Neumann Rhodes 2023 Morality in Social Media A Scoping Review

1166056
research-article2023
NMS0010.1177/14614448231166056new media & societyNeumann and Rhodes
Review Article
new media & society
Morality in social media:

2024, Vol. 26(2) 1096–1126
© The Author(s) 2023
A scoping review Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231166056
DOI: 10.1177/14614448231166056
journals.sagepub.com/home/nms
Dominik Neumann
Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM), Germany
Nancy Rhodes
Michigan State University, USA
Abstract
Social media platforms have been adopted rapidly into our current culture and affect
nearly all areas of our everyday lives. Their prevalence has raised questions about the
influence of new communication technologies on moral reasoning, judgments, and
behaviors. The present scoping review identified 80 articles providing an overview
of scholarly work conducted on morality in social media. Screening for research that
explicitly addressed moral questions, the authors found that research in this area tends
to be atheoretical, US-based, quantitative, cross-sectional survey research in business,
psychology, and communication journals. Findings suggested a need for increased
theoretical contributions. The authors identified new developments in research
analysis, including text scraping and machine coding, which may contribute to theory
development. In addition, diversity across disciplines allows for a broad picture in
this research domain, but more interdisciplinarity might be needed to foster creative
approaches to this study area.
Keywords
Literature review, morality, scoping review, social media
Social media refers to Internet-based communication channels that allow users to gener-
ate value from perceived asynchronous interactions and (self-)representation within a
Corresponding author:
Dominik Neumann, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM), Schleichstr. 6, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
Email: [email protected]
Neumann and Rhodes 1097
broad set of audiences (Carr and Hayes, 2015). Social media is a relatively recent devel-
opment in communication technology (Edosomwan et al., 2011), although some scholars
place the beginning of social media in Cicero’s time in ancient Rome (Standage, 2013).
However, for the current definition of social media, the advent of Web 2.0 in 2004 and
the development of associated apps ushered in the types of social media currently used
by millions of people (Sajithra and Patil, 2013). As with many advances in communica-
tion technology, critics have raised concerns about the adverse effects of this new tech-
nology, particularly on young people. Just as people blamed television and telephones
for leading teenagers astray in past generations (Orben, 2020; Thiel-Stern, 2014), alarm
bells have been rung about social media leading to a decline in community springing
from the loss of face-to-face communication (Turkle, 2015; Twenge, 2017) and the
potentially negative consequences of echo chambers (O’Hara and Stevens, 2015).
However, in contrast to other media channels, social media may also provide (digital)
spaces for individuals to engage in social learning by observing and judging (moral)
behaviors of other users in this shared intangible space. It is unlikely that social media
will prove to be responsible for all the immoral behavior in the world. But, any develop-
ment that has the extraordinary reach that social media has had in the past decade and a
half should be the source of study to examine its effects on moral behavior and reason-
ing; this has been true for social media.
What sets social media apart from other types of communication technologies is its unique
affordances. Social media affordances allow users to access, engage with, and share abundant
information (Evans et al., 2016; Treem and Leonardi, 2012). One form of information shared
via social networks is observable violations of and adherence to social norms that may inform,
for instance, users’ moral reasoning and judgment (Crockett, 2017). The accessibility of
information about moral, ethical, virtuous, or immoral, wicked, and despicable acts by indi-
viduals (Gabriels and De Backer, 2016) and institutions (Schultz et al., 2013) via social media
may have an impact on users’ moral behaviors, judgments, reasoning, intuitions, emotions,
and self-views in a digital society beyond that seen with other communication modalities.
Consequently, social media is an educational tool for people in societies to teach each other
about social norms, moral standards, and ethical behaviors. However, although research on
non-social media has gained much attention in the past, scholarship on social media’s rela-
tionship with morality is more fragmented and scattered across disciplines, paradigms, and
research themes. We believe there is a dire need for a scoping review mapping this research
and providing a directive into future research agendas.
Some writers argue that digital media may exacerbate the expression of outrage and
other moral emotions (Crockett, 2017); others suggest that exposure to moral violations
fosters awareness of ethical issues (Bagdasarov et al., 2017). In response to Crockett
(2017), several scholars argued that research on effects of moral content on social and
digital media exists in their field, but lacks attention in other academic disciplines and
thus requires more scrutiny (Huskey et al., 2018). Thus, the debate between two fields—
psychology Crockett (2017) and communication (Huskey et al., 2018)—might serve as
a central example for the lack of intersectional awareness of social media morality
research. Thus, it is crucial to understand what research has been conducted to guide the
development of new research agendas in this area. Thus, there is a need for a scoping
review focusing on social media and its relation to morality.
1098 new media & society 26(2)
Although we could locate no published reviews of research on social media and

morality, there has been an explosion of research examining social media in the past
decade. A cursory search of Google Scholar using the terms “social media” and “moral-
ity” yielded just over 2000 hits for the calendar year 2011 and over 20,000 for the calen-
dar year 2021. Because of the burgeoning nature of research in this area, with simultaneous
calls for increased research, a scoping review appears particularly useful (Peters et al.,
2015). A scoping review aims to examine the nature and volume of the extant literature
within a given domain to identify critical research themes and gaps in the prior research
(Peters et al., 2015) to help to inform the development of new research programs.
Furthermore, a scoping review is preferable to a quantitative synthesis, such as a meta-
analysis, because there is no known dominant hypothesis in the body of work to drive the
calculation of effect sizes. A scoping review can provide the first step in summarizing
and categorizing the existing work, which can help develop research questions for later
syntheses (Peters et al., 2015; Pham et al., 2014).
Morality in the social media context

Prior scholarly work addressed morality in many different contexts. Psychological
research, in general, examines moral questions via a wide range of research themes
(Ellemers et al., 2019). Media effects research looked at moral questions, too. For exam-
ple, Grizzard et al. (2014) found that video game players who engage in immoral behav-
iors within the video game experience become more morally sensitive in the non-mediated
offline context. Eden et al. (2014) focused on the effects of entertainment media. They
showed that—over time—morally relevant content in entertainment media influenced
moral judgments by making moral intuitions more salient. Notably, these results by Eden
et al. (2014) were consistent with the Moral Intuitions and Media Exemplars (MIME)
Model (Tamborini, 2011; Tamborini, 2012), which applies Moral Foundations Theory
(MFT) (Haidt and Joseph, 2004) to entertainment media research. This MIME model,
however, was also criticized (Bilandzic, 2011) for the general complexity and difficulty
of defining morality in a media entertainment context and from a narrative perspective.
Others included emerging technologies that allow for immersive digital environments to
investigate how these virtual environments promote empathy and morality when view-
ing historical events (Frentzel-Beyme and Krämer, 2022). Here, we were explicitly inter-
ested in this context of social media and questions regarding morality. We understand
that social media may also be consumed for entertainment reasons and, therefore, may
have similarities to traditional entertainment media. However, we were specifically
interested in research that allows users to relationally interact with other users and enti-
ties as compared to fictional characters.
We based our definitions of morality on the scoping review by Ellemers et al. (2019)
because their review provided a cogent foundation for understanding the extant research
in moral psychology. Although Ellemers et al. (2019) intended to understand morality
research in general (not in online or social media contexts), they identified categories of
moral experiences. We used these categories of (a) moral behavior, (b) moral reasoning,
(c) moral intuition, (d) moral judgment, (e) moral emotions, and (f) moral self-views to
organize our review of how morality is investigated in the context of social media.
Moral behavior
First and central, there are many ways users display moral or immoral behaviors on
social media. These users include private users or other entities with active accounts,
such as firms, organizations, public figures, and even governmental agencies. Research
in moral psychology defined moral behaviors as acts that avoid unfair and foster fair
treatment of others and prevent harm to and promote the well-being of others (Aquino
et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2011). In social media, moral behaviors might manifest, for
instance, as promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors (Bhatti et al., 2020). Social media
users leverage the platforms’ features and functionalities to voice the need for improve-
ment as a society (promotive voice behavior) or to point out potentially harmful actions
and draw attention to them (prohibitive voice behavior). However, immoral behaviors
might manifest, for instance, as knowingly spreading misinformation (Effron and Raj,
2019), online shaming (Kasra, 2017), cyberbullying (Vismara et al., 2022), or ghosting
(Jonason et al., 2021). These are examples of online behaviors through which users
deliberately harm others. According to Ellemers et al. (2019), these behaviors become
(im-)moral when judged as such. In addition, whether a behavior is judged as being (im-)
moral depends on individuals’ moral reasoning. In addition, Haidt (2001) argued that not
all moral decisions are made deliberately; we additionally discuss moral intuitions as
antecedents of moral judgments and thus behaviors.
Antecedents of moral behavior

Moral reasoning. What makes a behavior moral or immoral? Like other prominent dual-
process theories, prior research has identified two paths for forming moral judgments
about distinct behaviors. Rational, informed, and deliberate reasoning is one way to form
moral judgments about a behavior’s moral or immoral nature (Cushman, 2013). We
define moral reasoning as a deliberate comparative process of what is right and wrong
based on thoroughly processed information. Individuals consult internal sources of infor-
mation, such as personal convictions (Blasi, 1980), and external sources of information,
such as individual attributions of other people’s moral character (Reeder and Spores,
1983), to generate a moral judgment. Graeff (2014) used interview data on cyberbullying
in social networks from tweens and found that kids who intervene in cyberbullying were
more likely to engage in higher-order moral reasoning (i.e. perspective-taking) than kids
ignoring or joining cyberbullying. These findings suggested that more deliberate reason-
ing on moral matters may help form moral judgments about behaviors online. Under-
standing how social media interacts with moral reasoning helps to create policies for
social media’s role in forming moral judgments.
Moral intuition. However, people do not always carefully curate whether an observed
behavior is moral. Sometimes, judgments are formed habitually without much delibera-
tion. Thus, a second part to reach moral judgments about behaviors follows Haidt’s
(2001) theorizing, and we define moral intuitions as fast cognitive processes independent
of rationalization, deliberation, reasoning, or reflection. They are intuitive moral truths
about right and wrong innate to the human condition, directly affecting moral judgments
and preceding moral reasoning as part of an individual’s moral foundation (Shweder and
Haidt, 1993). These moral foundations are cultural values individuals hold dear. In the
context of social media, Cook and Kuhn (2021) found that condemnation or approval of
job-related consequences (i.e. firing) following what employees posted on social media
depended on whether the content violated a moral foundation. Therefore, people form
moral judgments intuitively based on their preexisting understanding of what is right and
wrong and independent of deliberate reasoning. Thus, moral intuitions and reasoning
represent a two-system processing perspective, informing moral judgments, and, conse-
quently, moral behaviors.
Moral judgment. Following the processes of moral reasoning and moral intuition, moral
judgments can therefore be interpreted as outcomes of information processing informing
an individuals’ evaluation of behavior as being (im-)moral. Individuals may form moral
judgments about behaviors they observe online. Moral judgments are evaluations by
people about whether specific behaviors are subjectively immoral or moral. These judg-
ments function as individuals’ instruments for “the creation of meaning and the determi-
nation of truth” (Blasi, 1980, p. 3) within the moral domain. For example, Ferreira et al.
(2017) showed that participants who subjectively judged social media ads as more moral
also perceived these ads as less controversial. These judgments consequentially led to
less ad avoidance by social media users. Hence, moral judgment significantly impacted
message perceptions, consequent behavior, and message engagement in social media. It
is, therefore, vital to understand moral judgments as precursors to behavior.
Implications of moral behavior

Moral emotions. Moral behaviors not only have antecedents, but also implications (Elle-
mers et al., 2019). These implications include affective reactions based on the processes
leading to moral judgments and consequently behaviors. Intuitive and fast-acting moral
intuitions are often associated with affective reactions or gut feelings (Ciaramelli et al.,
2007). However, Cushman (2013) also stated that moral reasoning and intuition involve
affective and cognitive information process capabilities within a dual-systems frame-
work. Based on research focusing on the affective associations of morality, we define
moral emotions as the immediate emotional reactions to behavior one has engaged in or
observed (Ellemers et al., 2019). Research defined emotional reactions like guilt and
shame (e.g. Tangney et al., 2006), disgust (e.g. Schnall et al., 2008), and outrage (e.g.
Batson et al., 2007) as morally charged emotions. Analyzing more than 200,000 Twitter
messages from federal US politicians, Brady et al. (2017) found that messages contain-
ing moral emotions were positively associated with message diffusion. Moral messag-
ing, especially when tailored to evoke moral emotions, has implications for political
polarization and may affect moral reasoning and judgment.
Moral self-views. Last, and as a self-reflective process based on moral reasoning, intui-
tions, behavior, and emotions, we define moral self-views as an instrument to form and
develop personal beliefs and attitudes about being a moral person (Aquino and Reed,
2002). Prior research (Reed et al., 2007) showed that the centrality of one’s moral identity
within the self-concept has implications for moral judgments. Notably, participants who
perceived moral identity as more self-relevant judged an organization’s act of giving time
(vs money) as more moral, especially when moral identity was made salient and the rea-
son for giving time was a moral purpose. In the context of social media, Bindra and
DeCuir-Gunby (2020) found that moral self-views (i.e. moral identity) had a differential
effect on moral behavior dependent on participants’ race. While Black students engaged
more with race-related issues on social media independent of their moral identity, only
White students high in symbolization dimensions of moral identity engaged more with
race-related issues. These findings indicate that self-presentational motives might affect
how students perceive morality online.
Objectives of this scoping review

The need for a scoping review becomes evident when screening the extant literature on
social media and morality for its diversity in (a) research questions and themes, (b) meth-
odological approaches, and (c) contexts of study. A recent systematic review of empirical
research in moral psychology (Ellemers et al., 2019) focused on clusters of research
questions and themes concerning moral constructs (i.e. moral behaviors, judgments, rea-
soning, emotions, and self-views). In the context of social media, research examined
(im-)moral behaviors (Swenson-Lepper and Kerby, 2019), judgments (Ferreira et al.,
2017), reasoning (Graeff, 2014), intuitions (Cook and Kuhn, 2021), emotions (Brady
et al., 2017), and self-views (Bindra and DeCuir-Gunby, 2020), too. Our first objective
was to map these research questions to the body of work examining social media and
morality. In particular, we examined their connection to source, message, and receiver
communication characteristics through social media. Exploring this question will help
identify avenues for future research and inform a needed research plan on social media’s
relationship with morality. We asked:
RQ1: What research questions were addressed in the literature on morality in the
context of social media among its users?
Prior research on social media and morality examined results from qualitative (DeSmet
et al., 2014) and quantitative methodologies (Sabri, 2017). Furthermore, based on the rich
informational content offered by social media, prior research used other computational
methods, such as natural language processing (Hopp et al., 2021) and web scraping of
messages (Brady et al., 2017), too. Regarding cross-sectional and experimental research
methods, in which moral concepts have been assessed explicitly or implicitly within sur-
veys and decision tasks, Ellemers et al. (2019) identified four measurement instruments
used to investigate questions about the psychology of morality. Research on morality in
social media, too, used these four types of assessment: (a) hypothetical moral dilemmas
(e.g. Bagdasarov et al., 2017), (b) self-reported traits and behaviors (e.g. Bastiaensens
et al., 2015), (c) endorsement of abstract moral rules (e.g. Erceg et al., 2018), and (d) posi-
tions on moral issues (e.g. Ouvrein et al., 2018). Because of the variety of operationaliza-
tions, our second objective was to identify the different methodologies used in research in
this area. Thus, we aim to inform future research by identifying gaps in research method-
ologies. We asked:
RQ2: How were moral concepts operationalized in the past to examine morality in
the context of social media among its users?
Our third objective was to address how prior studies on social media and morality
have differed across disciplines and contexts. Different research areas have addressed the
question of morality in the digital age. That is, contributions have been made, for exam-
ple, in the fields of public health (Laer, 2014), business strategy (Ferreira et al., 2017),
political sciences (Brady et al., 2017), communication sciences (Valenzuela et al., 2017),
and psychology (Garcia and Sikström, 2014). We aimed to identify contributions from
different research fields on social media’s relationship with moral behaviors, judgments,
reasoning, intuitions, emotions, and self-views. We asked:
RQ3: In which academic fields of inquiry were questions about morality in the con-
text of social media among its users examined in the past? What are the commonali-
ties among and differences between these fields of inquiry?
Methods
Review protocol and registration
We created the review protocol in this current study based on the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-ScR) extension for scoping
reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). We revised the initial protocol based on additional feedback
from other media psychology and communication scholars. We pre-registered the final
protocol with the Open Science Framework (OSF; http://bit.ly/MoralitySocialMediaSR).
Eligibility criteria
We followed the PCC (population, concept, context) approach when developing our
inclusion criteria (Peters et al., 2020). We defined our population of interest as social
media users. We included individual, institutional, and organizational users, political
actors, public figures, and other entities that hold active accounts to generate and interact
with content.
We defined our concept of interest as (im-)morality. Notably, we were interested in
work where the responsible scholars explicitly examined morality. We wanted to avoid
making judgments about morality as a third party because culture, religion, and prior
experiences significantly impact individual definitions of morality; what is moral in one
culture might be immoral in another (Graham et al., 2009; Haidt, 2001; Haidt et al.,
1993). Thus, we included research in which the authors explicitly framed their research
endeavor as a moral question. We included the concepts of moral behavior, judgment,
reasoning, emotions, and self-views. Although we included in our pre-registration that
we would examine moral intuitions, too, during the coding procedure, we became aware
that moral self-views and intuitions became hardly distinguishable. Thus, we omitted
moral intuitions as a separate code and included studies with an intuition focus within
moral self-views studies.
We defined the context of interest as social media use. To explore research findings
across fields, we included all academic disciplines, such as business strategy and econom-
ics, public health, political and communication sciences, sociology, and psychology.
We included research articles between 2006 and 2021 because social media, as we
defined it here, started with Facebook going public in 2006. Research on social media
published before 2006 was not relevant to this review. Furthermore, we included only
research articles published in English and excluded dissertations, unpublished work,
non-peer-reviewed research, and books because we were interested only in original
research findings.
Information sources and search strategy

We consulted the first 10 Google Scholar search results pages using the terms “morality
social media” and “ethics social networking” to identify relevant keywords for the litera-
ture search. We executed our literature search on Web of Science and EBSCOhost (details
of the search on Web of Science and included databases for Web of Science and
EBSCOhost appears in Appendix 1) on 25 May 2021. We did not consult additional
sources based on the number of research articles identified in this source.
Selecting sources of evidence

We selected the sources of evidence for the current scoping review throughout multiple
rounds of exclusion. After extracting the identified records on Web of Science and
EBSCOhost, we excluded duplicates and retracted articles, book sections, case studies,
reports, newspaper articles, and records with missing data. Then, six coders (both authors
and four research assistants) used the online tool “abstrackr” (http://abstrackr.cebm.
brown.edu) for coding these records based on title and abstract (assigning codes for “rel-
evant,” “not relevant,” and “uncertain”). We assessed inter-rater reliability based on 50
articles coded by all six coders. After discussing and clarifying additional instructions, all
six coders independently screened the records identified for screening. We included all
records coded as “relevant” and “uncertain” by the six screening coders for further screen-
ing. The first author (D.N.) then undertook a second round of title and abstract screening
to clarify the status of all records coded as “uncertain.” Next, we subjected the remaining
records to full-text screening and coding, which the two authors of the current articles did
independently. We report a complete list of all coded variables in the final, revised code-
book (OSF; “Revised coding materials and protocol”; “Codebook_Revised.docx”).
Data items and data charting process

The authors of this article coded a random subset of articles included in this review inde-
pendently. Throughout the process, we consulted each other when codes became unclear
and engaged in clarifying conversations. We coded the extracted research articles on the
manuscript and the study level to address our three main research questions.
At the manuscript level, we coded metadata of the respective research to capture the
number of studies, affiliated country of the first author, general research design (qualitative,
quantitative, or mixed-methods), and general context of the study. We coded whether the
research examined positively (e.g. helping behavior) or negatively (e.g. cyberbullying)
framed concepts of morality or both. We were interested in whether scholars included a non-
mediated comparison group to contrast the effects of social media on moral questions.
We coded for the research theme (moral behaviors, judgments, reasoning, emotions,
and self-views) at the study level and the theoretical foundation for morality and social
media. We further coded for the number of participants and observations (in case the unit
of analysis was text messages or a nested design), sample source, population, population
characteristics (gender, race, country of origin), and social media platform in the focus of
the study. Then, we coded for the specific type of research design (quantitative research:
e.g. cross-sectional; qualitative research: e.g. focus groups). Within quantitative research,
we coded the instruments used for assessing morality and social media measures and
how the authors operationalized the respective concepts of interest (morality and social
media). Most of the included qualitative research was exploratory, so we did not code for
instrumentalization and operationalization for these articles.
Methodological quality appraisal

We did not appraise the methodological quality or the risk of bias in the studies included
in this review. Instead, we provided a birds-eye overview of the current state of the art of
research on morality in social media. We set a foundation for future research to address
the identified research gaps. This process was in line with best practices in conducting
scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018).
Results
Literature search
Figure 1 summarizes a detailed overview of how we screened and assessed sources of
evidence for eligibility. Initially, we identified 12,738 articles, excluded duplicates, and
retracted articles, book sections, case studies, reports, and newspaper articles. A total of
six trained coders then screened the remaining 6983 articles based on our inclusion and
exclusion criteria by abstract and title. We discussed the inclusion and exclusion criteria
with our coders. They all coded the same 50 randomly picked articles to ensure at least
moderate intercoder reliability based on Fleiss’ kappa because of the multiple codes for
more than two coders (κ = .467, z = 12.80, p < .001). Then, we randomly divided the arti-
cles between the coders, who assigned the code exclusion, inclusion, or uncertain, though
the latter two retained the article for follow-up screening. This process yielded 694
included and 485 uncertain articles. The first author of this article screened them again
based on their abstracts and titles, resulting in 381 articles eligible for full-text evalua-
tion. These remaining 381 articles were, again, screened based on our predefined
Figure 1. The flow of articles throughout the screening process.
eligibility criteria (see methods section of this article), but in this round of the inclusion
process we considered the full text of the manuscript (vs abstract and title only). Based
on this detailed screening procedure, we retained 80 for coding these articles and classi-
fied 87 as theoretical or conceptual contributions, which we used as supporting literature
without including them in this review.
Characteristics of sources of evidence

Appendix 2 provides a complete list of the included research studies. Generally, at the
manuscript level, we found that first-listed authors affiliated with institutions in the
United States conducted most research on morality in social media (40%), followed by
Figure 2. Publication density over recent years.

We included research on morality in social media until May 2021, which might explain the decline.
first-listed authors affiliated with institutions in China (10%), Australia (8%), Germany
(6%), and Canada (4%). As shown in Figure 2, research on social media and morality
gained traction in 2013 and increased dramatically in the following years. There has been
a significant increase in academic interest in morality in social media after 2016.
The platforms capturing the most research interest were Facebook (33%) and Twitter
(27%). In comparison, 31% of research studies did not define any specific platform.
Only a few studies examined morality in the context of non-American platforms such as
Weibo (3%) or WeChat (2%). Instagram (1%) and LinkedIn (1%) were studied in only a
few reports. In 33% of studies, the researchers used non-student samples, 31% used mes-
sages and text-based data for analysis, 23% used student samples, 9% used special popu-
lations (e.g. influencers), and only 3% used adolescence and children. In addition, we
found that the majority (89%) of included studies focused on moral behaviors, judg-
ments, reasoning, emotions, and self-views in social media without including a non-
mediated contrast. Only a few (4%) investigated these potential differences between
mediated and non-mediated situations. Some (4%) contrasted social media and other
media (e.g. news outlets) information regarding moral questions, and others controlled
for social media use in a mediated setting, for example, examining correlations between
increasing social media use and perceived morality (3%).
Research themes and theories. Addressing RQ1, Table 1 provides an overview of research
themes addressed and theories used in prior research on morality in social media. A
Table 1. Research themes and theories (manuscript level).
Frequency (%)
Research theme
Moral behavior 32
Moral judgments 32
Moral self-views 14
Moral reasoning 12
Moral emotions 10
Morality theory
None 44
Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt and Joseph, 2004) 20
Value-Behavior Consistency/Moral Disengagement (Bandura, 1999) 8
Social Intuitionist Model (Haidt, 2001) 4
Moral Identity (Aquino and Reed, 2002) 2
Affective Disposition Theory (Zillmann and Vorderer, 2000) 1
Antinatalism (Benatar, 2015) 1
Associative Learning (Shimp et al., 1991) 1
Behavioral Immune System Theory (Schaller, 2011) 1
Circumplex Model of Affect (Russell, 1980) 1
Ethical Position Theory (Forsyth, 1980) 1
Hierarchy of Effects Model (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961) 1
Kohlberg’s Stage Theory (Kohlberg, 1969) 1
Illusory-Truth Effect (Hasher et al., 1977) 1
Moral Balancing Mechanism (Lasarov and Hoffmann, 2018) 1
Moral Grandstanding (Tosi and Warmke, 2016) 1
Moral Panic (Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 1994) 1
Nonmaleficence Principle (Anderson et al., 2016) 1
Objectification Theory (Bartky,1990) 1
Shallowness Hypothesis (Carr, 2010) 1
Stakeholders Theory (Freeman and Reed, 1983) 1
Stimulus-Organism-Response Model (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) 1
Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) 1
Values-in-Action (Seligman et al., 2004) 1
Social media theory
None 79
Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (Lea and Spears, 1991) 4
Social Identity Theory (Taifel and Turner, 1979) 4
Uses and Gratification Theory (Katz et al., 1974) 3
Big Five Personality Traits (Digman, 1990) 1
Boundary Theory (Nippert-Eng, 1996) 1
Construal Level Theory (Trope and Liberman, 2010) 1
Information Virality Theory (Nahon and Hemsley, 2013) 1
Need to Belong (Baumeister and Leary, 1995) 1
Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) 1
Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977) 1
Theory of Symbolic Interactionism (Trevino et al., 1990) 1
Virtue Signaling (Bartholomew, 2015) 1
majority of research examined research questions around either moral behaviors (32%)
or moral judgments (32%), followed by moral self-views/intuitions (14%), reasoning
(12%), and emotions (10%). Noticeably, when looking at the theories used, we found
that only about half (56%) of research studies used any explicit theoretical foundation to
develop their arguments. When researchers used a theoretical foundation, they were
most likely to rely on MFT (20%; Haidt and Joseph, 2004), Moral Disengagement (8%;
Bandura, 1999), and the Moral Intuitionist Model (4%; Haidt, 2001).
Even less theoretical groundwork was reported concerning social media’s context and
possible effects (79% reported no theoretical framework in their argument development).
In only 3% of studies, the most frequently named theoretical foundations for expected
effects in social media, we identified the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation
Effects (Lea and Spears, 1991) and Social Identity Theory (Taifel and Turner, 1979).
Methods and materials. To answer RQ2 (Table 2), most research employed quantitative
methods (73%), followed by qualitative methods (25%), and only 3% combined quanti-
tative and qualitative methods to examine their research goal. Within quantitative
research projects, we found that most studies employed cross-sectional methods (39%),
quantitative content analyses (27%), and experimental research (25%). Within qualita-
tive research projects, we found that most studies used qualitative content analyses
(32%), interviews (26%), discourse analyses (21%), and focus groups (11%).
Quantitative studies used self-reported scales (43%) and language and semantic
measures (24%) most frequently to assess moral concepts; 17% of studies did not meas-
ure morality at all. Furthermore, these quantitative studies used self-reported scales
(22%); objective measures, such as liking behavior (14%); self-reported behaviors
(12%); and web-scraping techniques (12%) to assess social media concepts. Most
research did not measure social media concepts at all (44%). Instead, they used social
media as the general context in which they studied morality. Notably, these articles used
social media or a particular platform to deliver moral information but did not investigate,
for example, the central mechanism that affects how users perceive moral information.
Last, we found that the concepts of morality (41%) and social media (48%) were
dependent variables in prior research. However, scholars also more frequently measured
(24%) and less frequently manipulated (17%) morality as an independent variable. But,
they more frequently manipulated (30%) and less frequently measured (14%) social
media concepts in their work. Moral concepts were also used as mediators (14%).
Disciplines and context. In response to RQ3 (Table 3), we found that the dominant journal
categories (according to their Web of Science classifications) that reported research on
morality in social media were “Business” (12%), “Psychology, Multidisciplinary”
(12%), “Communication” (11%), “Psychology, Experimental” (8%), and “Psychology,
Social” (8%). In addition, a wide array of other journal categories reported research on
morality in the context of social media. Such journals represented categories spanning
from “Urban Studies” and “Sport Sciences,” to “Chemistry, Multidisciplinary,” and
“Computer Science, Information Systems.” Within these categories, scholars covered a
diverse set of topics concerning morality.
Table 2. Methods, instruments, and operationalizations (manuscript and study level).
Frequency (%)
Mixed-methods research 3
Quantitative research 73
Cross-sectional 39
Quantitative content analysis 27
Experimental 25
Longitudinal 3
Other 3
Quasi-experimental 3
Qualitative research 25
Qualitative content analysis 32
Interviews 26
Discourse analysis 21
Focus groups 11
Ethnography 5
Netnography 5
Instruments (quantitative studies only)
Morality
Self-reported scales 43
Language and semantic measures 24
No measurement 17
Other 7
Hypothetical moral dilemmas 4
Positions on specific moral issues 4
Social media
No measurement 41
Self-reported scales 22
Objective measures 14
Self-reported behaviors 12
Web-scraping 12
Operationalization (quantitative studies only)
Morality
Dependent variable 41
Measured independent variable 24
Manipulated independent variable 17
Mediator 14
Moderator 1
Other 1
Social media
Dependent variable 48
Manipulated independent variable 30
Measured independent variable 14
Covariate 2
Mediator 2
Moderator 2
Other 2
We coded research design (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods) on the manuscript level. We
coded detailed designs (e.g. cross-section or interview design), instruments, and operationalization on the
study level.
Table 3. Journal categories (manuscript level).
Category Frequency (%)

Business 12
Psychology, Multidisciplinary 12
Communication 11
Psychology, Experimental 8
Psychology, Social 8
Ethics 7
Management 4
Multidisciplinary Sciences 4
Computer Science, Information Systems 3
Public, Environmental & Occupational Health 3
Information Science & Library Science 2
Sociology 2
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications 2
Psychology, Applied 2
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary 2
Telecommunications 2
Women’s Studies 2
Behavioral Sciences 1
Chemistry, Multidisciplinary 1
Economics 1
Education & Educational Research 1
Engineering, Chemical 1
Environmental Sciences 1
Environmental Studies 1
Film, Radio, Television 1
Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism 1
Language & Linguistics 1
Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications 1
Neurosciences 1
Nursing 1
Philosophy 1
Psychology, Development 1
Religion 1
Social Sciences, Biomedical 1
Social Sciences, Mathematical Methods 1
Sport Sciences 1
Urban Studies 1
Some research focused on psychological questions emphasized political topics, such

as the psychology of political extremism (Alizadeh et al., 2019) and activism (Parsloe
and Holton, 2018). More prominently, though, the research covered topics of mental
health and well-being, such as shaming (Pundak et al., 2021), sexism (Paciello et al.,
2021), and suicidal ideation (Li et al., 2021). But scholars also investigated more positive
topics, such as intellectual humility (Stanley et al., 2020) and helping behavior (Parlangeli
et al., 2019). Communication research often addresses political topics, such as political
partisanship (Bruchmann et al., 2018) and controversy (Smith and van Ierland, 2018).
Research on business-related topics often focused on corporate social responsibility
(Colleoni, 2013) and cause-related marketing tackling societal issues, such as animal
cruelty (Lim et al., 2019).
Furthermore, on the one hand, about 44% of studies on morality examined negatively
framed questions of immoral or generally negative moral frames (e.g. online shaming).
On the other hand, 33% examined positive aspects of morality (e.g. donation behavior).
And 24% of studies did not distinguish between positive and negative moral frames and
examined morality on a continuum (e.g. moral semantics in tweets).
Discussion
Summary of evidence
The present research was a scoping review of the morality and social media literature.
We summarized the characteristics of 80 published research reports. We found that a
US-based researcher led the most typical paper in this area of inquiry. Since 2016 these
typical research projects have investigated moral behaviors in the context of Facebook
using non-student samples within the theoretical frame of MFT (Haidt and Joseph,
2004), but not mentioning any theoretical frame for social media use. It was most likely
a quantitative study using cross-sectional self-reported survey techniques with a meas-
ured moral construct and likely negative in a tone such as online shaming. This work was
almost equally likely to be published in business, psychology, and communication
journals.
Research themes and theories

In summarizing this work, a few findings seem particularly notable. First, this review
speaks to the need for greater theoretical development and testing of existing theories
between and within interrelated fields, such as psychology and communication. Though
some of the reviewed scholarly work presented in this current research has used theory
to develop their research projects, there is still a significant shortcoming in applying and
advancing existing theory. Some scholars have applied traditional theories of personal
and social behavior and mass communication theories to propose hypotheses about
morality and social media (Ngai et al., 2015). But more work is needed to describe and
summarize existing theoretical phenomena in the context of social media and to evaluate
whether these new communication channels for human interaction may create boundary
conditions to moral questions and phenomena (DeAndrea and Holbert, 2017). Prior
research showed that traditional social theories hold in the social media framework and
can be analyzed using social media mining data (Tang et al., 2014). But it also argued for
developing new theories based on the complex and new types of social data available via
social media mining. The findings from this scoping review point to the need for theories
describing the motivational drivers of social media use, separately from theories of
motivation generally. The overall atheoretical nature of work in this area suggests that
theory development and rigorous testing and advancing is needed to understand the
unique experiences of moral expression in social media. Such a theory would help to
refine research questions and foci.
Methods and materials

It is encouraging that most studies using human research participants were also including
non-student samples. The diversity in studied populations may contribute to the general-
izability associated with research bodies. Furthermore, we believe a strength of research
on morality in the context of social media is the availability of new data types. Using
social media mining data as an innovative source advances prior research. These data-
mining techniques need to be employed with caution and in strict accordance with some
form of ethical research guideline to protect the individuals who often provide their data
involuntarily. But it is encouraging and indicative of a future direction for research that
almost a quarter of studies included in this review used at least some language-based and
semantic measures to gain a more nuanced understanding of the investigated population.
These findings regarding the instrumentation also reflect the general methodology used
in research: Though cross-sectional survey research was still the most prominent, quan-
titative content analysis was the second most prevalent methodology employed. The vast
new toolbox of data sources researchers can use may have facilitated these develop-
ments. Particularly interesting in the future would be to compare findings using different
data sources to replicate and extend traditional theories and findings using new measure-
ments provided by social media. We believe that the lack of theoretical testing and
advancement presented in this review might also be addressed using new data sources
that can be used to gain more insights to human behavior. In triangulation with tradi-
tional research methods, researchers can use these data mining techniques to draw a
more complete picture of the fuzzy and complex topics of moral behaviors, reasoning,
intuition, judgments, emotions, and self-views.
Disciplines and context

Addressing our third research question, we found that many academic disciplines have
inquired about morality in the context of social media. However, psychology, communi-
cation, and business journals have provided new developments and knowledge. Although
these disciplines all addressed questions of morality in social media, they had these con-
versations and academic discussions in parallel and across different contexts. First, the
psychological disciplines often examined questions of shaming, bullying, and issues
regarding the mental health and well-being of individuals who navigated social media.
Second, communication disciplines investigated social movements and justice, the social
influence of current politics, and people’s rights movements. Third, research within busi-
ness disciplines inquired about the role of firms in society, the morality of public rela-
tions and advertising, and corporate social responsibility strategies. Our findings show
great diversity in the fields interested in moral questions within social media contexts.
Our research, however, also suggested that more interdisciplinary communication is
needed. For example, more evidence is needed about whether moral advertising and
corporate communication strategies affect individuals’ mental health and well-being.
Furthermore, future research may also follow public calls to examine whether policy
changes and regulations are needed to control and oversee the effects of political and
corporate decision-making on children, adolescents, and young adults (Przybylski et al.,
2021).
Additional characteristics of research

In addition, it was notable that few studies compared morality in social media with simi-
lar moral concepts in other or unmediated contexts. If research is to address the question
of whether social media provide a new and influential context to questions of human
morality, it seems that comparative studies are needed. That is, research should focus on
the differences in interaction patterns in face-to-face interactions compared to mediated
interactions with others, particularly regarding moral behaviors, judgments, moral emo-
tions, as these concepts may manifest in mediated and non-mediated contexts (e.g.
(cyber) bullying, stalking, and hate speech). Notably, while traditional media mostly
occurred in private spaces, with little to no audience, and with a lack of two-way interac-
tions, social media now provide a tool to extent face-to-face interactions into a public
forum. Particularly, in the context of, for example, social learning (Bandura and Walters,
1977), this change in visibility and interactivity is important. Yet, we found very few
studies addressing this question.
In a similar vein, we noticed that most of the research available in the English lan-
guage was conducted in Western societies and led by Western authors, most often in the
United States and led by American scholars. This lack of diversity is concerning, as
prominent theories of moral psychology show that moral perceptions are heavily influ-
enced by cultural norms (Haidt, 2001; Haidt and Joseph, 2004; Haidt et al., 1993). To
address these imbalances in the representation of moral norms within social media tech-
nology, future research in this field should comprise intercultural teams, made accessible
across more languages, and heavily scrutinized and tested by scholars representing
diverse cultural backgrounds.
Limitations
Like other research, the project we report here comes with several limitations. First and
foremost, and aligning with our prior discussion, it is crucial to mention that the current
work was conducted by a group of researchers who were encultured in Western societies
(the United States and Germany). Though we, as authors, represent two different cul-
tures, we still lack a deep understanding of non-Western cultures’ norms. We tried to
address this issue by explicitly only including research in which the authors stated a clear
focus on moral questions. We tried to avoid judging the morality of a given research
topic and only included research in which the authors communicated to examine moral
questions. However, future research on moral reviews should include research teams
representing multiple cultural backgrounds to be more inclusive of scholarly work that
covers moral topics.
In addition, we concluded our data collection efforts in May 2021. Thus, in the time
between data collection and this article’s publication, we believe an abundance of new
research will already be published. Thus, we encourage researchers to replicate and
extend this work to keep an overview of research on this topic up to date.
Conclusion
With this scoping review on morality in social media, we aimed to provide scholars
across disciplines interested in morality research in a mediated world with an overview
of existing work. This work identified relevant research gaps that we hope will steer
research and academic conversations toward a more future-directed pathway. We pro-
vided an overview of prominent research questions, themes, methodologies, and disci-
plines that address morality’s role in social media platforms.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Dr Allison Eden and Dr Sonja Utz for providing valuable feedback on develop-
ing the pre-registered reviewing protocol and codebook. We further want to thank our research
assistants Larissa Kurz, Cara Limpächer, Andres Niederstadt, and Jonah Patrick Cooper for sup-
porting us with screening studies for inclusion.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Data availability and deposition

Data and materials are shared openly, and we pre-registered this study with the Open Science
Framework: http://bit.ly/MoralitySocialMediaSR
ORCID iD
Dominik Neumann https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2833-9765
References
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50(2): 179–211.
Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 84: 888–918.
Alizadeh M, Weber I, Cioffi-Revilla C, et al. (2019) Psychology and morality of political
extremists: evidence from Twitter language analysis of alt-right and Antifa. EPJ Data
Science 8(1): 17.
Anderson M, Anderson SL and Armen C (2016) An approach to computing ethics. IEEE Intelligent
Systems 21(4): 56–63.
Aquino K and Reed A II (2002) The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 83(6): 1423–1440.
Aquino K, Freeman D, Reed A II, et al. (2009) Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior:
the interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 97(1): 123–141.
Bagdasarov Z, Martin A, Chauhan R, et al. (2017) Aristotle, Kant, and . . .Facebook? A look at the
implications of social media on ethics. Ethics & Behavior 27(7): 547–561.
Bandura A (1999) Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and
Social Psychology Review 3: 193–209.
Bandura A and Walters RH (1977) Social Learning Theory, vol.1. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bartholomew J (2015) The awful rise of ‘virtue signalling.’. The Spectator, 18.
Bartky SL (1990) Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. New
York: Routledge.
Bastiaensens S, Vandebosch H, Poels K, et al. (2015) “Can I afford to help?” How affordances of
communication modalities guide bystanders’ helping intentions towards harassment on social
network sites. Behaviour & Information Technology 34(4): 425–435.
Batson CD, Kennedy CL, Nord L-A, et al. (2007) Anger at unfairness: is it moral outrage?
European Journal of Social Psychology 37(6): 1272–1285.
Baumeister RF and Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117(3): 497–529.
Benatar D (2015) The misanthropic argument for anti-natalism. In: Hannan S, Brennan S and
Vernon R (eds) Permissible Progeny? The Morality of Procreation and Parenting. Oxford
Academic, pp. 34–64.
Bhatti ZA, Arain GA, Akram MS, et al. (2020) Constructive voice behavior for social change on
social networking sites: a reflection of moral identity. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 157: 120101.
Bilandzic H (2011) The complicated relationship between media and morality: a response to Ron
Tamborini’s model of “Moral Intuition and Media Entertainment,” from a narrative perspec-
tive. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications 23(1): 46–51.
Bindra VG and DeCuir-Gunby JT (2020) Race in cyberspace: college students’ moral identity
and engagement with race-related issues on social media. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in
Public Education 52(3): 541–561.
Blasi A (1980) Bridging moral cognition and moral action: a critical review of the literature.
Psychological Bulletin 88(1): 1–45.
Brady WJ, Wills JA, Jost JT, et al. (2017) Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in
social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(28): 7313.
Bruchmann K, Koopmann-Holm B and Scherer A (2018) Seeing beyond political affiliations: the
mediating role of perceived moral foundations on the partisan similarity-liking effect. PLoS
ONE 13(8): e0202101.
Carr N (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W. W. Norton.
Carr CT and Hayes RA (2015) Social media: defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal
of Communication 23(1): 46–65.
Ciaramelli E, Muccioli M, Làdavas E, et al. (2007) Selective deficit in personal moral judg-
ment following damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience 2(2): 84–92.
Colleoni E (2013) CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18(2): 228–248.
Cook W and Kuhn KM (2021) Off-duty deviance in the eye of the beholder: implications of moral
foundations theory in the age of social media. Journal of Business Ethics 172(3): 605–620.
Crockett MJ (2017) Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour 1(11): 769–771.
Cushman F (2013) Action, outcome, and value: a dual-system framework for morality. Personality
and Social Psychology Review 17(3): 273–292.
DeAndrea DC and Holbert RL (2017) Increasing clarity where it is needed most: articulating and
evaluating theoretical contributions. Annals of the International Communication Association
41(2): 168–180.
DeSmet A, Veldeman C, Poels K, et al. (2014) Determinants of self-reported bystander behav-
ior in cyberbullying incidents amongst adolescents. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social
Networking 17(4): 207–215.
Digman JM (1990) Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology 41: 417–440.
Eden A, Tamborini R, Grizzard M, et al. (2014) Repeated exposure to narrative entertainment and
the salience of moral intuitions. Journal of Communication 64(3): 501–520.
Edosomwan S, Prakasan SK, Kouamé D, et al. (2011) The history of social media and its impact
on business. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship 16: 79.
Effron DA and Raj M (2019) Misinformation and morality: encountering fake-news headlines
makes them seem less unethical to publish and share. Psychological Science 31(1): 75–87.
Ellemers N, van der Toorn J, Paunov Y, et al. (2019) The psychology of morality: a review and
analysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017. Personality and Social
Psychology Review 23(4): 332–366.
Erceg N, Burghart M, Cottone A, et al. (2018) The effect of moral congruence of calls to action and
salient social norms on online charitable donations: a protocol study. Frontiers in Psychology
9: 1913.
Evans SK, Pearce KE, Vitak J, et al. (2016) Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework
for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 22(1): 35–52.
Ferreira C, Michaelidou N, Moraes C, et al. (2017) Social media advertising: factors influencing
consumer ad avoidance. Journal of Customer Behaviour 16(2): 183–201.
Forsyth DR (1980) A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
39(1): 175–184.
Freeman RE and Reed DL (1983) Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate
governance. California Management Review 25(3): 88–106.
Frentzel-Beyme L and Krämer NC (2022) Back to the past—an experimental investigation of the
effects of immersive historical environments on empathy and morality. PRESENCE: Virtual
and Augmented Reality 29: 91–111.
Gabriels K and De Backer CJS (2016) Virtual gossip: how gossip regulates moral life in virtual
worlds. Computers in Human Behavior 63: 683–693.
Garcia D and Sikström S (2014) The dark side of Facebook: semantic representations of status
updates predict the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences 67:
92–96.
Goode E and Ben-Yehuda N (1994) Moral panics: culture, politics, and social construction. Annual
Review of Sociology 20: 149–171.
Graeff E (2014) Tweens, cyberbullying, and moral reasoning: separating the upstanders from the
bystanders. In: Robinson L, Cotton SR and Schulz J (eds) Communication and Information
Technologies Annual. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 231–257.
Graham J, Haidt J and Nosek BA (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral
foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5): 1029–1046.
Graham J, Nosek BA, Haidt J, et al. (2011) Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 101(2): 366–385.
Grizzard M, Tamborini R, Lewis RJ, et al. (2014) Being bad in a video game can make us more
morally sensitive. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 17(8): 499–504.
Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judg-
ment. Psychological Review 108(4): 814–834.
Haidt J and Joseph C (2004) Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally
variable virtues. Daedalus 133(4): 55–66.
Haidt J, Koller SH and Dias MG (1993) Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your
dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(4): 613–628.
Hasher L, Goldstein D and Toppino T (1977) Frequency and the conference of referential validity.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16(1): 107–112.
Hopp FR, Fisher JT, Cornell D, et al. (2021) The extended Moral Foundations Dictionary (eMFD):
development and applications of a crowd-sourced approach to extracting moral intuitions
from text. Behavior Research Methods 53(1): 232–246.
Huskey R, Bowman N, Eden A, et al. (2018) Things we know about media and morality. Nature
Human Behaviour 2(5): 315–315.
Jonason PK, Kaźmierczak I, Campos AC, et al. (2021) Leaving without a word: ghosting and the
Dark Triad traits. Acta Psychologica 220: 103425.
Kasra M (2017) Vigilantism, public shaming, and social media hegemony: the role of digital-net-
worked images in humiliation and sociopolitical control. The Communication Review 20(3):
172–188.
Katz E, Blumler J and Gurevitch M (1974) Utilization of mass communication by the individual.
In: Blumler J and Katz E (eds) The Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on
Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 19–32.
Kohlberg L (1969) Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In:
Goslin DA (ed.) Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally,
pp. 347–480.
Laer T (2014) The means to justify the end: combating cyber harassment in social media. Journal
of Business Ethics 123(1): 85–98.
Lasarov W and Hoffmann S (2018) Social moral licensing. Journal of Business Ethics 165: 45–66.
Lavidge RJ and Steiner GA (1961) A model for predictive measurements of advertising effective-
ness. Journal of Marketing 25(6): 59–62.
Lea M and Spears R (1991) Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group deci-
sion-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(2): 283–301.
Li H, Han Y, Xiao Y, et al. (2021) Suicidal ideation risk and socio-cultural factors in China: a lon-
gitudinal study on social media from 2010 to 2018. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 18(3): 1098.
Lim H, Cho M and Bedford SC (2019) You shall (not) fear: the effects of emotional stimuli in
social media campaigns and moral disengagement on apparel consumers’ behavioral engage-
ment. Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management 23(4): 628–644.
Mehrabian A and Russell JA (1974) An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge:
M.I.T. Press.
Nahon K and Hemsley J (2013) Going Viral. Cambridge: Polity.
Ngai EWT, Tao SSC and Moon KKL (2015) Social media research: theories, constructs, and con-
ceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information Management 35(1): 33–44.
Nippert-Eng C (1996) Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries Through Everyday Life. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
O’Hara K and Stevens D (2015) Echo chambers and online radicalism: assessing the Internet’s
complicity in violent extremism. Policy & Internet 7(4): 401–422.
Orben A (2020) The Sisyphean cycle of technology panics. Perspectives on Psychological Science
15(5): 1143–1157.
Ouvrein G, De Backer CJS and Vandebosch H (2018) Online celebrity aggression: a combination
of low empathy and high moral disengagement? The relationship between empathy and moral
disengagement and adolescents’ online celebrity aggression. Computers in Human Behavior
89: 61–69.
Paciello M, D’Errico F, Saleri G, et al. (2021) Online sexist meme and its effects on moral and
emotional processes in social media. Computers in Human Behavior 116: 106655.
Parlangeli O, Marchigiani E, Bracci M, et al. (2019) Offensive acts and helping behavior on the
internet: an analysis of the relationships between moral disengagement, empathy and use of
social media in a sample of Italian students. Work 63(3): 469–477.
Parsloe SM and Holton AE (2018) #Boycottautismspeaks: communicating a counternarrative
through cyberactivism and connective action. Information, Communication & Society 21(8):
1116–1133.
Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. (2020) Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E and Munn
Z (eds) JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide, SA, Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute,
pp. 467–473.
Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. (2015) Guidance for conducting systematic scoping
reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 13(3): 141–146.
Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, et al. (2014) A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the
approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods 5(4): 371–385.
Przybylski AK, Johannes N, Vuorre M, et al. (2021) An Open Letter to Mr. Mark Zuckerberg: a
global call to act now on child and adolescent mental health science. Available at: https://
www.oii.ox.ac.uk/an-open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg/
Pundak C, Steinhart Y and Goldenberg J (2021) Nonmaleficence in shaming: the ethical dilemma
underlying participation in online public shaming. Journal of Consumer Psychology 31(3):
478–500.
Reed A, Aquino K and Levy E (2007) Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors.
Journal of Marketing 71(1): 178–193.
Reeder GD and Spores JM (1983) The attribution of morality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 44(4): 736–745.
Russell JA (1980) A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
39(6): 1161–1178.
Sabri O (2017) Does viral communication context increase the harmfulness of controversial taboo
advertising? Journal of Business Ethics 141(2): 235–247.
Sajithra K and Patil R (2013) Social media—history and components. IOSR Journal of Business
and Management 7(1): 69–74.
Schaller M (2011) The behavioural immune system and the psychology of human sociality.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Science 366(1583): 3418–3426.
Schnall S, Haidt J, Clore GL, et al. (2008) Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 34(8): 1096–1109.
Schultz F, Castelló I and Morsing M (2013) The construction of corporate social responsibility in
network societies: a communication view. Journal of Business Ethics 115: 681–692.
Seligman MEP, Park N and Peterson C (2004) The Values In Action (VIA) classification of char-
acter strengths. Ricerche di Psicologia 27(1): 63–78.
Shimp TA, Stuart EW and Engle RW (1991) A program of classical conditioning experiments
testing variations in the conditioned stimulus and context. Journal of Consumer Research
18(1): 1–12.
Shweder RA and Haidt J (1993) The future of moral psychology: truth, intuition, and the pluralist
way. Psychological Science 4(6): 360–365.
Smith JM and van Ierland T (2018) Framing controversy on social media: #NoDAPL and the
debate about the Dakota access pipeline on Twitter. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Standage T (2013) Writing on the Wall: Social Media-The First 2,000 Years. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Stanley ML, Sinclair AH and Seli P (2020) Intellectual humility and perceptions of political oppo-
nents. Journal of Personality 88(6): 1196–1216.
Swenson- Lepper T and Kerby A (2019) Cyberbullies, trolls, and stalkers: students’ perceptions of
ethical issues in social media. Journal of Media Ethics 34(2): 102–113.
Taifel H and Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroud conflict. In: Austin WG and
Worchel S (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/
Cole, pp. 33–37.
Tamborini R (2011) Moral intuition and media entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology 23(1):
39–45.
Tamborini R (2012) Model of intuitive morality and exemplars. In: Tamborini R (ed.) Media and
the Moral Mind. New York: Routledge, pp. 43–74.
Tang J, Chang Y and Liu H (2014) Mining social media with social theories: a survey. Association
for Computing Machinery SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 15(2): 20–29.
Tangney JP, Stuewig J and Mashek DJ (2006) Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review
of Psychology 58(1): 345–372.
Thiel-Stern S (2014) From the Dance Hall to Facebook: Teen Girls, Mass Media, and Moral
Panic in the United States, 1905-2010. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Tosi J and Warmke B (2016) Moral grandstanding. Philosophy & Public Affairs 44(3): 197–217.
Treem JW and Leonardi PM (2012) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances
of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook 36: 143–189.
Trevino LK, Lengel RH, Bodensteiner W, et al. (1990) The richness imperative and cognitive style:
the role of individual differences in media choice behavior. Management Communication
Quarterly 4(2): 176–197.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. (2018) PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-
ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7): 467–473.
Trope Y and Liberman N (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological
Review 117(2): 440–463.
Turkle S (2015) Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. London: Penguin
Press.
Twenge JM (2017) iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious,
More Tolerant, Less Happy, and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. New York: Atria.
Valenzuela S, Piña M and Ramírez J (2017) Behavioral effects of framing on social media users:
how conflict, economic, human interest, and morality frames drive news sharing. Journal of
Vismara M, Girone N, Conti D, et al. (2022) The current status of Cyberbullying research: a short
review of the literature. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 46: 101152.
Zillmann D and Vorderer P (eds) (2000) Media Entertainment: The Psychology of Its Appeal.
Taylor & Francis.
Author biographies
Dr. Dominik Neumann is currently an independent researcher. He earned his PhD at Michigan
State University and conducted research on morality in social media at the Leibniz Institut for
Knowledge Media in Tübingen thereafter.
Dr. Nancy Rhodes is Associate Professor in the Advertising and Public Relations Department at
Michigan State University. Trained as a social psychologist, she conducts research in persuasion
and social influence through interpersonal, mediated, and new media channels.
Appendix 1. Example for the search terms and information about included databases.
Example Search Term (Web of Science)

TS = ((immoral* OR moral*) AND (“social media” OR “social network* site*” OR “digital
media” OR “platform” OR “computer-mediat*” OR “online dating” OR (cyber* NOT
(“cybernetic” OR “cyberkinetic”)) OR facebook OR twitter OR linkedin OR tinder OR grindr
OR youtube OR *instagram OR snapchat OR tiktok OR “tik tok” OR “social media use” OR
“online behavio$r”))
OR
TS = ((unethical OR ethical) AND (“social media” OR “social network* site*” OR “digital
media” OR “platform” OR “computer-mediat*” OR “online dating” OR (cyber* NOT
(“cybernetic” OR “cyberkinetic”)) OR facebook OR twitter OR linkedin OR tinder OR grindr
OR youtube OR *instagram OR snapchat OR tiktok OR “tik tok” OR “social media use” OR
“online behavio$r”))
Databases included in Web of Science Search

Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to the present day), Social Sciences Citation Index
(1900 to the present day), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (1975 to the present day),
Emerging Sources Citation Index, Book Citation Index (starting 2005), Conference Proceedings
Citation Index (1990 to the present day)
Databases included in EBSCOhost Search

Applied Science & Business Periodicals Retrospective: 1913–1983 (H.W. Wilson), Business
Abstracts with Full Text (H.W. Wilson), Business Book Summaries, Business Source Complete,
eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost), eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), Hospitality
& Tourism Complete, Human Resources Abstracts, OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W.
Wilson), Regional Business News, Alternative Press Index, Alternative Press Index Archive,
Communication & Mass Media Complete, Communication Abstracts, Education Abstracts
(H.W. Wilson), Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), Education Index Retrospective: 1929–1983
(H.W. Wilson), Educational Administration Abstracts, Teacher Reference Center, AgeLine,
CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Global Health, Global Health Archive, Health and Psychosocial
Instruments, History of Science, Technology & Medicine, Mental Measurements Yearbook with
Tests in Print, Anthropology Plus, Chicano Database, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Environment
Complete, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, Gender Studies Database, GreenFILE, Index to
Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson), Index to Legal Periodicals and Books (H.W.
Wilson), Index to Legal Periodicals Retrospective: 1908–1981 (H.W. Wilson), International
Political Science Abstracts, Left Index, Peace Research Abstracts, Political Science Complete,
Public Administration Abstracts, Race Relations Abstracts, Social Sciences Abstracts (H.W.
Wilson), Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson), Urban Studies Abstracts)
Appendix 2. Overview of studies included in this scoping review.
Reference Journal
Kim and An (2017) Acta Paulista de Enfermagem
Ge (2020) Aggressive Behavior
Hoover et al. (2018) Collabra—Psychology
Wang and Liu (2021) Communication Monographs
Wilhelm et al. (2020) Communication Research
Grover et al. (2019) Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Zhao and Dale (2019) Computers in Human Behavior
Jafarkarimi et al. (2016) Computers in Human Behavior
van Prooijen et al. (2018) Computers in Human Behavior
Chung and Park (2017) Computers in Human Behavior
Paciello et al. (2021) Computers in Human Behavior
Luo and Bussey (2019) Computers in Human Behavior
Colleoni (2013) Corporate Communications: An International Journal
Bouvier (2022) Critical Discourse Studies
Ahadzadeh et al. (2020) Current Psychology
Xu et al. (2020a) Digital Journalism
Bouvier and Machin (2021) Discourse & Society
Yeo (2014) Environmental Communication
Alizadeh et al. (2019) EPJ Data Science
Richardson-Self (2019) Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
Bagdasarov et al. (2017) Ethics & Behavior
Chauhan et al. (2022) Ethics & Behavior
Turel (2016) European Journal of Information Systems
Ringrose et al. (2013) Feminist Theory
Rodriguez-Gomez et al. (2020) Frontiers in Psychology
Chen et al. (2020) Frontiers in Psychology
Hookway et al. (2017) Health, Risk & Society
Smith and van Ierland (2018) IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Xu et al. (2020b) Information & Management
Parsloe and Holton (2018) Information, Communication & Society
Li et al. (2021) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
D’Errico and Paciello (2018) Internet Research
Araujo and Kollat (2018) Internet Research
Mercadé-Melé et al. ( 2018) Journal of Business Economics and Management
Wallace et al. (2020) Journal of Business Ethics
Cook and Kuhn (2021) Journal of Business Ethics
Kadić-Maglajlić et al. (2017) Journal of Business Ethics
Gummerus et al. (2017) Journal of Business Ethics
Leban et al. (2021) Journal of Business Ethics
Valenzuela et al. (2017) Journal of Communication
Makarem and Jae (2016) Journal of Consumer Affairs
Pundak et al. (2021) Journal of Consumer Psychology
(Continued)
Appendix 2. (Continued)
Reference Journal
Dehghani et al. (2016) Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Brady et al. (2019) Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Brady et al. (2020) Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Lim et al. (2019) Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management
Bae et al. (2015) Journal of Global Fashion Marketing
Sterling and Jost (2018) Journal of Language and Politics
Swenson-Lepper and Kerby Journal of Media Ethics
(2019)
Wellman et al. (2020) Journal of Media Ethics
Paulin et al. (2014) Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing
Pang et al. (2020) Journal of Personality
Stanley et al. (2020) Journal of Personality
Baglione and Tucci (2019) Journal of Promotion Management
Ji and Raney (2015) Media Psychology
Mooijman et al. (2018) Nature Human Behaviour
Johnen et al. (2018) New Media & Society
Annisette and Lafreniere Personality and Individual Differences
(2017)
Hood and Duffy (2018) Personality and Individual Differences
Neubaum et al. (2021) Plos One
Bruchmann et al. (2018) Plos One
Brady et al. (2017) PNAS
Tetrevova and Hozak (2019) Przemysl Chemiczny
Wang and Inbar (2021) Psychological Science
Effron and Raj (2020) Psychological Science
Uzunoğlu et al. (2017) Public Relations Review
Rossolatos (2019) Qualitative Report
Ferguson et al. (2021) Religions
Wilhelm and Joeckel (2019) Sex Roles
Zhao et al. (2020) Social Behavior and Personality
Kelly et al. (2017) Social Influence
Hoover et al. (2020) Social Psychological and Personality Science
Feldman et al. (2017) Social Psychological and Personality Science
Thai et al. (2016) Social Psychological and Personality Science
Núñez Puente et al. (2019) Social Science Computer Review
Thorpe et al. (2018) Sociology of Sport Journal
Thunman and Persson (2018) Teacher Development
Bindra and DeCuir-Gunby Urban Review
(2020)
Al Zidjaly (2019) Russian Journal of Linguistics
Parlangeli et al. (2019) Work
References
Ahadzadeh AS, Wu SL, Ong FS, et al. (2022) University students’ Machiavellianism and self-monitoring on
Facebook: mediating role of ethical positions. Current Psychology 41: 5323–5332.
Al Zidjaly N (2019) Divine impoliteness: how Arabs negotiate Islamic moral order on Twitter. Russian
Journal of Linguistics 23(4): 1039–1064.
Alizadeh M, Weber I, Cioffi-Revilla C, et al. (2019) Psychology and morality of political extremists: evidence
from Twitter language analysis of alt-right and Antifa. EPJ Data Science 8(1): 17.
Annisette LE and Lafreniere KD (2017) Social media, texting, and personality: a test of the shallowing
hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences 115: 154–158.
Araujo T and Kollat J (2018) Communicating effectively about CSR on Twitter. Internet Research 28(2):
419–431.
Bae SY, Rudd N and Bilgihan A (2015) Offensive advertising in the fashion industry: sexual objectification
and ethical judgments of consumers. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 6(3): 236–249.
Bagdasarov Z, Martin A, Chauhan R, et al. (2017) Aristotle, Kant, and . . . ? A look at the implications of
social media on ethics. Ethics & Behavior 27(7): 547–561.
Baglione SL and Tucci LA (2019) Perceptions of social media’s relevance and targeted advertisements.
Journal of Promotion Management 25(2): 143–160.
Bindra VG and DeCuir-Gunby JT (2020) Race in cyberspace: college students’ moral identity and engage-
ment with race-related issues on social media. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education 52(3):
541–561.
Bouvier G (2022) From “echo chambers” to ‘chaos chambers’: discursive coherence and contradiction in
the #MeToo Twitter feed. Critical Discourse Studies 19(2): 179–195.
Bouvier G and Machin D (2021) What gets lost in Twitter “cancel culture” hashtags? Calling out racists
reveals some limitations of social justice campaigns. Discourse & Society 32(3): 307–327.
Brady WJ, Gantman AP and Van Bavel JJ (2020) Attentional capture helps explain why moral and emotional
content go viral. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 149(4): 746–756.
Brady WJ, Wills JA, Burkart D, et al. (2019) An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content
on social media among political leaders. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 148(10): 1802–1813.
Brady WJ, Wills JA, Jost JT, et al. (2017) Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social net-
works. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(28): 7313.
Bruchmann K, Koopmann-Holm B and Scherer A (2018) Seeing beyond political affiliations: the mediating
role of perceived moral foundations on the partisan similarity-liking effect. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0202101.
Chauhan RS, Connelly S, Howe DC, et al. (2022) The danger of “fake news”: how using social media for
information dissemination can inhibit the ethical decision making process. Ethics & Behavior 32(4): 287–306.
Chen X, Huang C and Cheng Y (2020) Identifiability, risk, and information credibility in discussions on
moral/ethical violation topics on Chinese social networking sites. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 535605.
Chung S and Park J (2017) Exploring consumer evaluations in social media: the role of psychological dis-
tance between company and consumer. Computers in Human Behavior 76: 312–320.
Colleoni E (2013) CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 18(2): 228–248.
Cook W and Kuhn KM (2021) Off-duty deviance in the eye of the beholder: implications of moral founda-
tions theory in the age of social media. Journal of Business Ethics 172(3): 605–620.
Dehghani M, Johnson K, Hoover J, et al. (2016) Purity homophily in social networks. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General 145(3): 366–375.
D’Errico F and Paciello M (2018) Online moral disengagement and hostile emotions in discussions on host-
ing immigrants. Internet Research 28(5): 1313–1335.
Effron DA and Raj M (2020) Misinformation and morality: encountering fake-news headlines makes them
seem less unethical to publish and share. Psychological Science 31(1): 75–87.
Feldman G, Lian H, Kosinski M, et al. (2017) Frankly, we do give a damn: the relationship between profanity
and honesty. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(7): 816–826.
Ferguson J, Ecklund EH and Rothschild C (2021) Navigating religion online: Jewish and Muslim responses to
social media. Religions 12(4): 258.
Ge X (2020) Social media reduce users’ moral sensitivity: online shaming as a possible consequence. Aggres-
sive Behavior 46(5): 359–369.
Grover T, Bayraktaroglu E, Mark G, et al. (2019) Moral and affective differences in U.S. immigration policy
debate on Twitter. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 28(3): 317–355.
Gummerus J, Liljander V and Sihlman R (2017) Do ethical social media communities pay off? An exploratory
study of the ability of Facebook ethical communities to strengthen consumers’ ethical consumption behav-
ior. Journal of Business Ethics 144(3): 449–465.
Hood M and Duffy AL (2018) Understanding the relationship between cyber-victimization and cyber-
bullying on social network sites: the role of moderating factors. Personality and Individual Differences 133:
103–108.
Hookway N, Elmer S and Frandsen M (2017) Risk, morality and emotion: social media responses to preg-
nant women who smoke. Health, Risk & Society 19(5/6): 246–259.
Hoover J, Johnson K, Boghrati R, et al. (2018) Moral framing and charitable donation: integrating explor-
atory social media analyses and confirmatory experimentation. Collabra: Psychology 4(1): 9.
Hoover J, Portillo-Wightman G, Yeh L, et al. (2020) Moral foundations Twitter corpus: a collection of 35k
tweets annotated for moral sentiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science 11(8): 1057–1071.
Jafarkarimi H, Saadatdoost R, Sim ATH, et al. (2016) Behavioral intention in social networking sites ethical
dilemmas: an extended model based on Theory of Planned Behavior. Computers in Human Behavior 62:
545–561.
Ji Q and Raney AA (2015) Morally judging entertainment: a case study of live tweeting during Downton Ab-
bey. Media Psychology 18(2): 221–242.
Johnen M, Jungblut M and Ziegele M (2018) The digital outcry: what incites participation behavior in an
online firestorm? New Media & Society 20(9): 3140–3160.
Kadić-Maglajlić S, Arslanagić-Kalajdžić M, Micevski M, et al. (2017) Controversial advert perceptions in
SNS advertising: the role of ethical judgment and religious commitment. Journal of Business Ethics 141(2):
249–265.
Kelly M, Ngo L, Chituc V, et al. (2017) Moral conformity in online interactions: rational justifications in-
crease influence of peer opinions on moral judgments. Social Influence 12(2/3): 57–68.
Kim BH and An G-J (2017) Attitudes toward privacy in social network and moral development of nursing
students. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem 30(2): 197–203.
Leban M, Thomsen TU, von Wallpach S, et al. (2021) Constructing personas: how high-net-worth social
media influencers reconcile ethicality and living a luxury lifestyle. Journal of Business Ethics 169(2): 225–239.
Li H, Han Y, Xiao Y, et al. (2021) Suicidal ideation risk and socio-cultural factors in China: a longitudinal
study on social media from 2010 to 2018. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
18(3): 1098.
Lim H, Cho M and Bedford SC (2019) You shall (not) fear: the effects of emotional stimuli in social media
campaigns and moral disengagement on apparel consumers’ behavioral engagement. Journal of Fashion Mar-
keting & Management 23(4): 628–644.
Luo A and Bussey K (2019) The selectivity of moral disengagement in defenders of cyberbullying: contextual
moral disengagement. Computers in Human Behavior 93: 318–325.
Makarem SC and Jae H (2016) Consumer boycott behavior: an exploratory analysis of Twitter feeds. Journal
of Consumer Affairs 50(1): 193–223.
Mercadé-Melé P, Molinillo S, Fernández-Morales A, et al. (2018) CSR activities and consumer loyalty: the
effect of the type of publicizing medium. Journal of Business Economics and Management 19(3): 431–455.
Mooijman M, Hoover J, Lin Y, et al. (2018) Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence
during protests. Nature Human Behavior 2(6): 389–396.
Neubaum G, Cargnino M, Winter S, et al. (2021) “You’re still worth it”: the moral and relational context of
politically motivated unfriending decisions in online networks. PLoS ONE 16(1): e0243049.
Núñez Puente S, Maceiras SDA and Romero DF (2019) Twitter activism and ethical witnessing: possibili-
ties and challenges of feminist politics against gender-based violence. Social Science Computer Review 39(2):
295–311.
Paciello M, D’Errico F, Saleri G, et al. (2021) Online sexist meme and its effects on moral and emotional
processes in social media. Computers in Human Behavior 116: 106655.
Pang D, Eichstaedt JC, Buffone A, et al. (2020) The language of character strengths: predicting morally
valued traits on social media [journal article]. Journal of Personality 88(2): 287–306.
Parlangeli O, Marchigiani E, Bracci M, et al. (2019) Offensive acts and helping behavior on the Internet: an
analysis of the relationships between moral disengagement, empathy and use of social media in a sample of
Italian students. Work 63(3): 469–477.
Parsloe SM and Holton AE (2018) #Boycottautismspeaks: communicating a counternarrative through
cyberactivism and connective action. Information, Communication & Society 21(8): 1116–1133.
Paulin M, Ferguson RJ, Schattke K, et al. (2014) Millennials, social media, prosocial emotions, and charitable
causes: the paradox of gender differences. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 26(4): 335–353.
Pundak C, Steinhart Y and Goldenberg J (2021) Nonmaleficence in shaming: the ethical dilemma underlying
participation in online public shaming. Journal of Consumer Psychology 31(3): 478–500.
Richardson-Self L (2019) Cis-Hetero-Misogyny Online. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 22(3): 573–587.
Ringrose J, Harvey L, Gill R, et al. (2013) Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: gendered value in
digital image exchange. Feminist Theory 14(3): 305–323.
Rodriguez-Gomez S, Garde-Sanchez R, Arco-Castro ML, et al. (2020) Does the use of social media tools
in classrooms increase student commitment to corporate social responsibility? Frontiers in Psychology 11:
589250.
Rossolatos G (2019) On the discursive appropriation of the antinatalist ideology in social media. The Quali-
tative Report 24(2): 208–227.
Smith JM and van Ierland T (2018) Framing controversy on social media: #NoDAPL and the debate about
the Dakota access pipeline on Twitter. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 61(3): 226–241.
Stanley ML, Sinclair AH and Seli P (2020) Intellectual humility and perceptions of political opponents. Journal
of Personality 88(6): 1196–1216.
Sterling J and Jost JT (2018) Moral discourse in the Twitterverse: effects of ideology and political sophisti-
cation on language use among U.S. citizens and members of Congress. Journal of Language & Politics 17(2):
195–221.
Swenson-Lepper T and Kerby A (2019) Cyberbullies, trolls, and stalkers: students’ perceptions of ethical
issues in social media. Journal of Media Ethics 34(2): 102–113.
Tetrevova L and Hozak M (2019) Corporate social responsibility communication by chemical companies on
social networks in the Czech Republic. Przemysl Chemiczny 98: 767–770.
Thai M, Hornsey MJ and Barlow FK (2016) Friends with moral credentials: minority friendships reduce attri-
butions of racism for majority group members who make conceivably racist statements. Social Psychological
and Personality Science 7(3): 272–280.
Thorpe H, Hayhurst L and Chawansky M (2018) “Once my relatives see me on social media. . . it will be
something very bad for my family”: the ethics and risks of organizational representations of sporting girls
from the global south. Sociology of Sport Journal 35(3): 226–237.
Thunman E and Persson M (2018) Ethical dilemmas on social media: Swedish secondary teachers’ boundary
management on Facebook. Teacher Development 22(2): 175–190.
Turel O (2016) Untangling the complex role of guilt in rational decisions to discontinue the use of a he-
donic Information System. European Journal of Information Systems 25(5): 432–447.
Uzunoğlu E, Türkel S and Yaman Akyar B (2017) Engaging consumers through corporate social responsibil-
ity messages on social media: an experimental study. Public Relations Review 43(5): 989–997.
Valenzuela S, Piña M and Ramírez J (2017) Behavioral effects of framing on social media users: how conflict,
economic, human interest, and morality frames drive news sharing. Journal of Communication 67(5): 803–826.
van Prooijen A-M, Ranzini G and Bartels J (2018) Exposing one’s identity: social judgments of colleagues’
traits can influence employees’ Facebook boundary management. Computers in Human Behavior 78: 215–222.
Wallace E, Buil I and de Chernatony L (2020) “Consuming good” on social media: what can conspicuous
virtue signaling on Facebook tell us about prosocial and unethical intentions? Journal of Business Ethics 162(3):
577–592.
Wang R and Liu W (2021) Moral framing and information virality in social movements: a case study of
#HongKongPoliceBrutality. Communication Monographs 88(3): 350–370.
Wang S-YN and Inbar Y (2021) Moral-language use by U.S. political elites. Psychological Science 32(1): 14–26.
Wellman ML, Stoldt R, Tully M, et al. (2020) Ethics of authenticity: social media influencers and the produc-
tion of sponsored content. Journal of Media Ethics 35(2): 68–82.
Wilhelm C and Joeckel S (2019) Gendered morality and backlash effects in online discussions: an experi-
mental study on how users respond to hate speech comments against women and sexual minorities. Sex
Roles 80(7/8): 381–392.
Wilhelm C, Joeckel S and Ziegler I (2020) Reporting hate comments: investigating the effects of devi-
ance characteristics, neutralization strategies, and users’ moral orientation. Communication Research 47(6):
921–944.
Xu WW, Sang Y and Kim C (2020a) What drives hyper-partisan news sharing: exploring the role of source,
style, and content. Digital Journalism 8(4): 486–505.
Xu X, Yao Z and Teo TSH (2020b) Moral obligation in online social interaction: clicking the “like” button.
Information & Management 57(7): 103249.
Yeo TED (2014) Negotiating virtue and vice: articulations of lay conceptions of health and sustainability in
social media conversations around natural beverages. Environmental Communication 8(1): 39–57.
Zhao D and Dale KR (2019) Pro-social messages and transcendence: a content analysis of Facebook reac-
tions to Mark Zuckerberg’s donation pledge. Computers in Human Behavior 91: 236–243.
Zhao L, Ding X and Yu F (2020) Public moral motivation during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis of posts
on Chinese social media. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 48(11): 1–14.

Neumann Rhodes 2023 Morality in Social Media A Scoping Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neumann Rhodes 2023 Morality in Social Media A Scoping Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neumann Rhodes 2023 Morality in Social Media A Scoping Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1166056

new media & society

Morality in social media:

A scoping review Article reuse guidelines:

Although we could locate no published reviews of research on social media and

Morality in the social media context

Antecedents of moral behavior

Implications of moral behavior

Objectives of this scoping review

Information sources and search strategy

Selecting sources of evidence

Data items and data charting process

Methodological quality appraisal

Figure 1. The flow of articles throughout the screening process.

Characteristics of sources of evidence

Figure 2. Publication density over recent years.

Table 1. Research themes and theories (manuscript level).

Table 2. Methods, instruments, and operationalizations (manuscript and study level).

Table 3. Journal categories (manuscript level).

Category Frequency (%)

Some research focused on psychological questions emphasized political topics, such

Research themes and theories

Methods and materials

Disciplines and context

Additional characteristics of research

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability and deposition

Example Search Term (Web of Science)

Databases included in Web of Science Search

Databases included in EBSCOhost Search

Appendix 2. Overview of studies included in this scoping review.

You might also like