Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities
The Problem People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender,...
Saved in:
Published in | Campbell systematic review Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. e70018 - n/a |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.03.2025
John Wiley and Sons Inc Wiley |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | The Problem
People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate.
Objective
The objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups.
Search Methods
Searches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers.
Selection Criteria
This review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi‐experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups.
Data Collection and Analysis
Fifty‐five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psychological effects. When two or more outcomes from the studies addressed the same construct, they were synthesized together. A separate meta‐analysis was conducted for each identified outcome from different samples. Additionally, experimental and quasi‐experimental studies were synthesized separately from correlational studies. Twenty‐four meta‐analyses were performed using a random effects model, and meta‐regressions and moderator analyses were conducted to explore factors influencing effect size estimates.
Results
The 55 studies included in this systematic review were published between 1996 and 2021, with most of them published since 2015. They include 25 correlational studies, and 22 randomized and 8 non‐randomized experimental studies. Most of these studies provide data extracted from individuals (e.g., self‐report); however, this review includes 6 studies that are based on quantitative analysis of comments or posts, or their relationship to specific geographic areas. Correlational studies encompass sample sizes ranging from 101 to 6829 participants, while experimental and quasi‐experimental studies involve participant numbers between 69 and 1112. In most cases, the exposure to hate content occurred online or within social media contexts (37 studies), while only 8 studies reported such exposure in traditional media platforms. In the remaining studies, the exposure to hate content was delivered through political propaganda, primarily associated with extreme right‐wing groups. No studies were removed from the systematic review due to quality assessment. In the experimental studies, participants demonstrated high adherence to the experimental conditions and thus contributed significantly to most of the results. The correlational and quasi‐experimental studies used consistent, valid, and reliable instruments to measure exposure and outcomes derived from well‐defined variables. As with the experimental studies, the results from the correlation and quasi‐experimental studies were complete. Meta‐analyses related to four dimensions were performed: Attitudinal changes, Intergroup dynamics, Interpersonal behaviors, and Psychological effects. We were unable to conduct a meta‐analysis for the “Political Beliefs” dimension due to an insufficient number of studies. In terms of attitude changes, exposure to hate leads to negative attitudes (dEx = 0.414; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.005, 0.824; p < 0.05; n = 8 and dcorr = 0.322; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.504; p < 0.01; n = 2) and negative stereotypes (dEx = 0.28; 95% CI = –0.018, 0.586; p < 0.10; n = 9) about individuals or groups with protected characteristics, while also hindering the promotion of positive attitudes toward them (dexp = −0.227; 95% CI = −0.466, 0.011; p < 0.10; n = 3). However, it does not increase support for hate content or political violence. Concerning intergroup dynamics, exposure to hate reduces intergroup trust (dexp = −0.308; 95% CI = –0.559, −0.058; p < 0.05; n = 2), especially between targeted groups and the general population, but has no significant impact on the perception of discrimination among minorities. In the context of Interpersonal behaviors, the meta‐analyses confirm a strong association between exposure to hate and victimization (dcorr = 0.721; 95% CI = 0.472, 0.97; p < 0.01; n = 3) and moderate effects on online hate speech perpetration (dcorr = 0.36; 95% CI = –0.028, 0.754; p < 0.10; n = 2) and offline violent behavior (dcorr = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.328, 0.612; p < 0.01; n = 2). Exposure to online hate also fuels more hate in online comments (d = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.034–0.984; p < 0.05; n = 2) but does not seem to affect hate crimes directly. However, there is no evidence that exposure to hate fosters resistance behaviors among individuals who are frequently subjected to it (e.g. the intention to counter‐argue factually). In terms of psychological consequences, this review demonstrates that exposure to hate content negatively affects individuals' psychological well‐being. Experimental studies indicate a large and significant effect size concerning the development of depressive symptoms due to exposure (dexp = 1.105; 95% CI = 0.797, 1.423; p < 0.01; n = 2). Additionally, a small effect size is observed concerning the link between exposure and reduced life satisfaction(dcorr = −0.186; 95% CI = −0.279, −0.093; p < 0.01; n = 3), as well as increased social fear regarding the likelihood of a terrorist attack (dcorr = −0.206; 95% CI = 0.147, 0.264; p < 0.01 n = 5). Conversely, exposure to hate speech does not seem to generate or be linked to the development of negative emotions related to its content.
Author's Conclusions
This systematic review confirms that exposure to hate in online and in traditional media has a significant negative impact on individuals and groups. It emphasizes the importance of taking these findings into account for policymaking, prevention, and intervention strategies. Hate speech spreads through biased commentary and perceptions, normalizing prejudice and causing harm. This not only leads to violence, victimization, and perpetration of hate speech but also contributes to a broader climate of hostility. Conversely, this research suggests that people exposed to this type of content do not show increased shock or revulsion toward it. This may explain why it is easily disseminated and often perceived as harmless, leading some to oppose its regulation. Focusing efforts solely on content control may then have a limited impact in driving substantial change. More research is needed to explore these variables, as well as the relationship between hate speech and political beliefs and the connection to violent extremism. Indeed, we know very little about how exposure to hate influences political and extremist views. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Abstract The Problem People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate. Objective The objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups. Search Methods Searches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers. Selection Criteria This review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi‐experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups. Data Collection and Analysis Fifty‐five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psychological effects. When two or more outcomes from the studies addressed the same construct, they were synthesized together. A separate meta‐analysis was conducted for each identified outcome from different samples. Additionally, experimental and quasi‐experimental studies were synthesized separately from correlational studies. Twenty‐four meta‐analyses were performed using a random effects model, and meta‐regressions and moderator analyses were conducted to explore factors influencing effect size estimates. Results The 55 studies included in this systematic review were published between 1996 and 2021, with most of them published since 2015. They include 25 correlational studies, and 22 randomized and 8 non‐randomized experimental studies. Most of these studies provide data extracted from individuals (e.g., self‐report); however, this review includes 6 studies that are based on quantitative analysis of comments or posts, or their relationship to specific geographic areas. Correlational studies encompass sample sizes ranging from 101 to 6829 participants, while experimental and quasi‐experimental studies involve participant numbers between 69 and 1112. In most cases, the exposure to hate content occurred online or within social media contexts (37 studies), while only 8 studies reported such exposure in traditional media platforms. In the remaining studies, the exposure to hate content was delivered through political propaganda, primarily associated with extreme right‐wing groups. No studies were removed from the systematic review due to quality assessment. In the experimental studies, participants demonstrated high adherence to the experimental conditions and thus contributed significantly to most of the results. The correlational and quasi‐experimental studies used consistent, valid, and reliable instruments to measure exposure and outcomes derived from well‐defined variables. As with the experimental studies, the results from the correlation and quasi‐experimental studies were complete. Meta‐analyses related to four dimensions were performed: Attitudinal changes, Intergroup dynamics, Interpersonal behaviors, and Psychological effects. We were unable to conduct a meta‐analysis for the “Political Beliefs” dimension due to an insufficient number of studies. In terms of attitude changes, exposure to hate leads to negative attitudes (dEx = 0.414; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.005, 0.824; p < 0.05; n = 8 and dcorr = 0.322; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.504; p < 0.01; n = 2) and negative stereotypes (dEx = 0.28; 95% CI = –0.018, 0.586; p < 0.10; n = 9) about individuals or groups with protected characteristics, while also hindering the promotion of positive attitudes toward them (dexp = −0.227; 95% CI = −0.466, 0.011; p < 0.10; n = 3). However, it does not increase support for hate content or political violence. Concerning intergroup dynamics, exposure to hate reduces intergroup trust (dexp = −0.308; 95% CI = –0.559, −0.058; p < 0.05; n = 2), especially between targeted groups and the general population, but has no significant impact on the perception of discrimination among minorities. In the context of Interpersonal behaviors, the meta‐analyses confirm a strong association between exposure to hate and victimization (dcorr = 0.721; 95% CI = 0.472, 0.97; p < 0.01; n = 3) and moderate effects on online hate speech perpetration (dcorr = 0.36; 95% CI = –0.028, 0.754; p < 0.10; n = 2) and offline violent behavior (dcorr = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.328, 0.612; p < 0.01; n = 2). Exposure to online hate also fuels more hate in online comments (d = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.034–0.984; p < 0.05; n = 2) but does not seem to affect hate crimes directly. However, there is no evidence that exposure to hate fosters resistance behaviors among individuals who are frequently subjected to it (e.g. the intention to counter‐argue factually). In terms of psychological consequences, this review demonstrates that exposure to hate content negatively affects individuals' psychological well‐being. Experimental studies indicate a large and significant effect size concerning the development of depressive symptoms due to exposure (dexp = 1.105; 95% CI = 0.797, 1.423; p < 0.01; n = 2). Additionally, a small effect size is observed concerning the link between exposure and reduced life satisfaction(dcorr = −0.186; 95% CI = −0.279, −0.093; p < 0.01; n = 3), as well as increased social fear regarding the likelihood of a terrorist attack (dcorr = −0.206; 95% CI = 0.147, 0.264; p < 0.01 n = 5). Conversely, exposure to hate speech does not seem to generate or be linked to the development of negative emotions related to its content. Author's Conclusions This systematic review confirms that exposure to hate in online and in traditional media has a significant negative impact on individuals and groups. It emphasizes the importance of taking these findings into account for policymaking, prevention, and intervention strategies. Hate speech spreads through biased commentary and perceptions, normalizing prejudice and causing harm. This not only leads to violence, victimization, and perpetration of hate speech but also contributes to a broader climate of hostility. Conversely, this research suggests that people exposed to this type of content do not show increased shock or revulsion toward it. This may explain why it is easily disseminated and often perceived as harmless, leading some to oppose its regulation. Focusing efforts solely on content control may then have a limited impact in driving substantial change. More research is needed to explore these variables, as well as the relationship between hate speech and political beliefs and the connection to violent extremism. Indeed, we know very little about how exposure to hate influences political and extremist views. The Problem People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate. Objective The objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups. Search Methods Searches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers. Selection Criteria This review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi‐experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups. Data Collection and Analysis Fifty‐five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psychological effects. When two or more outcomes from the studies addressed the same construct, they were synthesized together. A separate meta‐analysis was conducted for each identified outcome from different samples. Additionally, experimental and quasi‐experimental studies were synthesized separately from correlational studies. Twenty‐four meta‐analyses were performed using a random effects model, and meta‐regressions and moderator analyses were conducted to explore factors influencing effect size estimates. Results The 55 studies included in this systematic review were published between 1996 and 2021, with most of them published since 2015. They include 25 correlational studies, and 22 randomized and 8 non‐randomized experimental studies. Most of these studies provide data extracted from individuals (e.g., self‐report); however, this review includes 6 studies that are based on quantitative analysis of comments or posts, or their relationship to specific geographic areas. Correlational studies encompass sample sizes ranging from 101 to 6829 participants, while experimental and quasi‐experimental studies involve participant numbers between 69 and 1112. In most cases, the exposure to hate content occurred online or within social media contexts (37 studies), while only 8 studies reported such exposure in traditional media platforms. In the remaining studies, the exposure to hate content was delivered through political propaganda, primarily associated with extreme right‐wing groups. No studies were removed from the systematic review due to quality assessment. In the experimental studies, participants demonstrated high adherence to the experimental conditions and thus contributed significantly to most of the results. The correlational and quasi‐experimental studies used consistent, valid, and reliable instruments to measure exposure and outcomes derived from well‐defined variables. As with the experimental studies, the results from the correlation and quasi‐experimental studies were complete. Meta‐analyses related to four dimensions were performed: Attitudinal changes, Intergroup dynamics, Interpersonal behaviors, and Psychological effects. We were unable to conduct a meta‐analysis for the “Political Beliefs” dimension due to an insufficient number of studies. In terms of attitude changes, exposure to hate leads to negative attitudes (dEx = 0.414; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.005, 0.824; p < 0.05; n = 8 and dcorr = 0.322; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.504; p < 0.01; n = 2) and negative stereotypes (dEx = 0.28; 95% CI = –0.018, 0.586; p < 0.10; n = 9) about individuals or groups with protected characteristics, while also hindering the promotion of positive attitudes toward them (dexp = −0.227; 95% CI = −0.466, 0.011; p < 0.10; n = 3). However, it does not increase support for hate content or political violence. Concerning intergroup dynamics, exposure to hate reduces intergroup trust (dexp = −0.308; 95% CI = –0.559, −0.058; p < 0.05; n = 2), especially between targeted groups and the general population, but has no significant impact on the perception of discrimination among minorities. In the context of Interpersonal behaviors, the meta‐analyses confirm a strong association between exposure to hate and victimization (dcorr = 0.721; 95% CI = 0.472, 0.97; p < 0.01; n = 3) and moderate effects on online hate speech perpetration (dcorr = 0.36; 95% CI = –0.028, 0.754; p < 0.10; n = 2) and offline violent behavior (dcorr = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.328, 0.612; p < 0.01; n = 2). Exposure to online hate also fuels more hate in online comments (d = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.034–0.984; p < 0.05; n = 2) but does not seem to affect hate crimes directly. However, there is no evidence that exposure to hate fosters resistance behaviors among individuals who are frequently subjected to it (e.g. the intention to counter‐argue factually). In terms of psychological consequences, this review demonstrates that exposure to hate content negatively affects individuals' psychological well‐being. Experimental studies indicate a large and significant effect size concerning the development of depressive symptoms due to exposure (dexp = 1.105; 95% CI = 0.797, 1.423; p < 0.01; n = 2). Additionally, a small effect size is observed concerning the link between exposure and reduced life satisfaction(dcorr = −0.186; 95% CI = −0.279, −0.093; p < 0.01; n = 3), as well as increased social fear regarding the likelihood of a terrorist attack (dcorr = −0.206; 95% CI = 0.147, 0.264; p < 0.01 n = 5). Conversely, exposure to hate speech does not seem to generate or be linked to the development of negative emotions related to its content. Author's Conclusions This systematic review confirms that exposure to hate in online and in traditional media has a significant negative impact on individuals and groups. It emphasizes the importance of taking these findings into account for policymaking, prevention, and intervention strategies. Hate speech spreads through biased commentary and perceptions, normalizing prejudice and causing harm. This not only leads to violence, victimization, and perpetration of hate speech but also contributes to a broader climate of hostility. Conversely, this research suggests that people exposed to this type of content do not show increased shock or revulsion toward it. This may explain why it is easily disseminated and often perceived as harmless, leading some to oppose its regulation. Focusing efforts solely on content control may then have a limited impact in driving substantial change. More research is needed to explore these variables, as well as the relationship between hate speech and political beliefs and the connection to violent extremism. Indeed, we know very little about how exposure to hate influences political and extremist views. People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate.The ProblemPeople use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate.The objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups.Searches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers.Search MethodsSearches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers.This review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups.Selection CriteriaThis review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups.Fifty-five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psychological effects. When two or more outcomes from the studies addressed the same construct, they were synthesized together. A separate meta-analysis was conducted for each identified outcome from different samples. Additionally, experimental and quasi-experimental studies were synthesized separately from correlational studies. Twenty-four meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model, and meta-regressions and moderator analyses were conducted to explore factors influencing effect size estimates.Data Collection and AnalysisFifty-five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psychological effects. When two or more outcomes from the studies addressed the same construct, they were synthesized together. A separate meta-analysis was conducted for each identified outcome from different samples. Additionally, experimental and quasi-experimental studies were synthesized separately from correlational studies. Twenty-four meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model, and meta-regressions and moderator analyses were conducted to explore factors influencing effect size estimates.The 55 studies included in this systematic review were published between 1996 and 2021, with most of them published since 2015. They include 25 correlational studies, and 22 randomized and 8 non-randomized experimental studies. Most of these studies provide data extracted from individuals (e.g., self-report); however, this review includes 6 studies that are based on quantitative analysis of comments or posts, or their relationship to specific geographic areas. Correlational studies encompass sample sizes ranging from 101 to 6829 participants, while experimental and quasi-experimental studies involve participant numbers between 69 and 1112. In most cases, the exposure to hate content occurred online or within social media contexts (37 studies), while only 8 studies reported such exposure in traditional media platforms. In the remaining studies, the exposure to hate content was delivered through political propaganda, primarily associated with extreme right-wing groups. No studies were removed from the systematic review due to quality assessment. In the experimental studies, participants demonstrated high adherence to the experimental conditions and thus contributed significantly to most of the results. The correlational and quasi-experimental studies used consistent, valid, and reliable instruments to measure exposure and outcomes derived from well-defined variables. As with the experimental studies, the results from the correlation and quasi-experimental studies were complete. Meta-analyses related to four dimensions were performed: Attitudinal changes, Intergroup dynamics, Interpersonal behaviors, and Psychological effects. We were unable to conduct a meta-analysis for the "Political Beliefs" dimension due to an insufficient number of studies. In terms of attitude changes, exposure to hate leads to negative attitudes (d Ex = 0.414; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.005, 0.824; p < 0.05; n = 8 and d corr = 0.322; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.504; p < 0.01; n = 2) and negative stereotypes (d Ex = 0.28; 95% CI = -0.018, 0.586; p < 0.10; n = 9) about individuals or groups with protected characteristics, while also hindering the promotion of positive attitudes toward them (d exp = -0.227; 95% CI = -0.466, 0.011; p < 0.10; n = 3). However, it does not increase support for hate content or political violence. Concerning intergroup dynamics, exposure to hate reduces intergroup trust (d exp = -0.308; 95% CI = -0.559, -0.058; p < 0.05; n = 2), especially between targeted groups and the general population, but has no significant impact on the perception of discrimination among minorities. In the context of Interpersonal behaviors, the meta-analyses confirm a strong association between exposure to hate and victimization (d corr = 0.721; 95% CI = 0.472, 0.97; p < 0.01; n = 3) and moderate effects on online hate speech perpetration (d corr = 0.36; 95% CI = -0.028, 0.754; p < 0.10; n = 2) and offline violent behavior (d corr = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.328, 0.612; p < 0.01; n = 2). Exposure to online hate also fuels more hate in online comments (d = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.034-0.984; p < 0.05; n = 2) but does not seem to affect hate crimes directly. However, there is no evidence that exposure to hate fosters resistance behaviors among individuals who are frequently subjected to it (e.g. the intention to counter-argue factually). In terms of psychological consequences, this review demonstrates that exposure to hate content negatively affects individuals' psychological well-being. Experimental studies indicate a large and significant effect size concerning the development of depressive symptoms due to exposure (d exp = 1.105; 95% CI = 0.797, 1.423; p < 0.01; n = 2). Additionally, a small effect size is observed concerning the link between exposure and reduced life satisfaction(d corr = -0.186; 95% CI = -0.279, -0.093; p < 0.01; n = 3), as well as increased social fear regarding the likelihood of a terrorist attack (d corr = -0.206; 95% CI = 0.147, 0.264; p < 0.01 n = 5). Conversely, exposure to hate speech does not seem to generate or be linked to the development of negative emotions related to its content.ResultsThe 55 studies included in this systematic review were published between 1996 and 2021, with most of them published since 2015. They include 25 correlational studies, and 22 randomized and 8 non-randomized experimental studies. Most of these studies provide data extracted from individuals (e.g., self-report) The Problem People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate. Objective The objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups. Search Methods Searches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers. Selection Criteria This review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi‐experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups. Data Collection and Analysis Fifty‐five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psychological effects. When two or more outcomes from the studies addressed the same construct, they were synthesized together. A separate meta‐analysis was conducted for each identified outcome from different samples. Additionally, experimental and quasi‐experimental studies were synthesized separately from correlational studies. Twenty‐four meta‐analyses were performed using a random effects model, and meta‐regressions and moderator analyses were conducted to explore factors influencing effect size estimates. Results The 55 studies included in this systematic review were published between 1996 and 2021, with most of them published since 2015. They include 25 correlational studies, and 22 randomized and 8 non‐randomized experimental studies. Most of these studies provide data extracted from individuals (e.g., self‐report); however, this review includes 6 studies that are based on quantitative analysis of comments or posts, or their relationship to specific geographic areas. Correlational studies encompass sample sizes ranging from 101 to 6829 participants, while experimental and quasi‐experimental studies involve participant numbers between 69 and 1112. In most cases, the exposure to hate content occurred online or within social media contexts (37 studies), while only 8 studies reported such exposure in traditional media platforms. In the remaining studies, the exposure to hate content was delivered through political propaganda, primarily associated with extreme right‐wing groups. No studies were removed from the systematic review due to quality assessment. In the experimental studies, participants demonstrated high adherence to the experimental conditions and thus contributed significantly to most of the results. The correlational and quasi‐experimental studies used consistent, valid, and reliable instruments to measure exposure and outcomes derived from well‐defined variables. As with the experimental studies, the results from the correlation and quasi‐experimental studies were complete. Meta‐analyses related to four dimensions were performed: Attitudinal changes, Intergroup dynamics, Interpersonal behaviors, and Psychological effects. We were unable to conduct a meta‐analysis for the “Political Beliefs” dimension due to an insufficient number of studies. In terms of attitude changes, exposure to hate leads to negative attitudes (dEx = 0.414; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.005, 0.824; p < 0.05; n = 8 and dcorr = 0.322; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.504; p < 0.01; n = 2) and negative stereotypes (dEx = 0.28; 95% CI = –0.018, 0.586; p < 0.10; n = 9) about individuals or groups with protected characteristics, while also hindering the promotion of positive attitudes toward them (dexp = −0.227; 95% CI = −0.466, 0.011; p < 0.10; n = 3). However, it does not increase support for hate content or political violence. Concerning intergroup dynamics, exposure to hate reduces intergroup trust (dexp = −0.308; 95% CI = –0.559, −0.058; p < 0.05; n = 2), especially between targeted groups and the general population, but has no significant impact on the perception of discrimination among minorities. In the context of Interpersonal behaviors, the meta‐analyses confirm a strong association between exposure to hate and victimization (dcorr = 0.721; 95% CI = 0.472, 0.97; p < 0.01; n = 3) and moderate effects on online hate speech perpetration (dcorr = 0.36; 95% CI = –0.028, 0.754; p < 0.10; n = 2) and offline violent behavior (dcorr = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.328, 0.612; p < 0.01; n = 2). Exposure to online hate also fuels more hate in online comments (d = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.034–0.984; p < 0.05; n = 2) but does not seem to affect hate crimes directly. However, there is no evidence that exposure to hate fosters resistance behaviors among individuals who are frequently subjected to it (e.g. the intention to counter‐argue factually). In terms of psychological consequences, this review demonstrates that exposure to hate content negatively affects individuals' psychological well‐being. Experimental studies indicate a large and significant effect size concerning the development of depressive symptoms due to exposure (dexp = 1.105; 95% CI = 0.797, 1.423; p < 0.01; n = 2). Additionally, a small effect size is observed concerning the link between exposure and reduced life satisfaction(dcorr = −0.186; 95% CI = −0.279, −0.093; p < 0.01; n = 3), as well as increased social fear regarding the likelihood of a terrorist attack (dcorr = −0.206; 95% CI = 0.147, 0.264; p < 0.01 n = 5). Conversely, exposure to hate speech does not seem to generate or be linked to the development of negative emotions related to its content. Author's Conclusions This systematic review confirms that exposure to hate in online and in traditional media has a significant negative impact on individuals and groups. It emphasizes the importance of taking these findings into account for policymaking, prevention, and intervention strategies. Hate speech spreads through biased commentary and perceptions, normalizing prejudice and causing harm. This not only leads to violence, victimization, and perpetration of hate speech but also contributes to a broader climate of hostility. Conversely, this research suggests that people exposed to this type of content do not show increased shock or revulsion toward it. This may explain why it is easily disseminated and often perceived as harmless, leading some to oppose its regulation. Focusing efforts solely on content control may then have a limited impact in driving substantial change. More research is needed to explore these variables, as well as the relationship between hate speech and political beliefs and the connection to violent extremism. Indeed, we know very little about how exposure to hate influences political and extremist views. People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate. The objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups. Searches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers. This review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups. Fifty-five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psychological effects. When two or more outcomes from the studies addressed the same construct, they were synthesized together. A separate meta-analysis was conducted for each identified outcome from different samples. Additionally, experimental and quasi-experimental studies were synthesized separately from correlational studies. Twenty-four meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model, and meta-regressions and moderator analyses were conducted to explore factors influencing effect size estimates. The 55 studies included in this systematic review were published between 1996 and 2021, with most of them published since 2015. They include 25 correlational studies, and 22 randomized and 8 non-randomized experimental studies. Most of these studies provide data extracted from individuals (e.g., self-report); however, this review includes 6 studies that are based on quantitative analysis of comments or posts, or their relationship to specific geographic areas. Correlational studies encompass sample sizes ranging from 101 to 6829 participants, while experimental and quasi-experimental studies involve participant numbers between 69 and 1112. In most cases, the exposure to hate content occurred online or within social media contexts (37 studies), while only 8 studies reported such exposure in traditional media platforms. In the remaining studies, the exposure to hate content was delivered through political propaganda, primarily associated with extreme right-wing groups. No studies were removed from the systematic review due to quality assessment. In the experimental studies, participants demonstrated high adherence to the experimental conditions and thus contributed significantly to most of the results. The correlational and quasi-experimental studies used consistent, valid, and reliable instruments to measure exposure and outcomes derived from well-defined variables. As with the experimental studies, the results from the correlation and quasi-experimental studies were complete. Meta-analyses related to four dimensions were performed: Attitudinal changes, Intergroup dynamics, Interpersonal behaviors, and Psychological effects. We were unable to conduct a meta-analysis for the "Political Beliefs" dimension due to an insufficient number of studies. In terms of attitude changes, exposure to hate leads to negative attitudes ( = 0.414; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.005, 0.824; < 0.05; = 8 and = 0.322; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.504; < 0.01; = 2) and negative stereotypes ( = 0.28; 95% CI = -0.018, 0.586; < 0.10; = 9) about individuals or groups with protected characteristics, while also hindering the promotion of positive attitudes toward them ( = -0.227; 95% CI = -0.466, 0.011; < 0.10; = 3). However, it does not increase support for hate content or political violence. Concerning intergroup dynamics, exposure to hate reduces intergroup trust ( = -0.308; 95% CI = -0.559, -0.058; < 0.05; = 2), especially between targeted groups and the general population, but has no significant impact on the perception of discrimination among minorities. In the context of Interpersonal behaviors, the meta-analyses confirm a strong association between exposure to hate and victimization ( = 0.721; 95% CI = 0.472, 0.97; < 0.01; = 3) and moderate effects on online hate speech perpetration ( = 0.36; 95% CI = -0.028, 0.754; < 0.10; = 2) and offline violent behavior ( = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.328, 0.612; < 0.01; = 2). Exposure to online hate also fuels more hate in online comments ( = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.034-0.984; < 0.05; = 2) but does not seem to affect hate crimes directly. However, there is no evidence that exposure to hate fosters resistance behaviors among individuals who are frequently subjected to it (e.g. the intention to counter-argue factually). In terms of psychological consequences, this review demonstrates that exposure to hate content negatively affects individuals' psychological well-being. Experimental studies indicate a large and significant effect size concerning the development of depressive symptoms due to exposure ( = 1.105; 95% CI = 0.797, 1.423; < 0.01; = 2). Additionally, a small effect size is observed concerning the link between exposure and reduced life satisfaction( = -0.186; 95% CI = -0.279, -0.093; < 0.01; = 3), as well as increased social fear regarding the likelihood of a terrorist attack ( = -0.206; 95% CI = 0.147, 0.264; < 0.01 = 5). Conversely, exposure to hate speech does not seem to generate or be linked to the development of negative emotions related to its content. This systematic review confirms that exposure to hate in online and in traditional media has a significant negative impact on individuals and groups. It emphasizes the importance of taking these findings into account for policymaking, prevention, and intervention strategies. Hate speech spreads through biased commentary and perceptions, normalizing prejudice and causing harm. This not only leads to violence, victimization, and perpetration of hate speech but also contributes to a broader climate of hostility. Conversely, this research suggests that people exposed to this type of content do not show increased shock or revulsion toward it. This may explain why it is easily disseminated and often perceived as harmless, leading some to oppose its regulation. Focusing efforts solely on content control may then have a limited impact in driving substantial change. More research is needed to explore these variables, as well as the relationship between hate speech and political beliefs and the connection to violent extremism. Indeed, we know very little about how exposure to hate influences political and extremist views. |
Author | Mounchingam, Aoudou Njingouo Borokhovski, Eugene Pickup, David Paillé, Sabrina Hassan, Ghayda Brouillette‐Alarie, Sébastien Madriaza, Pablo Durocher‐Corfa, Loïc |
AuthorAffiliation | 3 Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance (CSLP) Concordia University Montreal Quebec Canada 1 Department of Psychoeducation and Social Work Université du Québec à Trois‐Rivières Trois‐Rivières Quebec Canada 2 Canadian Practitioners Network for the Prevention of Extremist Violence (CPN‐PREV) Université du Québec à Montreal Montreal Quebec Canada |
AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 3 Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance (CSLP) Concordia University Montreal Quebec Canada – name: 2 Canadian Practitioners Network for the Prevention of Extremist Violence (CPN‐PREV) Université du Québec à Montreal Montreal Quebec Canada – name: 1 Department of Psychoeducation and Social Work Université du Québec à Trois‐Rivières Trois‐Rivières Quebec Canada |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Pablo surname: Madriaza fullname: Madriaza, Pablo email: pablo.madriaza@uqtr.ca organization: Université du Québec à Trois‐Rivières – sequence: 2 givenname: Ghayda surname: Hassan fullname: Hassan, Ghayda organization: Université du Québec à Montreal – sequence: 3 givenname: Sébastien surname: Brouillette‐Alarie fullname: Brouillette‐Alarie, Sébastien organization: Université du Québec à Montreal – sequence: 4 givenname: Aoudou Njingouo surname: Mounchingam fullname: Mounchingam, Aoudou Njingouo organization: Université du Québec à Montreal – sequence: 5 givenname: Loïc surname: Durocher‐Corfa fullname: Durocher‐Corfa, Loïc organization: Université du Québec à Montreal – sequence: 6 givenname: Eugene surname: Borokhovski fullname: Borokhovski, Eugene organization: Concordia University – sequence: 7 givenname: David surname: Pickup fullname: Pickup, David organization: Concordia University – sequence: 8 givenname: Sabrina surname: Paillé fullname: Paillé, Sabrina organization: Université du Québec à Montreal |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39822240$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNp1ks1u1DAUhSNUREvpghdAltjQxbS248QOm6oaFag0EhtYWzfOTcejxB7sZMrseAR2fT-eBM-krVokVraPP5_74_s6O3DeYZa9ZfSMUcrPTcfPJKVMvciOmKrYjCmaHzzZH2YnMa5oQspcMiZeZYd5pTjngh5ld1c_1z6OAcngyRIGJNYR7zrrkIBryBCgsYP1DjrSY2PhI7kkcRsH7GGwhgTcWLzdoz0O8OfXb0joNtpIfEuGZfLr12CG6ZRUfIjnXQrV2I1tRuji3sH4vh9dCofxTfayTTKe3K_H2fdPV9_mX2aLr5-v55eLmRGSqhlWSgqay7JSpWxTjYJWFJPA2la00nAwZVFhUmirWm7qJheiBi5ViQ1VKj_OriffxsNKr4PtIWy1B6v3gg83GkIqtEMNOVaQc5BSgOAMayaLAmssWi6UlHXyupi81mOdemXQpe51z0yf3zi71Dd-oxmTeZm-Kzl8uHcI_seIcdC9jQa7Dhz6MeqcFaWsVFUUCX3_D7ryY0i931GyoqVUbFfeu6cpPebyMAAJOJ0AE3yMAdtHhFG9my-d5kvv5yux5xN7azvc_h_U8wWfXvwFvpbSMw |
Cites_doi | 10.1007/s10611-016-9661-3 10.1177/14773708231156328 10.4018/ijgcms.2014070101 10.1177/1745691615592234 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x 10.33972/jhs.40 10.3389/feduc.2019.00046 10.1177/1754073917751229 10.4324/9781351135559-23 10.1080/18335330.2019.1667012 10.1073/pnas.1414822112 10.2139/ssrn.2831369 10.1027/1864-1105/a000139 10.1093/jeea/jvaa045 10.4324/9781315133744 10.1002/jclp.23050 10.1177/1473779521991557 10.1145/3487351.3488324 10.17185/duepublico/42132 10.1111/jcom.12313 10.1177/0002764202045006003 10.3390/ijerph16203992 10.1017/S0007123419000590 10.1177/0886260520958645 10.1089/cyber.2022.0185 10.1080/15213269.2019.1612760 10.1093/ssjj/jyaa015 10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3354 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106192 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00376.x 10.1177/15248380221108070 10.1007/s10964-016-0541-z 10.1177/000306519604400303 10.1016/j.tele.2014.08.007 10.1007/s11406-007-9108-2 10.1080/15205436.2019.1655768 10.1177/1461444820936292 10.24193/jmr.37.1 10.1093/esr/jcaa053 10.1371/journal.pone.0222194 10.1126/science.1070765 10.1089/vio.2017.0048 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.02.009 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100750 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.08.021 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2027013 10.1177/15554120211039082 10.1177/1948550614548727 10.5817/CP2018-4-1 10.1080/10584609.2020.1736700 10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104026 10.1542/peds.2007-3377 10.1002/cl2.1106 10.1080/02560054.2011.545568 10.1080/09546553.2018.1442329 10.1111/pops.12557 10.1080/01419870.2021.1930094 10.1002/9780470743386 10.1186/s13673-019-0205-6 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00079 10.1108/OIR-05-2016-0133 10.1007/s11406-015-9658-7 10.1177/0093650215577859 10.1007/s11192-020-03737-6 10.1177/0894439316666272 10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101068 10.5964/jspp.v6i1.741 10.1177/0032329207308181 10.1007/s12103-020-09545-1 10.1017/9781108890960.005 10.1002/cl2.1245 10.1186/s40410-018-0096-2 10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.026 10.1145/3292522.3326032 10.1007/978-1-4939-3477-5_10 10.1111/soin.12274 10.1002/cl2.1243 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 10.1057/s41599-024-02761-8 10.1177/08862605211056032 10.1207/S15326926CLP0602_2 10.1007/s10940-019-09439-4 10.1080/09546553.2013.876414 10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.022 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01222 10.1080/10584609.2017.1316807 10.12795/revistafuentes.2022.20240 10.1007/s10677-019-10002-0 10.5038/1944-0472.7.3.2 10.1177/14614448211017527 10.1177/1461444809342775 10.1177/00938548221104738 10.1007/s10579-020-09502-8 10.2196/jmir.9044 10.1037/a0018251 10.1017/CBO9781139042871.006 10.1126/sciadv.aao5948 10.1007/978-3-030-26450-5_2 10.1080/08838151.2018.1532430 10.3233/DEV-230341 10.2307/2669529 10.1002/cl2.1244 10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102087 10.4018/978-1-4666-5206-4.ch007 10.1177/2158244020973022 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.03.008 10.1177/14614448221125417 10.33972/jhs.124 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304402 10.3233/DEV-170233 10.1002/cl2.1174 10.1080/01639625.2016.1196985 10.1057/978-1-137-52667-0_5 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.006 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303512 10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0198 10.1002/ab.21737 10.3390/ijerph15092030 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2025 The Author(s). published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration. 2025 The Author(s). Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration. 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2025 The Author(s). published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration. – notice: 2025 The Author(s). Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration. – notice: 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
DBID | 24P AAYXX CITATION NPM 0-V 3V. 7U4 7XB 88B 88J 8AM 8BJ 8FK ABUWG AFKRA AHOVV ALSLI AZQEC BENPR BGRYB BHHNA CCPQU CJNVE DWI DWQXO FQK GNUQQ HEHIP JBE K7. M0O M0P M2R M2S PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PKEHL POGQB PQEDU PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRQQA Q9U WZK 7X8 5PM DOA |
DOI | 10.1002/cl2.70018 |
DatabaseName | Wiley Online Library Open Access CrossRef PubMed ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】 ProQuest Central (Corporate) Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017) ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Education Database (Alumni) Social Science Database (Alumni Edition) Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition) International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland Education Research Index Social Science Premium Collection ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central Criminology Collection Sociological Abstracts ProQuest One Education Collection Sociological Abstracts ProQuest Central Korea International Bibliography of the Social Sciences ProQuest Central Student Sociology Collection International Bibliography of the Social Sciences ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni) Criminal Justice Database Education Database Social Science Database Sociology Database ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Sociology & Social Sciences Collection ProQuest One Education ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest One Social Sciences ProQuest Central Basic Sociological Abstracts (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Education ProQuest Sociology & Social Sciences Collection ProQuest Central Student ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Social Science Journals (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College Sociology & Social Sciences Collection ProQuest Central ProQuest Criminal Justice International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) ProQuest Central Korea ProQuest Sociology Collection ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Sociology Social Science Premium Collection Education Collection ProQuest One Social Sciences ProQuest Central Basic ProQuest Education Journals ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition Sociology Collection Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017) Criminology Collection ProQuest Social Science Journals ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni) Criminal Justice Periodicals (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Sociological Abstracts ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Education Journals (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | Publicly Available Content Database MEDLINE - Academic PubMed |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: 24P name: Wiley Online Library Open Access url: https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-science/open-access/browse-journals.html sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 3 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 4 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Social Welfare & Social Work Religion |
DocumentTitleAlternate | MADRIAZA et al |
EISSN | 1891-1803 |
EndPage | n/a |
ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_a3e9a32a774a421eb1755ebe5f24877b PMC11736891 39822240 10_1002_cl2_70018 CL270018 |
Genre | reviewArticle Journal Article Review |
GeographicLocations | United Kingdom--UK |
GeographicLocations_xml | – name: United Kingdom--UK |
GroupedDBID | 0-V 0R~ 1OC 24P 53G 5VS AAHHS ABUWG ACCFJ ACCMX ACXQS ADBBV ADKYN ADZJE ADZMN ADZOD AEEZP AEQDE AFKRA AIWBW AJBDE ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALSLI ARALO ASOEW AVUZU AZQEC BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BGRYB BPHCQ CCPQU CJNVE DIK DWQXO EBS EJD GNUQQ GROUPED_DOAJ HEHIP IAO ITC KQ8 M0O M0P M2R M2S OK1 PHGZT PIMPY PQEDU PQQKQ PROAC RPM AAMMB AAYXX AEFGJ AGXDD AIDQK AIDYY CITATION M~E PHGZM POGQB PRQQA 3V. NPM WIN 7U4 7XB 8BJ 8FK AHOVV BHHNA DWI FQK JBE K7. PKEHL PQEST PQUKI PUEGO Q9U WZK 7X8 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4708-e987403769867f0004090e0371ff4f7c2ac659ee030f8f2cbd344ba2786ed0883 |
IEDL.DBID | BENPR |
ISSN | 1891-1803 |
IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:25:52 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:28:29 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 15:15:06 EDT 2025 Sat Aug 23 14:51:29 EDT 2025 Thu Jan 30 12:29:50 EST 2025 Thu Jul 24 02:15:22 EDT 2025 Thu Mar 20 09:30:39 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Keywords | hate speech meta‐analysis systematic review exposure to hate impact assessment |
Language | English |
License | Attribution 2025 The Author(s). Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4708-e987403769867f0004090e0371ff4f7c2ac659ee030f8f2cbd344ba2786ed0883 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 Protocol Linked Article |
OpenAccessLink | https://www.proquest.com/docview/3179067818?pq-origsite=%requestingapplication% |
PMID | 39822240 |
PQID | 3179067818 |
PQPubID | 2040247 |
PageCount | 47 |
ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_a3e9a32a774a421eb1755ebe5f24877b pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11736891 proquest_miscellaneous_3156798955 proquest_journals_3179067818 pubmed_primary_39822240 crossref_primary_10_1002_cl2_70018 wiley_primary_10_1002_cl2_70018_CL270018 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | March 2025 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2025-03-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 2025 text: March 2025 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: Oslo – name: Hoboken |
PublicationTitle | Campbell systematic review |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Campbell Syst Rev |
PublicationYear | 2025 |
Publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc John Wiley and Sons Inc Wiley |
Publisher_xml | – name: John Wiley & Sons, Inc – name: John Wiley and Sons Inc – name: Wiley |
References | e_1_2_13_3_24_1 e_1_2_13_3_47_1 Vidgen B. (e_1_2_13_3_111_1) 2019 e_1_2_13_3_28_1 e_1_2_13_3_89_1 e_1_2_13_3_20_1 e_1_2_13_3_66_1 United Nations (e_1_2_13_3_110_1) 2019 e_1_2_13_3_43_1 e_1_2_13_3_112_1 e_1_2_13_2_32_1 e_1_2_13_3_92_1 e_1_2_13_3_116_1 Hussain G. (e_1_2_13_3_56_1) 2014 e_1_2_13_2_17_1 e_1_2_13_3_2_1 Brown A. (e_1_2_13_3_21_1) 2020 e_1_2_13_2_13_1 e_1_2_13_2_36_1 e_1_2_13_3_16_1 e_1_2_13_3_35_1 e_1_2_13_3_58_1 e_1_2_13_3_39_1 e_1_2_13_2_9_1 e_1_2_13_3_50_1 e_1_2_13_3_77_1 e_1_2_13_3_120_1 e_1_2_13_2_5_1 Awan I. (e_1_2_13_3_8_1) 2015 e_1_2_13_3_12_1 Mosharafa E. (e_1_2_13_3_67_1) 2015; 15 e_1_2_13_3_73_1 e_1_2_13_3_96_1 Davidson J. (e_1_2_13_3_30_1) 2019 e_1_2_13_3_101_1 e_1_2_13_3_124_1 e_1_2_13_2_20_1 e_1_2_13_2_1_1 e_1_2_13_2_43_1 e_1_2_13_3_105_1 Hong Q. N. (e_1_2_13_3_55_1) 2018 e_1_2_13_3_109_1 Gerbner G. (e_1_2_13_3_45_1) 1994 e_1_2_13_2_24_1 European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) (e_1_2_13_3_36_1) 2016 e_1_2_13_2_47_1 Rieger D. (e_1_2_13_2_28_1) 2013 e_1_2_13_3_27_1 e_1_2_13_3_69_1 Government of Canada (e_1_2_13_3_48_1) 2019 Botan M. (e_1_2_13_2_4_1) 2020 Del Vigna F. (e_1_2_13_3_31_1) 2017 e_1_2_13_3_61_1 New Zealand Government (e_1_2_13_3_72_1) 2019 e_1_2_13_3_88_1 e_1_2_13_3_23_1 e_1_2_13_3_42_1 e_1_2_13_3_84_1 e_1_2_13_2_10_1 e_1_2_13_2_33_1 e_1_2_13_3_91_1 e_1_2_13_3_115_1 e_1_2_13_3_119_1 e_1_2_13_2_18_1 e_1_2_13_2_14_1 e_1_2_13_2_37_1 e_1_2_13_3_38_1 Asal V. (e_1_2_13_3_6_1) 2013 Rieger D. (e_1_2_13_3_90_1) 2013 e_1_2_13_3_15_1 e_1_2_13_3_57_1 e_1_2_13_2_8_1 e_1_2_13_3_76_1 e_1_2_13_3_99_1 e_1_2_13_3_34_1 e_1_2_13_3_53_1 e_1_2_13_3_95_1 e_1_2_13_3_100_1 e_1_2_13_3_123_1 e_1_2_13_2_21_1 e_1_2_13_2_44_1 e_1_2_13_2_40_1 Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (e_1_2_13_3_104_1) 2019 e_1_2_13_3_108_1 e_1_2_13_2_29_1 e_1_2_13_2_48_1 e_1_2_13_2_25_1 e_1_2_13_3_49_1 e_1_2_13_3_26_1 e_1_2_13_3_68_1 e_1_2_13_3_41_1 e_1_2_13_3_87_1 e_1_2_13_3_60_1 Lipsey M. W. (e_1_2_13_3_65_1) 2001 e_1_2_13_3_83_1 e_1_2_13_3_64_1 e_1_2_13_2_30_1 e_1_2_13_3_114_1 e_1_2_13_2_11_1 Beninger K. (e_1_2_13_3_14_1) 2014 e_1_2_13_3_118_1 e_1_2_13_3_4_1 e_1_2_13_2_38_1 e_1_2_13_2_19_1 e_1_2_13_2_34_1 e_1_2_13_2_15_1 e_1_2_13_3_37_1 e_1_2_13_3_18_1 e_1_2_13_3_79_1 Petty R. E. (e_1_2_13_3_85_1) 2015 e_1_2_13_2_7_1 e_1_2_13_3_52_1 e_1_2_13_3_75_1 e_1_2_13_3_98_1 Blazak R. (e_1_2_13_3_17_1) 2009 e_1_2_13_2_3_1 e_1_2_13_3_10_1 e_1_2_13_3_33_1 e_1_2_13_3_71_1 e_1_2_13_3_94_1 e_1_2_13_3_122_1 e_1_2_13_2_41_1 e_1_2_13_3_103_1 e_1_2_13_2_22_1 e_1_2_13_3_107_1 e_1_2_13_2_49_1 e_1_2_13_2_45_1 e_1_2_13_2_26_1 Asal V. (e_1_2_13_3_7_1) 2012 Pate U. A. (e_1_2_13_3_80_1) 2020 e_1_2_13_3_25_1 e_1_2_13_3_29_1 Busselle R. (e_1_2_13_3_22_1) 2017 e_1_2_13_3_40_1 e_1_2_13_3_63_1 e_1_2_13_3_86_1 e_1_2_13_3_44_1 e_1_2_13_3_82_1 e_1_2_13_2_31_1 e_1_2_13_3_113_1 e_1_2_13_3_70_1 e_1_2_13_3_117_1 e_1_2_13_2_16_1 e_1_2_13_2_39_1 e_1_2_13_3_5_1 e_1_2_13_2_12_1 e_1_2_13_2_35_1 e_1_2_13_3_9_1 Borenstein M. (e_1_2_13_3_19_1) 2019 Herman J. L. (e_1_2_13_3_54_1) 2015 Bandura A. (e_1_2_13_3_11_1) 1986 e_1_2_13_3_13_1 e_1_2_13_3_59_1 Lazarus R. S. (e_1_2_13_3_62_1) 1984 Noriega C. A. (e_1_2_13_3_74_1) 2012; 25 e_1_2_13_3_51_1 e_1_2_13_3_97_1 e_1_2_13_3_78_1 e_1_2_13_3_93_1 e_1_2_13_2_6_1 e_1_2_13_3_32_1 e_1_2_13_3_121_1 e_1_2_13_2_42_1 Ahmed W. (e_1_2_13_3_3_1) 2017 e_1_2_13_3_102_1 e_1_2_13_2_2_1 e_1_2_13_3_81_1 e_1_2_13_3_125_1 Gerbner G. (e_1_2_13_3_46_1) 2002 e_1_2_13_3_106_1 e_1_2_13_2_27_1 e_1_2_13_2_23_1 e_1_2_13_2_46_1 |
References_xml | – ident: e_1_2_13_2_45_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_69_1 doi: 10.1007/s10611-016-9661-3 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_76_1 doi: 10.1177/14773708231156328 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_40_1 doi: 10.4018/ijgcms.2014070101 – volume-title: Adult online hate, harassment and abuse: A rapid evidence assessment year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_13_3_30_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_38_1 doi: 10.1177/1745691615592234 – volume-title: Christchurch Call to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist online content adopted year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_13_3_72_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_34_1 doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x – ident: e_1_2_13_3_112_1 doi: 10.33972/jhs.40 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_3_1 doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00046 – start-page: 86 year: 2017 ident: e_1_2_13_3_31_1 article-title: Hate me, hate me not: Hate speech detection on Facebook publication-title: Proceedings of the First Italian Conference on Cybersecurity (ITASEC. 17) – ident: e_1_2_13_3_40_1 doi: 10.1177/1754073917751229 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_82_1 doi: 10.4324/9781351135559-23 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_106_1 doi: 10.1080/18335330.2019.1667012 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_42_1 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414822112 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_43_1 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2831369 – volume-title: Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence; from domestic abuse to political terror year: 2015 ident: e_1_2_13_3_54_1 – volume-title: General Policy Recommendation No. 15: On Combating Hate Speech (No. CRI(2016)15) year: 2016 ident: e_1_2_13_3_36_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_2_1 doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000139 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_70_1 doi: 10.1093/jeea/jvaa045 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_2_1 doi: 10.4324/9781315133744 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_7_1 doi: 10.1002/jclp.23050 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_71_1 doi: 10.1177/1473779521991557 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_53_1 doi: 10.1145/3487351.3488324 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_91_1 doi: 10.17185/duepublico/42132 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_32_1 doi: 10.1111/jcom.12313 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_63_1 doi: 10.1177/0002764202045006003 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_44_1 doi: 10.3390/ijerph16203992 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_21_1 doi: 10.1017/S0007123419000590 – volume-title: We fear for our lives: Offline and online experiences of anti‐Muslim hostility year: 2015 ident: e_1_2_13_3_8_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_34_1 doi: 10.1177/0886260520958645 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_103_1 doi: 10.1089/cyber.2022.0185 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_17_1 doi: 10.1080/15213269.2019.1612760 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_109_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_66_1 doi: 10.1093/ssjj/jyaa015 – volume-title: Strategy and plan of action on hate speech year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_13_3_110_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_27_1 doi: 10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3354 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_117_1 doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106192 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_98_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00376.x – ident: e_1_2_13_3_60_1 doi: 10.1177/15248380221108070 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_41_1 doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0541-z – ident: e_1_2_13_3_119_1 doi: 10.1177/000306519604400303 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_19_1 doi: 10.1093/jeea/jvaa045 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_11_1 doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2014.08.007 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_15_1 doi: 10.1007/s11406-007-9108-2 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_49_1 doi: 10.1080/15205436.2019.1655768 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_23_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_1_1 doi: 10.1177/1461444820936292 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_6_1 doi: 10.24193/jmr.37.1 – start-page: 43 volume-title: Media effects: Advances in theory and research year: 2002 ident: e_1_2_13_3_46_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_102_1 doi: 10.1093/esr/jcaa053 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_116_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222194 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_4_1 doi: 10.1126/science.1070765 – volume-title: Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018—User guide year: 2018 ident: e_1_2_13_3_55_1 – volume-title: How much online abuse is there: A systematic review of evidence for the UK ‐ Policy Briefing—Full Report (Hate Speech: Measures and Counter Measures) year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_13_3_111_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_29_1 doi: 10.1089/vio.2017.0048 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_39_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.02.009 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_22_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100750 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_39_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.08.021 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_92_1 doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2027013 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_5_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_38_1 doi: 10.1177/15554120211039082 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_37_1 doi: 10.1177/1948550614548727 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_32_1 doi: 10.5817/CP2018-4-1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_97_1 doi: 10.1080/10584609.2020.1736700 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_25_1 doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608 – volume: 25 start-page: 69 year: 2012 ident: e_1_2_13_3_74_1 article-title: Toward an empirical analysis of hate speech on commercial talk radio publication-title: Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy – ident: e_1_2_13_2_43_1 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104026 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_48_1 doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-3377 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_24_1 doi: 10.1002/cl2.1106 – start-page: 79 volume-title: Advances in research ethics and integrity year: 2017 ident: e_1_2_13_3_3_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_101_1 doi: 10.1080/02560054.2011.545568 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_24_1 doi: 10.1080/09546553.2018.1442329 – volume-title: Common mistakes in meta‐analysis and how to avoid them year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_13_3_19_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_96_1 doi: 10.1111/pops.12557 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_61_1 doi: 10.1080/01419870.2021.1930094 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_20_1 doi: 10.1002/9780470743386 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_93_1 doi: 10.1186/s13673-019-0205-6 – volume-title: Taking action to end online hate: Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_13_3_104_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_26_1 doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00079 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_46_1 doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106192 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_15_1 doi: 10.1108/OIR-05-2016-0133 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_28_1 doi: 10.1007/s11406-015-9658-7 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_18_1 doi: 10.1177/0093650215577859 – volume: 15 start-page: 23 issue: 7 year: 2015 ident: e_1_2_13_3_67_1 article-title: All you need to know about: The cultivation theory publication-title: Global Journal of Human Social Science – ident: e_1_2_13_3_107_1 doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03737-6 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_10_1 doi: 10.1177/0894439316666272 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_12_1 doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101068 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_9_1 doi: 10.5964/jspp.v6i1.741 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_73_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100750 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_105_1 doi: 10.1177/0032329207308181 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_47_1 doi: 10.1007/s12103-020-09545-1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_108_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.08.021 – start-page: 133 volume-title: Hate crimes. 1: Understanding and defining hate crime year: 2009 ident: e_1_2_13_3_17_1 – volume-title: Canada's digital charter in action: A plan by Canadians, for Canadians year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_13_3_48_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_99_1 doi: 10.1017/9781108890960.005 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_51_1 doi: 10.1002/cl2.1245 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_86_1 doi: 10.1186/s40410-018-0096-2 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_18_1 doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.026 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_29_1 doi: 10.1145/3292522.3326032 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_78_1 – volume-title: Propaganda 2.0: Psychological effects of right‐wing and Islamic extremist internet videos year: 2013 ident: e_1_2_13_3_90_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_89_1 doi: 10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3354 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_27_1 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3477-5_10 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_9_1 doi: 10.1111/soin.12274 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_120_1 doi: 10.1002/cl2.1243 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_12_1 doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_125_1 doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-02761-8 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_113_1 doi: 10.1177/08862605211056032 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_64_1 doi: 10.1207/S15326926CLP0602_2 – start-page: 89 volume-title: Advances in human and social aspects of technology year: 2020 ident: e_1_2_13_3_80_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_123_1 doi: 10.1007/s10940-019-09439-4 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_25_1 doi: 10.1080/09546553.2013.876414 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_59_1 doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.022 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_42_1 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01222 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_30_1 doi: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1316807 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_57_1 doi: 10.12795/revistafuentes.2022.20240 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_13_1 doi: 10.1007/s10677-019-10002-0 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_77_1 doi: 10.1080/09546553.2018.1442329 – volume-title: Research using social media; users' views year: 2014 ident: e_1_2_13_3_14_1 – volume-title: Jihad trending—A comprehensive analysis of online extremism and how to counter it year: 2014 ident: e_1_2_13_3_56_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_41_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_95_1 doi: 10.5038/1944-0472.7.3.2 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_23_1 doi: 10.1177/14614448211017527 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_121_1 doi: 10.1177/1461444809342775 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_36_1 doi: 10.1093/esr/jcaa053 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_118_1 doi: 10.1177/00938548221104738 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_87_1 doi: 10.1007/s10579-020-09502-8 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_58_1 doi: 10.2196/jmir.9044 – volume-title: The politics of hate speech law year: 2020 ident: e_1_2_13_3_21_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_5_1 doi: 10.1037/a0018251 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_79_1 doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139042871.006 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_10_1 doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aao5948 – volume-title: Stress, appraisal, and coping year: 1984 ident: e_1_2_13_3_62_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_37_1 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-26450-5_2 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_49_1 doi: 10.1080/08838151.2018.1532430 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_26_1 doi: 10.3233/DEV-230341 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_33_1 doi: 10.2307/2669529 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_122_1 doi: 10.1002/cl2.1244 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_68_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102087 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_88_1 doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5206-4.ch007 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_81_1 doi: 10.1177/2158244020973022 – volume-title: Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change year: 2015 ident: e_1_2_13_3_85_1 – start-page: 247 volume-title: Practical meta‐analysis year: 2001 ident: e_1_2_13_3_65_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_8_1 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.03.008 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_14_1 doi: 10.1080/15205436.2019.1655768 – start-page: 56 year: 2020 ident: e_1_2_13_2_4_1 article-title: Deep‐rooted prejudices: The online proliferation of hate speech against the roma minority group in Romania publication-title: Politics and Knowledge: New Trends in Social Research – ident: e_1_2_13_3_75_1 doi: 10.1177/14614448221125417 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_33_1 doi: 10.1080/10584609.2020.1736700 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_83_1 doi: 10.33972/jhs.124 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_94_1 doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304402 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_47_1 doi: 10.1177/1461444809342775 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_50_1 doi: 10.3233/DEV-170233 – volume-title: Analysis of factors related to hate crime and terrorism. Final Report to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism year: 2012 ident: e_1_2_13_3_7_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_124_1 doi: 10.1002/cl2.1174 – volume-title: Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory year: 1986 ident: e_1_2_13_3_11_1 – start-page: 17 volume-title: Media effects: Advances in theory and research year: 1994 ident: e_1_2_13_3_45_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_52_1 doi: 10.1080/01639625.2016.1196985 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_84_1 doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-52667-0_5 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_35_1 doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_44_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_16_1 doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.006 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_100_1 doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303512 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_20_1 doi: 10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0198 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_31_1 doi: 10.1111/pops.12557 – volume-title: Understanding Lone‐actor Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis with Violent Hate Crimes and Group‐based Terrorism—Report to the Resilient Systems Division, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security year: 2013 ident: e_1_2_13_3_6_1 – volume-title: Propaganda 2.0: Psychological effects of right‐wing and islamic extremist internet videos year: 2013 ident: e_1_2_13_2_28_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_35_1 doi: 10.1002/ab.21737 – start-page: 69 volume-title: Media effects: Advances in theory and research year: 2017 ident: e_1_2_13_3_22_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_13_1 – ident: e_1_2_13_2_16_1 doi: 10.1177/0002764202045006003 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_115_1 doi: 10.3390/ijerph16203992 – ident: e_1_2_13_3_114_1 doi: 10.3390/ijerph15092030 |
SSID | ssj0001637114 |
Score | 2.3111398 |
SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
Snippet | The Problem
People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also... People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate... The Problem People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also... Abstract The Problem People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these... |
SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref wiley |
SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
StartPage | e70018 |
SubjectTerms | Aggression Attitude change Behavior Beliefs Bullying Bystanders Change agents Consensus Data collection Discrimination Emotions Ethnic Stereotypes Evidence exposure to hate Extremism Groups Hate crimes Hate speech Hostility impact assessment Internet Intervention Life satisfaction Mental depression Meta Analysis Methodological problems Minority groups Negative Attitudes Policy making Political attitudes Political violence Prejudice Propaganda Psychological aspects Race Racism Religion Rural areas Sexual orientation Social media Social networks Social Problems Speech Stereotypes Suicide Systematic review Systematic Reviews Variables Victimization Victims of Crime Violence Well Being |
SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3NbtQwELZQT70g_gksaIoQ4hKa-CdxuLVVqwoBJyp6i2zHVle0SbXdShx5BG68H0_CjJ1sdwWIC8eMrdjxjO0v9sw3jL0sQ6mDtCGvuXe5NFbkVlUut4gdfJA-OEmBwh8-Vscn8t2pOl1L9UU-YYkeOA3crhG-MYIbhClG8hKXllopbFkFjli7trT64p639jMVT1cqUSPSn6iECr7rzvkbumPVGxtQ5On_E7j83UdyHbvGzefoDrs9okbYS729y275_h6bpdBa-OzPg1l4eAWTYFh8uc9-HH69HOj8D5YDnCGkhHkPiRgDTN8BttfN00kgxPiRt7AHN8TOkIJaYtULvzQ_v303I4EJDAEQN0KKsExPKPVTe0MP81Wc11V8g0txKMTe-oCdHB1-OjjOxzQMuZN1oXPfUNo-XIgaXdWBQGDRFJ6o_kKQoXbcuEo1HiVF0IE72wkpreG1rnyHi5h4yLb6ofePGWgEB0G6oguWWBG9toI73XUUx-lUV2bsxaSb9jKxbbSJV5m3qMA2KjBj-6S1VQUiyI4CNJt2NJv2X2aTsdmk83actVetILoy3L2pjZ1VMc43ukQxvR-uqY6ii6tGqYw9Siay6okgMkSESBnTG8az0dXNkn5-Fjm9y7IWlW5wBF5HO_v757cH76OzgH7yP8bhKdvmlNE4etXN2NZyce2fIcxa2udxRv0CxEYojg priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: Wiley Online Library Open Access dbid: 24P link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV3LbtQwFLVK2bBB5R06IIMQYhMavxIHVqVqVSFALKjoLrIdm44oSTUzlVjyCez4P76Ee-0kwwiQWMZ2Yif3XvvE9jkm5AkLTAdpQ15x73JprMitKl1uATv4IH1wEonCb9-Vxyfy9ak63SIvRy5M0oeYJtwwMmJ_jQFu7HJvLRrqzvlzXDTVV8hVpNaicD6X79cTLKWoWNT2ZrpmOdOFGJWFCr433b0xHkXZ_r9hzT-3TP4OZeNYdLRDrg8gku4nq98gW767SWaJaUs_-vNgFp4-pWNCv_h8i_w4_HrR43QgXfX0DBAmnXc0fQdqupZCfe08TQzSSCd5QffpWueZJo5LLPrFr8zPb9_NoGdC-0ABRtJEuExXkOrH-vqOzifa1zI-wSVaCoq53iYnR4cfDo7z4VSG3Mmq0Lmv8RQ_6JdqXVYBMWFRFx6V_0KQoXLcuFLVHlKKoAN3thVSWsMrXfoW-jRxh2x3fefvEaoBKwTpijZYFEn02grudNsirdOplmXk8Wib5iKJbzRJZpk3YMAmGjAjr9BqUwHUy44J_eJTM4RfY4SvjeAGwK6RnMEAVSkF_qsChz-2ymZkNtq8GYJ42QhUL4PBHOt4NGVD-OGaiul8f4llFK5j1Upl5G5ykaklArURATFlRG84z0ZTN3O6-VmU-GasEiW4bUaeRT_79-s3B2_i3gF9__-L7pJrHI8xjlvpZmR7tbj0DwBbrezDGEO_ANd-IT0 priority: 102 providerName: Wiley-Blackwell |
Title | Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities |
URI | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002%2Fcl2.70018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39822240 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3179067818 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3156798955 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC11736891 https://doaj.org/article/a3e9a32a774a421eb1755ebe5f24877b |
Volume | 21 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwELZoKyEuCMorsKwMQohLaOJH4nBBbbVVhaCqEBW9RbZjtytKsuxuJY78BG78P34JM3ayZcXjGMeKncx4_GU88w0hz3KfKy-MT0vmbCq04amRhU0NYAfnhfNWYKLwu6Pi8ES8OZWnvcNt0YdVDjYxGOqms-gj3-FIJQWWNVevZ19SrBqFp6t9CY0NsgUmWMHP19be5Oj4_ZWXpeAlIP6BUihjO_aCvcSzVrW2EQW-_r-BzD9jJX_HsGETOrhFbvboke5Gcd8m11y7Ta4PYcXbZBSzbelHd-H13NHndGjo5p_ukB-Tr7MOXYJ02dFzQJl02tLIlUF121AYuplG5yANKSWv6C694nqmMc8ldP3slvrnt--65zShnacAJWlMuoxX0OqG8bqWTlepX4vwBBtTU5DQ9S45OZh82D9M-8oMqRVlplJXYSU_sE2VKkqPuDCrMofsf94LX1qmbSErBy2ZV55Z03AhjGalKlwDdo3fI5tt17oHhCrAC17YrPEGiRKdMpxZ1TSY2mllkyfk6SCmehYJOOpItcxqkGUdZJmQPRTgqgNyZoeGbn5W90uw1txVmjMNgFcLlsMmVUoJOiw9g7-20iRkNIi_7hfyor5Su4Q8Wd2GJYjnKrp13SX2kXiWVUmZkPtRW1Yz4ciPCKgpIWpNj9amun6nnZ4Hmu88L3mhKvgCL4LK_fv16_23IX5APfz_KzwiNxiWLw4hdCOyuZxfuseAqZZmTDaYOB73y2ccPBO_APaEJo0 |
linkProvider | ProQuest |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3NbtQwEB6VrQRcEJS_wAIGAeISmjhO4iAh1JattnS7QqhVewuOY9MVJVl2twJuPAI33oKH4kkY28kuK35uPca2HCczY3-2Z74BeBjqkGtWaD-lSvpMFJFfxIn0C8QOSjOlJTOBwnvDpH_AXh3FRyvwo42FMW6V7ZxoJ-qyluaMfD0yVFI4s4b8xfijb7JGmdvVNoWGU4td9eUTbtmmz3deonwfUbrd29_q-01WAV-yNOC-ykwWOrSrjCepNpgmyAJlmOu0ZjqVVMgkzhSWBJprKosyYqwQNOWJKtEmI-z3HKyyCLcyHVjd7A1fv1mc6iTYT8haCqOArssT-tTc7fKlhc_mB_gbqP3TN_N3zGwXve3LcKlBq2TDqdcVWFHVGpxv3ZjXoOuie8mhOtFioshj0hbUk_dX4Xvv87g2R5BkVpNjRLVkVBHHzUFEVRJ8dTlyh5HEhrA8IxtkwS1NXFyNbfpBzcTPr99Ew6FCak0QuhIX5OmesFS176srMpqHmk1tD9KFwhgC2WtwcCYyuw6dqq7UTSAc8YlmMih1YYgZFS8iKnlZmlBSGZehBw9aMeVjR_iRO2pnmqMscytLDzaNAOcNDEe3Lagn7_LG5HMRqUxEVCDAFoyGuCimcYw2E2uKu8S08KDbij9vJo5pvlBzD-7Pq9HkzT2OqFR9atrE5u4si2MPbjhtmY8kMnyMiNI84Et6tDTU5ZpqdGxpxcMwjRKe4R94YlXu35-fbw2svwK_9f9PuAcX-vt7g3ywM9y9DRepSZ1s3fe60JlNTtUdxHOz4m5jRATenrXd_gJzaF-M |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3dbtMwFD4anTRxg2D8BQoYBIib0MRxEgcJof202tioJsS03QXHsVnFSErbCbjjEbjjXXgcnoRjO2mp-LnbZR3LSXrOsb_Y5_sOwMNQh1yzQvspVdJnooj8Ik6kXyB2UJopLZkhCr8aJjuH7OVxfLwCP1oujEmrbOdEO1GXtTR75L3ISEnhzBrynm7SIg62By_GH31TQcqctLblNJyL7Kkvn_Dzbfp8dxtt_YjSQf_N1o7fVBjwJUsD7qvMVKTDGMt4kmqDb4IsUEbFTmumU0mFTOJMYUuguaayKCPGCkFTnqgS4zPCcS_AKo6RBh1Y3ewPD14vdngSHCdkrZxRQHvylD4157x8aRG0tQL-BnD_zNP8HT_bBXBwGS41yJVsOFe7AiuqWoe1NqV5HbqO6UuO1KkWE0Uek7ahnry_Ct_7n8e12Y4ks5qcIMIlo4o4nQ4iqpLgrcuR25gkls7yjGyQhc40cRwb2_WDmomfX7-JRk-F1JogjCWO8Ol-Yatq71dXZDSnnU3tCNLRYoyY7DU4PBebXYdOVVfqJhCOWEUzGZS6MCKNihcRlbwsDa1UxmXowYPWTPnYiX_kTuaZ5mjL3NrSg01jwHkHo9dtG-rJu7wJ_1xEKhMRFQi2BaMhLpBpHGP8xJriF2NaeNBtzZ83k8g0X7i8B_fnlzH8zZmOqFR9ZvrE5hwti2MPbjhvmT9JZLQZEbF5wJf8aOlRl69UoxMrMR6GaZTwDP-BJ9bl_v36-da-zV3gt_7_CvdgDeM1398d7t2Gi9RUUbaZfF3ozCZn6g5Cu1lxt4khAm_PO2x_AclWY8E |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Exposure+to+hate+in+online+and+traditional+media%3A+A+systematic+review+and+meta%E2%80%90analysis+of+the+impact+of+this+exposure+on+individuals+and+communities&rft.jtitle=Campbell+systematic+review&rft.au=Madriaza%2C+Pablo&rft.au=Hassan%2C+Ghayda&rft.au=Brouillette%E2%80%90Alarie%2C+S%C3%A9bastien&rft.au=Mounchingam%2C+Aoudou+Njingouo&rft.date=2025-03-01&rft.pub=John+Wiley+and+Sons+Inc&rft.eissn=1891-1803&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fcl2.70018&rft.externalDocID=PMC11736891 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1891-1803&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1891-1803&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1891-1803&client=summon |