Did the Risk of Exposure to Online Hate Increase After the November 2015 Paris Attacks? A Group Relations Approach

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.