, C. M., Hun , C. V., & Fishe , E. L. (2013). Unce ain y and s a us-based
asymme ies in he dis inc ion be ween he “good” us and he “bad” hem: E idence
ha g oup s a us s eng hens he ela ionship be ween he need o cogni i e closu e
and ex emi y in in e g oup di e en ia ion. Jou nal o Social Issues, 69(3), 473–494.
Finnish Minis y o he In e io (2016a). Väki al aisen eks emismin ilanneka saus 1/2016.
Sisäminis e iön julkaisu 23/2016. Helsinki: Sisäminis e iö.
Finnish Minis y o he In e io (2016b). Poliisiba ome i 2016. Kansalais en käsi ykse
poliisin oiminnas a ja sisäisen u allisuuden ilas a. Sisäminis e iön julkaisu
27/2016. Helsinki: Sisäminis e iö.
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
23!
Gaglia done, I., Gal, D., Al es, T., & Ma inez, G. (2015). Coun e ing online ha e speech,
(UNESCO se ies o In e ne eedom). Re ie ed om
h p://unesdoc.unesco.o g/images /0023/002332/233231e.pd
Ge s en eld, P. B. (2013). Ha e C imes: Causes, Con ols, and Con o e sies. London: Sage.
G an , F., & Hogg, M. A. (2012). Sel -unce ain y, social iden i y p ominence and g oup
iden i ica ion. Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology, 48(2), 538–542.
G eenbe g, J., Pyszczynski, X, & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences o a
need o sel -es eem: A e o managemen heo y. In R. F. Baumeis e (Ed.), Public
sel and p i a e sel (pp. 189-212). New Yo k: Sp inge -Ve lag.
G eenbe g, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenbla , A., Veede , M., & Ki kland, S.
(1990). E idence o Te o Managemen Theo y II: The E ec s o Mo ali y Salience
on Reac ions o Those Who Th ea en o Bols e he Cul u al Wo ld iew. Jou nal o
pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 58(2), 308–318.
Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2016). Exposu e o online ha e in ou na ions: A
c oss-na ional conside a ion. De ian Beha io . ea ly online,
doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1196985
Hogg, M. A. (2007). Unce ain y-iden i y heo y. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Ad ances in
expe imen al social psychology (pp. 69–126). San Diego, CA: Academic P ess.
doi:10.1016/S0065- 2601(06)39002-8
Hogg, M. A., Meehan, C., & Fa quha son, J. (2010). The solace o adicalism: Sel -
unce ain y and g oup iden i ica ion in he ace o h ea . Jou nal o Expe imen al
Social Psychology, 46(6), 1061–1066.
Hogg, M. A., & Adelman, J. (2013). Unce ain y–iden i y heo y: Ex eme g oups, adical
beha io , and au ho i a ian leade ship. Jou nal o Social Issues, 69(3), 436–454.
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
24!
Hogg, M. A., K uglanski, A., & an den Bos, K. (2013). Unce ain y and he oo s o
ex emism. Jou nal o Social Issues, 69(3), 407–418.
Hogg, M. A. (2014). F om unce ain y o ex emism social ca ego iza ion and iden i y
p ocesses. Cu en Di ec ions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 338–342.
Ho s i, K. (2015). Techno-cul u al oppo uni ies: The an i-immig a ion mo emen in he
Finnish mediascape. Pa e ns o P ejudice, 49(4), 343–366.
Hu chens, M. J., Cicchi illo, V. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2015). How could you hink
ha ?!?!: Unde s anding in en ions o engage in poli ical laming. New Media &
Socie y, 17(8), 1201–1219.
Kau , M., Asb ock, F., Issme , C., Thö ne , S., & Wagne , U. (2015). When immig an
g oups “misbeha e”: The in luence o pe cei ed de ian beha io on inc eased h ea
and disc imina o y in en ions and he mode a ing ole o igh -wing au ho i a ianism.
Eu opean Jou nal o Social Psychology 45, 641–652.
Keipi, T., Näsi, M. J., Oksanen, A. & Räsänen, P. (2017). Online Ha e and Ha m ul Con en :
C oss-Na ional Pe spec i es. London: Rou ledge.
Keskinen, S. (2016). F om wel a e na ionalism o wel a e chau inism: Economic he o ic,
he wel a e s a e and changing asylum policies in Finland. C i ical Social Policy,
36(3), 352–370.
Klemen , C. (2016). Ou law bike a ilia ions and c iminal in ol emen . Eu opean Jou nal o
C iminology, 13(4), 453–472.
Koomen, W. & Van de Plig , J. (2016). The psychology o adicaliza ion and e o ism.
New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Lee, M. J., & Chun, J. W. (2016). Reading o he s’ commen s and public opinion poll esul s
on social media: Social judgmen and spi al o empowe men . Compu e s in Human
Beha io , 65, 479–487.
ONLINE HATE AFTER PARIS ATTACKS
!
25!
Lindg en, S. (2011). YouTube gunmen? Mapping pa icipa o y media discou se on school
shoo ing ideos. Media, Cul u e & Socie y, 33(1), 123–136.
Ma qués, J. M., Ab ams, D., Paez, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social ca ego iza ion, social
iden i ica ion, and ejec ion o de ian g oup membe s. In M. A. Hogg & R .S.
Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook o social psychology: G oup P ocesses (pp.
400‒424). Ox o d, UK: Blackwell.
McGa y, C., Lala, G., & Douglas, K. (2011). Opinion-based g oups: (Racis ) alk and
(collec i e) ac ion on he In e ne . In Z. Bi chmeie , B. Dei z-Uhle , & G. S asse
(Eds.), S a egic uses o social echnology: An in e ac i e pe spec i e o social
psychology (pp. 145–171). Camb idge, UK: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Nail, T. (2016). A ale o wo c ises: Mig a ion and e o ism a e he Pa is a acks. S udies
in E hnici y and Na ionalism, 16(1), 158–167. doi: 10.1111/sena.12168
Näsi, M., Räsänen, P., Hawdon, J., Holke i, E., & Oksanen, A. (2015). Exposu e o online
ha e ma e ial and social us among Finnish you h. In o ma ion Technology &
People, 28(3), 607–628. doi: 10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0198.
Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Holke i, E., Näsi, M., & Räsänen, P. (2014). Exposu e o online
ha e among young social media use s. Sociological S udies o Child en & You h, 18,
253–273. doi:10.1108/S1537-466120140000018021
Oksanen, A., Aal onen, M., & Ran ala, K. (2015). Social de e minan s o deb p oblems in a
No dic wel a e s a e: A Finnish egis e -based s udy. Jou nal o Consume
Policy, 38(3), 229–246. doi: 10.1007/s10603-015-9294-4.
Pe y, B., & Olsson, P. (2009). Cybe ha e: The globaliza ion o ha e. In o ma ion &
Communica ions Technology Law, 18(2), 185–199.
Pe e son, J. & Densley, J. (2017). Cybe iolence: Wha do we know and whe e do we go
om he e? Agg ession and Violen Beha io , 34, 193–200.