“No Viral, No Justice”: Unveiling the Phenomenon of Digital Vigilantism from a Psychological Perspective
Abstract
The rapid advancement of the cyber world has spurred new behaviors and a complex transition from real-life to online behaviors. One behavior arising from this development is digital vigilantism. This concept utilizes social media and the internet to punish or publicly shame those perceived as normatively guilty. Using a narrative literature review method, this article aimed to explore digital vigilantism behavior and analyze it through the lens of psychology. The literature review examined seven research articles discussing digital vigilantism published from 2014-2024. Key focuses include the concept of digital vigilantism, analysis based on psychology theories (such as social identity theory and theory of justice), as well as an examination of its strengths and weaknesses. The article provides fresh insights into digital vigilantism and its intersection with psychology.
Keywords
DOI: 10.22146/buletinpsikologi.97562
References
Asfand-e-yar, M., Hashir, Q., Tanvir, S. H., & Khalil, W. (2023). Classifying misinformation of user credibility in social media using supervised learning. Computers, Materials & Continua, 75(2), 2921-2938. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2023.034741
Bateson, R. (2012). Crime victimization and political participation. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 570-587. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055412000299
Branscombe, N. R., & Baron, R. A. (2022). Social psychology, global edition. Pearson Higher Ed.
Brown, O., Lowery, C., & Smith, L. G. E. (2022). How opposing ideological groups use online interactions to justify and mobilise collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(7), 1082-1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2886
Byrne, J.A. (2016). Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Res Integr Peer Rev 1, 12 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2
Chaiken, S. & Ledgerwood, A. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1, 246-266. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n13
Chia, S. C. (2019). Seeking justice on the web: How news media and social norms drive the practice of cyber vigilantism. Social Science Computer Review, 38(6), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319842190
Cohen, R. L. (1987). Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice Research, 1(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01049382
Cook, C. L., Patel, A., Guisihan, M., & Wohn, D. Y. (2021). Whose agenda is it anyway: an exploration of cancel culture and political affiliation in the united states. SN Social Sciences, 1(9). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00241-3
Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2020). Doing a literature review in nursing, health and social care. SAGE.
Dekker, R., & Meijer, A. (2020). Citizens as aides or adversaries? In Introducing Vigilant Audiences (pp. 281–306). Open Book Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/obp.0200.11
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408
Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2699.4.1.7
Departemen Kriminologi Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Indonesia. (2022, June 16). Diskusi Internasional Departemen Kriminologi Membahas Kejahatan Vigilantisme di Indonesia – Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik – Universitas Indonesia. https://fisip.ui.ac.id/diskusi-internasional-departemen-kriminologi-membahas-kejahatan-vigilantisme-di-indonesia/
Douglas, D., M. (2016), Doxing: A Conceptual Analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 18 (3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9406-0
Douglas, D.M. (2020). Doxing as audience vigilantism against hate speech. In Introducing Vigilant Audiences (pp. 281–306). Open Book Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/obp.0200.11
Eckert, S., & Metzger‐Riftkin, J. (2020). Doxxing, privacy and gendered harassment. the shock and normalization of veillance cultures. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 68(3), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2020-3-273
Faturochman, F. (1999). KEADILAN SOSIAL Suatu Tinjauan psikologi. Buletin Psikologi, 7(1). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.22146/bpsi.7399
Gabdulhakov, R. (2018). Citizen-led justice in post-communist russia: from comrades’ courts to dotcomrade vigilantism. Surveillance & Society, 16(3), 314-331. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v16i3.6952
Galleguillos, S. (2021). Digilantism, discrimination, and punitive attitudes: A digital vigilantism model. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal, 18(3), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/17416590211017937
Grégoire, Y., Legoux, R., Tripp, T. M., Radanielina-Hita, M.-L., Joireman, J., & Rotman, J. D. (2018). What do online complainers want? An examination of the justice motivations and the moral implications of vigilante and reparation schemas. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3850-1
Hamna, D. (2017). Eksistensi jurnalisme di era media sosial. Jurnalisa, 3(1), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.24252/jurnalisa.v3i1.3090 Henry. (2024, June 13). Nasib Nasarius Pawang Anjing k-9 di Plaza Indonesia yang Sempat Dihujat Robby Purba. Liputan6. https://www.liputan6.com/lifestyle/read/5619323/nasib-nasarius-pawang-anjing-k-9-di-plaza-indonesia-yang-sempat-dihujat-robby-purba?page=3
Huang, Q. (2021). The mediated and mediatised justice-seeking: Chinese digital vigilantism from 2006 to 2018. Internet Histories, 5(3–4), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1919965
Insko, C. A. (1984). Balance theory, the jordan paradigm, and the wiest tetrahedron. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 89–140). Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60143-4
Ireland, L. (2022). The acquisition of legitimacy for civilian policing: A case study of pedophile hunting groups. Crime, Law and Social Change, 79(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-022-10045-y
Ireland, L. (2023). Support for vigilantism in cyberspace: Exploring procedural justice, distributive justice, and legal legitimacy. Criminal Justice Studies, 36(3), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2023.2254097
Jaśko, K., Szastok, M., Grzymała-Moszczyńska, J., Maj, M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2019). Rebel with a cause: personal significance from political activism predicts willingness to self‐sacrifice. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 314-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12307
Lange, P. A. M. V., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2012). Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). Two models of procedural justice. In The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (pp. 221–242). Springer US. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4_10
Loveluck, B. (2019). The many shades of digital vigilantism. A typology of online self-justice. Global Crime, 21(3–4), 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2019.1614444
Luo, H., Cai, M., & Cui, Y. (2021). Spread of misinformation in social networks: analysis based on weibo tweets. Security and Communication Networks, 2021, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7999760
Maddalena, S. (2024, January 31). Digital 2024. We Are Social Indonesia. https://wearesocial.com/id/blog/2024/01/digital-2024/
Moncada, E. (2017). Varieties of vigilantism: Conceptual discord, meaning and strategies. Global Crime, 18(4), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2017.1374183
Neubaum, G., Rösner, L., Ganster, T., Hambach, K., & Krämer, N. C. (2018). United in the name of justice: How conformity processes in social media may influence online vigilantism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000112
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C. D., … & Moher, D. (2021). The prisma 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Putra, D. P. & Setiawan, E. B. (2023). Hoax detection using long short-term memory (lstm) and gate recurrent unit (gru) on social media. Building of Informatics, Technology and Science (BITS), 4(4). https://doi.org/10.47065/bits.v4i4.3084
Reichl, F. (2019). From Vigilantism to Digilantism?. In: Akhgar, B., Bayerl, P.S., Leventakis, G. (eds) Social Media Strategy in Policing. Security Informatics and Law Enforcement. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22002-0_7 SAFEnet. (2022). Laporan Situasi Hak-hak Digital Indonesia 2021: Pandemi Memang terkendali Tapi Represi Digital Terus Berlanjut. Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet).
Siahaan, T. P. C. & Susanto, N. (2023). Digital advocacy for punitive justice and vigilantism: analyzing citizen dissatisfaction with the klitih prevention policy. Policy & Governance Review, 7(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v7i1.628
Skoric, M. M., Wong, K. H., Chua, J. P. E., Yeo P. J. & Liew, M. A. (2010). Online shaming in the Asian context: Community empowerment or civic vigilantism?. Surveillance and Society, 8(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v8i2.3485
Stratton, G., Powell, A., & Cameron, R. (2017). Crime and justice in digital society: towards a ‘digital criminology’?. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 6(2), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v6i2.355
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48).
Brooks/Cole. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24927662
Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2006). Social psychology. Prentice Hall.
Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. (2016). Group interaction as the crucible of social identity formation: A glimpse at the foundations of social identities for collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/136843021561221
Thomason, K. K. (2021). The moral risks of online shaming. Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics, 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198857815.013.8
Thompson, A. (2024, January 30). Digital 2024: 5 billion social media users - We Are Social Indonesia. We Are Social Indonesia. https://wearesocial.com/id/blog/2024/01/digital-2024-5-billion-social-media-users/
Trottier, D. (2016). Digital vigilantism as weaponisation of visibility. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0216-4
Trottier, D. (2019). Denunciation and doxing: towards a conceptual model of digital vigilantism. Global Crime, 21(3-4), 196-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2019.1591952
Trottier, D., Gabdulhakov, R., & Huang, Q. (2020). Introducing vigilant audiences. Open Book Publishers.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage
Foundation. Weissman, J. (2021). The crowdsourced panopticon: Conformity and control on social media. Rowman & Littlefield.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Buletin Psikologi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
* Corresponding Author
