The Influence of Negative Evaluative Sources on Online Collective Aggression: A Study Based on Intergroup Sensitivity Effect

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2025.06.013

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on the intergroup sensitivity effect, this study experimentally investigated the influence of negative evaluative sources on online collective aggression, as well as the roles of group anger and positive online contact. A negative emotion scale, a group anger scale, and an employee evaluation paradigm were employed to conduct scenario-based experiments with participants. The results revealed that: 1) negative out-group evaluations in the online environment were more likely to elicit online collective aggression behaviors among Internet users compared to negative in-group evaluations; 2) group anger mediated the relationship between sources of negative evaluations and online collective aggression behaviors; 3) positive online contact not only moderated the direct relationship between sources of negative evaluations and online collective aggression behaviors but also moderated the first half of the mediating path of group anger. This study constructed a moderated mediation model, which holds theoretical and practical significance for the governance of online collective aggression and the maintenance of a healthy and positive online ecology.

Key words: intergroup sensitivity effect, negative evaluative sources, online collective aggression, group anger, positive online contact

摘要：

本研究基于群际敏感效应，通过实验探究了消极评价来源对网络集群攻击行为的影响以及群体愤怒和积极网络接触的作用。采用消极情绪量表、群体愤怒量表、员工评价范式，对被试进行情景实验。结果发现：(1)网络环境中外群体消极评价比内群体消极评价更容易引起网络集群攻击行为；(2)群体愤怒在消极评价来源与网络集群攻击行为的关系中起中介作用；(3)积极网络接触不仅能调节消极评价来源与网络集群攻击行为的直接关系，还能调节群体愤怒中介作用的前半段路径。本研究构建了一个有调节的中介模型，对网络集群攻击行为的治理，维护天朗气清的网络生态具有理论和实践意义。

关键词: 群际敏感效应, 消极评价来源, 网络集群攻击行为, 群体愤怒, 积极网络接触

Wenhai ZHANG, Jingying SHA. The Influence of Negative Evaluative Sources on Online Collective Aggression: A Study Based on Intergroup Sensitivity Effect[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2025, 23(6): 822-829.

张文海, 沙晶莹. 消极评价来源对网络集群攻击行为的影响：基于群际敏感效应的研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(6): 822-829.

Figures/Tables 7

References 0

	董颖红, 陈浩, 赖凯声, 乐国安. 微博客基本社会情绪的测量及效度检验. 心理科学, 2015, 38 (5): 1141- 1146.
	高阳, 倪士光, 夏志远, 田午林. 群体夸耀方式对旁观者网络攻击行为的影响: 旁观者的被挑衅感和群体认同的作用. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21 (4): 471- 478.
	温芳芳, 佐斌. 最简群体范式的操作、心理机制及新应用. 心理科学, 2018, 41 (3): 713- 719.
	薛婷, 陈浩, 乐国安, 姚琦. 社会认同与内、外群体态度的关系: 群际威胁和群体情绪的中介作用. 心理科学, 2013, 36 (1): 183- 187.
	殷融, 张菲菲. 不同类型集群行为的差异比较. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23 (1): 120- 131.
	乐国安, 薛婷. 网络集群行为的理论解释模型探索. 南开学报(哲学社会科学版), 2011, (5): 116- 123.
	乐国安, 薛婷, 陈浩, 姚琦. 集体行动参与双路径模型再分析——来自现实与网络行动情境的检验. 心理科学, 2013, 36 (2): 424- 428.
	张书维. 群际威胁与集群行为意向: 群体性事件的双路径模型. 心理学报, 2013, 45 (12): 1410- 1430.
	赵杨, 王林, 时勘. 微博网民情绪敏感度、行为意向与执行意向的关系. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13 (1): 99- 105.
	周云, 刘建平, 王鑫强, 许秀芬. 政策执行偏差情境下公众不公正感对集群行为的影响机制研究. 心理科学, 2020, 43 (5): 1169- 1175.
	Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 2013, 68 (7): 527- 542. DOI
	Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna, K. Y. A. The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006, 11 (3): 825- 843. DOI
	Ariyanto, A., Hornsey, M. J., & Gallois, C. United we stand: Intergroup conflict moderates the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, 40 (1): 169- 177. DOI
	Árnadóttir, K., Lolliot, S., Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. Positive and negative intergroup contact: Interaction not asymmetry. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2018, 48 (6): 784- 800. DOI
	Brander, T. V., & Hornsey, M. J. Intergroup sensitivity effect and the war in Iraq: A case of attitudes and intentions diverging. Australian Journal of Psychology, 2006, 58 (3): 166- 172. DOI
	Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007, 92 (4): 631- 648. DOI
	Guegan, J., Moliner, P., & Buisine, S. Why are online games so self-involving: A social identity analysis of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2015, 45 (3): 349- 355. DOI
	Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed). New York: Guilford Press.
	Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svensson, A. “It’s OK if we say it, but you can’t”: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2002, 32 (3): 293- 307. DOI
	Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. J. Imagined intergroup contact: A new technique for encouraging greater inter-ethnic contact in Cyprus. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2010, 16 (1): 97- 108. DOI
	Li, S. Y., & Feng, B. What to say to an online support-seeker? The influence of others’ responses and support-seekers’ replies. Human Communication Research, 2015, 41 (3): 303- 326. DOI
	Li, S. Y., & Zhang, G. J. Intergroup communication in online forums: The effect of group identification on online support provision. Communication Research, 2021, 48 (6): 874- 894. DOI
	Meleady, R., Seger, C. R., & Vermue, M. Evidence of a dynamic association between intergroup contact and intercultural competence. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2021, 24 (8): 1427- 1447.
	Moscatelli, S., Prati, F., & Rubini, M. If you criticize us, do it in concrete terms: Linguistic abstraction as a moderator of the intergroup sensitivity effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2019, 38 (5-6): 680- 705. DOI
	Pettigrew, T. F. Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 1998, 49 (1): 65- 85. DOI
	Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1996, 22 (6): 635- 642. DOI
	Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. Group-level emotions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2016, 11, 15- 19. DOI
	Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C. L., & Davis, M. D. (2008). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In U. Wagner, L. R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu, & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 55–72). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
	Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1971, 1 (2): 149- 178. DOI
	Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorisation theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
	Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001, 81 (6): 1058- 1069. DOI
	van Zomeren, M., & Iyer, A. Introduction to the social and psychological dynamics of collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 2009, 65 (4): 645- 660. DOI
	van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, 87 (5): 649- 664. DOI
	Weisbuch, M., & Ambady, N. Affective divergence: Automatic responses to others’ emotions depend on group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008, 95 (5): 1063- 1079. DOI
	White, K. R. G., Bray, J., Lang, J. C., McLeroy, A., Hernandez, S., & McLaughlin, C. The intergroup sensitivity effect among racial groups in the United States. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2023, 26 (2): 357- 379.
	Wilson, J. P., & Hugenberg, K. When under threat, we all look the same: Distinctiveness threat induces ingroup homogeneity in face memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2010, 46 (6): 1004- 1010. DOI
	Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997, 73 (1): 73- 90. DOI

	内群体消极评价组 (M±SD)	外群体消极评价组 (M±SD)	t
威胁	1.64±0.76	2.95±1.23	2.06*
担心	1.23±0.73	1.96±0.99	1.94
生气	1.98±0.87	3.28±0.86	2.45**
害怕	1.33±0.57	1.82±0.78	1.32
愤怒	2.43±0.93	3.96±0.83	2.17*
焦虑	1.94±0.69	2.53±1.07	2.33*
总分	1.75±0.76	2.75±0.96	3.21***

	内群体消极评价组 (M±SD)	外群体消极评价组 (M±SD)	t
威胁	1.64±0.76	2.95±1.23	2.06*
担心	1.23±0.73	1.96±0.99	1.94
生气	1.98±0.87	3.28±0.86	2.45**
害怕	1.33±0.57	1.82±0.78	1.32
愤怒	2.43±0.93	3.96±0.83	2.17*
焦虑	1.94±0.69	2.53±1.07	2.33*
总分	1.75±0.76	2.75±0.96	3.21***

变量	M±SD	1	2	3	4	5
1.性别
2.年龄	20.53±1.76	0.28*
3.消极评价来源		0.18	0.09
4.积极网络接触		0.13	−0.01	0.03
5.群体愤怒	3.80±1.57	0.05	−0.02	0.26*	−0.06
6.网络集群攻击行为	4.53±1.72	0.23	0.08	0.52***	0.01	0.14

变量	M±SD	1	2	3	4	5
1.性别
2.年龄	20.53±1.76	0.28*
3.消极评价来源		0.18	0.09
4.积极网络接触		0.13	−0.01	0.03
5.群体愤怒	3.80±1.57	0.05	−0.02	0.26*	−0.06
6.网络集群攻击行为	4.53±1.72	0.23	0.08	0.52***	0.01	0.14

路径	效应	效应值	95%CI
消极评价来源→ 网络集群攻击行为	直接效应	0.29***	[0.23, 0.34]
消极评价来源→群体愤怒→ 网络集群攻击行为	间接效应	0.25***	[0.16, 0.23]
	总效应	0.54***	[0.58, 0.76]