Editing Flaming (Internet) (section)

==Purpose==
[[Social science|Social researchers]] have investigated flaming, coming up with several different theories about the phenomenon.<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Peter J. Moor |author2=A. Heuvelman|author3=R. Verleur|year=2010|title=Flaming on YouTube|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|volume=26|issue=6|pages=1536–1546|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.023|url=https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/6834743/1-s2.0-S0747563210001627-main.pdf }}</ref> These include [[deindividuation]] and reduced awareness of other people's feelings ([[online disinhibition effect]]),<ref>{{cite journal|author1=S. Kiesler|author2=J. Siegel|author3=T.W. McGuire|year=1984|title=Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication|journal=[[American Psychologist]]|volume=39|issue=10|pages=1123–1134|doi=10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123|s2cid=3896692 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author1=S. Kiesler|author2=D. Zubrow|author3=A.M. Moses|author4=V. Geller|year=1985|title=Affect in computer-mediated communication: an experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion|journal=Human-Computer Interaction|volume=1|pages=77–104|doi=10.1207/s15327051hci0101_3}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author1=S. Kiesler|author2=L. Sproull|year=1992|title=Group decision making and communication technology|journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes|volume=52|pages=96–123|doi=10.1016/0749-5978(92)90047-b}}</ref> conformance to perceived norms,<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Martin Lea|author2=Tim O'Shea|author3=Pat Fung|author4=Russell Spears|title='Flaming' in Computer-Mediated Communication: Observation, explanations, implications|journal=Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication}}</ref><ref>{{cite thesis |last=Moor |first=Peter J. |year=2007 |title=Conforming to the Flaming Norm in the Online Commenting Situation |url=http://scholar.petermoor.nl/flaming.pdf |access-date=2022-01-18 |institution=[[University of Twente]]}}</ref> miscommunication caused by the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Thompsen|first=P.A.|year=1994|title=An Episode of Flaming: a Creative Narrative|journal=ETC: A Review of General Semantics|volume=51|pages=51–72}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Heidi McKee|year=2002|title="YOUR VIEWS SHOWED TRUE IGNORANCE!!!": (Mis)Communication in an Online Interracial Discussion Forum|journal=Computers and Composition|volume=19|issue=4|pages=411–434|doi=10.1016/s8755-4615(02)00143-3}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author1=J. Kruger|author2=J. Parker|author3=Z. Ng|author4=N. Epley|year=2005|title=Egocentrism over e-mail: can we communicate as well as we think?|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=89|issue=6|pages=925–936|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925|pmid=16393025|s2cid=1998520 }}</ref> and [[Social norm|anti-normative behavior]].<ref name="Cho 363–372"/>

Jacob Borders, in discussing participants' internal modeling of a discussion, says:<blockquote>Mental models are fuzzy, incomplete, and imprecisely stated. Furthermore, within a single individual, mental models change with time, even during the flow of a single conversation. The human mind assembles a few relationships to fit the context of a discussion. As debate shifts, so do the mental models. Even when only a single topic is being discussed, each participant in a conversation employs a different mental model to interpret the subject. Fundamental assumptions differ but are never brought into the open. Goals are different but left unstated. It is little wonder that compromise takes so long. And even when consensus is reached, the underlying assumptions may be fallacies that lead to laws and programs that fail. The human mind is not adapted to understanding correctly the consequences implied by a mental model. A mental model may be correct in structure and assumptions but, even so, the human mind—either individually or as a group consensus—is apt to draw the wrong implications for the future.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-988-system-dynamics-self-study-fall-1998-spring-1999/readings/behavior.pdf |title=Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems |author=Jay W. Forrester |author-link=Jay Wright Forrester |year=1971 |publisher=[[MIT]] System Dynamics in Education Project |page=4 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090823210010/http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf |archive-date=23 August 2009 |url-status=live |access-date=2022-01-18}}<!-- former url: http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf --></ref>{{cbignore}}</blockquote>Thus, online conversations often involve a variety of assumptions and motives unique to each user. Without social context, users are often helpless to know the intentions of their counterparts. In addition to the problems of conflicting mental models often present in online discussions, the inherent lack of face-to-face communication online can encourage hostility. Professor Norman Johnson, commenting on the propensity of Internet posters to flame one another, states:<blockquote>The literature suggests that, compared to face-to-face, the increased incidence of flaming when using [[computer-mediated communication]] is due to reductions in the transfer of social cues, which decrease individuals' concern for social evaluation and fear of social sanctions or reprisals. When social identity and ingroup status are salient, computer mediation can decrease flaming because individuals focus their attention on the social context (and associated norms) rather than themselves.<ref name="Johnson2">{{cite journal|last=Johnson|first=Norman A.|year=2009|title=Anger and flaming in computer-mediated negotiations among strangers|journal=Decision Support Systems|volume=46|issue=3|pages=660–672|doi=10.1016/j.dss.2008.10.008}}</ref></blockquote>A lack of [[social context]] creates an element of anonymity, which allows users to feel insulated from the forms of punishment they might receive in a more conventional setting. Johnson identifies several precursors to flaming between users, whom he refers to as "negotiation partners," since Internet communication typically involves back-and-forth interactions similar to a negotiation. Flaming incidents usually arise in response to a perception of one or more negotiation partners being unfair. Perceived unfairness can include a lack of consideration for an individual's vested interests, unfavorable treatment (especially when the flamer has been considerate of other users), and misunderstandings aggravated by the inability to convey subtle indicators like [[non-verbal]] cues and [[facial expression]]s.<ref name="Johnson2" />