Abstract
Trolling is a form of consumer misbehavior that involves deliberate, deceptive, and mischievous attempts to provoke reactions from other online users. This research draws on actor-network theory to explore the assemblages of human and non-human entities that allow and perpetuate online trolling behaviors. By taking a practice-focused multi-sited ethnographic research approach, the research shows that online trolling is often an unintended consequence of interactions between human and non-human entities that are joined in the performance of trolling behavior. These entities include: troll(s), target(s), a medium of exchange, audience(s), other trolls, trolling artifacts, regulators, revenue streams, and assistants. Some of these actors (i.e., troll, target, medium) are playing a role in initiating, and other actors are (un)intentionally sustaining trolling by celebrating it, boosting it, facilitating it, and normalizing it. The findings highlight the role of nontraditional actors in the performance of misbehaviors and suggest that effective management of online consumer misbehaviors such as trolling will include managing the socio-technical networks that allow and fuel these misbehaviors.
Keywords
Introduction
Customer posting on Sainsbury's Facebook page: “I bought a pack of always ultra sanitary pads in store only to discover there were 14 in pack rather than 16 as stated. I do not want to use the rest as the pack has been tampered with. Do I complain to your or always direct. Please advise?”
Customer Support (i.e., the troll posing as a customer service representative): “Are you only mad because it's that time of the month tho?”
Customer: “Really? How unprofessional to make a rude joke over a personal matter. Absolutely disgusting!”
Customer Support (i.e., the troll posing as a customer service representative): "I’m sorry, you’re absolutely right. Jokes about a woman's menstrual cycle are not funny. Period!"
The vignette above, posted on the UK retailer Sainsbury's Facebook page, epitomizes one of the many types of what media, researchers, and other internet users refer to as trolling. We use trolling to mean the deliberate, deceptive, and mischievous attempts to provoke reactions from other online users (Golf-Papez and Veer 2017). These attempts vary in nature and are closely associated with the behaviors of so-called problem customers (Bitner, Booms and Mohr 1994) and jaycustomers (Lovelock and Wirtz 2016). In addition to impolitely replying to disappointed customers under fake customer service accounts, as seen in the example above, trolling includes posting irrelevant product reviews (e.g., r/amazonreviews n.d.), giving false and endangering information about products and services to other consumers (Greenberg 2016), and prank-calling businesses (D’Anastasio 2020).
Trolling behaviors are pervasive, comprising “a substantial fraction of user activity on many web sites” (Cheng et al. 2017, 1217). They occur particularly frequently on social media sites, with 38% of US adults reporting seeing trolling on social media on a daily basis (Statista 2017). Trolling is also witnessed on comments sections, discussion sites, review sites, and various online services and applications, such as dating apps and video games (Pew Research Center 2017; Statista 2017; YouGov 2014). Despite presenting challenges for the owners of these channels, and for marketers and brand managers utilizing the channels, and despite detracting from the experience of other consumers, trolling has received very little attention from marketing scholars. Also, it has not been considered to be one of the key challenges impacting brand management in social media environments (Gensler et al. 2013). Trolling has, however, recently started gaining increased interest from researchers from other disciplines, including psychology (e.g., Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus 2014; Craker and March 2016; March et al. 2017; Sest and March 2017), linguistics (e.g., Hardaker 2010, 2013), computer science (e.g., Cheng et al. 2017; Kumar, Cheng and Leskovec 2017), and information science (e.g., Sanfilippo, Yang and Fichman 2017; Shachaf and Hara 2010). As insightful as these studies are, most of the consumer misbehavior and trolling literature, with some notable exceptions (Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018; Daunt and Greer 2015; Daunt and Harris 2012; Demsar et al. 2021; Golf-Papez and Veer 2017) adopt a dispositional perspective, explaining misbehaviors by referring to the characteristics and predispositions of misbehaving consumers. Furthermore, practitioners concerned with tackling consumer misbehaviors such as trolling seem to focus on managing one “masterful, separate actor” (Mol 2010, 256)—the troll—overlooking the role of all other entities involved in trolling. While some studies recognize that there are other actors besides trolls included in trolling (e.g., Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018; Hardaker 2010; Herring et al. 2002 examine trolling from a community user perspective), there is a need for a more holistic investigation of the different types of actors joined in the performance of trolling.
In a desire to contribute to a more rounded and actionable understanding of trolling, we focus on the making of trolling rather than on trolls and their nature. Our aim is to better understand the “building blocks that enable” trolling behaviors (Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018, 24). More specifically, using actor-network theory as a lens, our purpose is to better understand the assemblages of actors that allow or perpetuate mischief-making consumer (mis)behaviors such as online trolling. In particular, our research questions are:
1. What human and non-human actors are involved in the performance of trolling? 2. How can tracing associations between actors help us determine how trolling emerges and is sustained?
In answering these questions, we contribute to the existing body of knowledge and practice on consumer misbehaviors in general, and online trolling in particular. First, the original contribution lies in identifying the actors (human and non-human) involved in trolling and presenting a conceptual model of how trolling comes about and is nourished. Our work extends prior research on consumer misbehaviors and trolling by showing how some previously unexplored actors such as non-humans (e.g., various material and technical elements) and spectators (e.g., fans of misbehaving consumers) (un)intentionally support misbehaviors. By revealing that misbehaviors such as trolling may be exacerbated by marketers’ efforts to manage these misbehaviors, we add empirical support to the idea that consumer misbehaviors managing strategies could be counterproductive (see Fullerton and Punj 2004). We also offer a new understanding of the role of compliance of the actors in the success of actor-networks, suggesting that the lack of compliance among some actors may actually stabilize and invigorate the network (cf. Callon 1984). Our conceptual model has practical value, providing guidance to marketers on how trolling and similar mischief-making consumer misbehaviors can be stymied, or, if so wished, bolstered by managing the network of associating actors rather than trying to deter only one actor within these networks.
We begin by reviewing the literature on online trolling as a form of online consumer misbehavior. We delineate trolling from other forms of misbehaviors and discuss what is currently known about how trolling occurs, its impacts, and how can it be dealt with. After presenting the key tenets of actor-network theory—an approach that this research draws on—we describe our process of data collection and analysis. Then, we describe our findings, presenting the actors involved in the trolling and discussing how trolling emerges and is sustained. Finally, we discuss the implications of our work for both researchers and practitioners aiming to understand and manage (online) mischief-making consumer misbehaviors such as trolling.
Literature Review
Consumer Misbehaviors
In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature uncovering how people misbehave in their role as consumers. A great deal of previous research has focused on offline, analogue settings, with researchers investigating misbehaviors such as shoplifting (Daunt and Greer 2015; Egan and Taylor 2010), cheating on service guarantees (Wirtz and Kum 2004), fraudulent returning (Harris 2008), customer retaliatory behaviors (Grégoire and Fisher 2008), vandalism (Van Vliet 1984), customer aggression, and sexual harassment in service encounters (Yagil 2008), and relating badly to brands (Fournier and Alvarez 2013).
Although we know much more about consumer misbehavior in traditional and offline settings than in online settings, prior research mentions several ways in which consumers may cause problems for marketers online. Examples include falsifying personal information in order to take advantage of online services (Punj 2017), participating in online firestorms (Pfeffer, Zorbach and Carley 2014), engaging in negative word-of-mouth (Tuzovic 2010), trash-talking brands and their users (Hickman and Ward 2007), and engaging in hostile and rude consumer-to-consumer interactions (Bacile et al. 2018; Dineva et al. 2020; Dineva, Breitsohl and Garrod 2017), such as participating in a dialogue with the supporters of rival brands that resembles flaming (Ewing, Wagstaff and Powell 2013). All these forms of online consumer misbehaviors remain poorly understood in comparison to illegal downloading, which has been the most studied form of misbehaving (e.g., Giesler 2008; Harris and Dumas 2009; Hinduja 2007; Odou and Bonnin 2014; Phau, Teah and Lwin 2014; Sinha and Mandel 2008). The focus on illegal downloading neglects the whole spectrum of consumer misbehaviors that are not straightforwardly illegal and financially motivated. Examples mentioned in the classifications of consumers misbehaviors include bizarre behaviors, annoying behaviors toward other consumers, mindless horseplay (Fullerton and Punj 2004), gaining unauthorized access to another consumer's computer for fun (Freestone and Mitchell 2004), and rule breaking (Berry and Seiders 2008). Each of these examples include causing problems in a playful way and constitute a poorly understood misbehavior of online trolling.
Online Trolling Behaviors
Trolling behaviors, happening in social settings such as online brand communities, involve “deliberate, deceptive, and mischievous attempts that are engineered to elicit a reaction from the target(s),” including brands, their community managers, and other consumers (Golf-Papez and Veer 2017, p. 1339). These attempts, varying in form (e.g., Hardaker 2013) and perceived severity (Suler and Phillips 1998), encompass behaviors such as digression, (hypo)criticism, antipathizing, endangering, shocking, and aggressing (Hardaker 2013). While more overtly antagonistic behaviors such as aggression and online incivility (e.g., Bacile et al. 2018) can constitute trolling, in the context of trolling such behaviors are used as a means to an end—this is to provoke other users (e.g., community managers and consumers) into the reaction. In this view, trolling should not be conflated with cyberbullying and consumer brand sabotage. Whereas cyberbullies intend to inflict harm or discomfort intentionally and repeatedly to a predefined target (e.g., Olweus 2012; Tokunaga 2010) and consumer brand saboteurs as hostile aggressors choose activities that will supposedly cause harm to a predefined brand (Kähr et al. 2016), trolls’ intents are less straightforward (Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus 2014) and undirected, and include fun-seeking (Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018). The emphasis on the trolling's deceptive and no-harm intended nature also helps to separate trolling from flaming, which includes uninhibited expression of easily identifiable elements—insults, profanity, offensive language (Alonzo and Aiken 2004)—in response to a provocation (Hardaker 2013). Not necessarily resulting from past or anticipated brand experiences, trolling should also be set apart from what would be traditionally conceived as spreading electronic word-of-mouth (King, Racherla and Bush 2014), sharing consumer-generated brand stories (Gensler et al. 2013), and participating in social media firestorms (Scholz and Smith 2019). Rather than having a real interest in the topic of the conversation (Breitsohl, Roschk and Feyertag 2018) and sincere brand/cause-related conflicts with other consumers (Dineva et al. 2020), trolls seem to engage in what King, Racherla and Bush (2014) would call deception for fun. In this sense, trolls do not talk about their real brand experiences, but rather use brands as props that help them fulfil their “programs of action” (i.e., intentions or goals) (Latour 1992). While scholars continue to attempt to separate trolling from other misbehaviors (Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018; Demsar et al. 2021; Golf-Papez and Veer 2017), it has to be acknowledged that the term itself remains to be defined in a different way and is frequently conflated with other forms of online misbehavior.
As any other form of consumer misbehavior, trolling behaviors impact other consumers, companies and their employees and brands. Within online brand communities, trolls may disrupt discussions (Dahlberg 2001; Donath 1999; Herring et al. 2002), influence and reduce the participation of other consumers (Dahlberg 2001), change the interpretation of the posted content (Anderson et al. 2014), and potentially destabilize marketers’ intended brand meanings (Rokka and Canniford 2016). Trolling that includes uncivil interactions with other consumers may also negatively impact service recovery evaluations (Bacile et al. 2018). On the other hand, trolling could have positive effects such as reinforcing the community through humor and enabling the communication of less popular opinions (Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018).
So far there has been little discussion on how marketers can deal with trolling behaviors. Choosing a non-engagement conflict management strategy (Dineva et al. 2020; Dineva, Breitsohl and Garrod 2017) and ignoring the trolls is one of the potential management approaches. Prior research warns against this approach as consumers expect that marketers will protect them from the misbehaviors of other consumers (Fullerton and Punj 2004) and will address consumer-to-consumer incivility that occurs on corporate social media channels (Bacile et al. 2018). Not responding to the negative consumer-generated brand stories and to online incivility can potentially lead to brand dilution (Gensler et al. 2013) and negative service recovery outcomes (Bacile et al. 2018) respectively. To develop effective managing strategies that will cover both what and how the company responds (van Laer and de Ruyter 2010) to trolling, marketers must understand what drives this type of consumer misbehavior.
In explaining trolling, prior research resorts to attributing trolling to “problematic” characteristics of perpetrators (e.g., Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus 2014; Craker and March 2016; March et al. 2017; Sest and March 2017) and/or to the anonymity offered by the Internet (e.g., Binns 2012; Donath 1999; Griffiths 2014; Hardaker 2010, 2013). Yet, recent findings challenge such explanations by showing that under the right circumstances anyone can become a troll (Cheng et al. 2017), that the same individual might engage in both trolling and non-trolling within the same channel (Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018), and that verbal barrages occur within more and less anonymous online places (Ewing, Wagstaff and Powell 2013). Researching actors involved in trolling behaviors in order to examine the making of trolling (see also Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018) rather than the nature of trolls could contribute to a more rounded and actionable understanding of these misbehaviors.
An Actor-Network Theory Perspective
To explore the assemblages of actors that allow or perpetuate online trolling, this study employs actor-network theory
ANT offers a promising approach to studying misbehaviors as practices that are in the making. Furthermore, being focused on the interplay of the material (non-human) and expressive/semiotic elements (Canniford and Bajde 2016), ANT is well suited to study online trolling behaviors that embody the complex interplay between the human (e.g., troll) and non-human (e.g., computer, Internet) actors. ANT's proposition that non-human actors are not passive objects but rather have agency too (i.e., they can act) (Latour 2005) is particularly useful in identifying different types of actors that are involved in trolling.
Methodology
Research Approach
To trace the actors and their associations in the performance of trolling, we adopted a practice-focused multi-sited ethnographic research approach. The focus of the observations was on the socio-material practices (“praxis”), rather than on the culture (“ethno”). We drew on multiple case studies (Stake 2006) that provided insight into different manifestations of trolling behaviors. Following the principles of purposeful sampling (Patton 2015), we investigated five different cases of trolling: (1) playful trolling (Ollie), (2) good old-fashioned trolling (Alfie), (3) shock trolling (Jon), (4) online pranking and raiding (Flinn and Antonio), and (5) fake customer-service trolling (Otto). To identify potential cases, we conducted keyword searches (for “troll” OR “trolling”) on Google, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit; we looked for potential trolls when using internet in our daily life; and we asked our professional and social network for referrals to any troll accounts. The five cases that we decided to focus upon were selected for the following reasons. First, all cases represented trolling—they included behaviors that corresponded to the definition of trolling (see Golf-Papez and Veer 2017). Moreover, they were performed by self-identified trolls—people who, at least once and outside the trolling act, publicly or privately admitted to engaging in trolling or at least did not dispute being called a troll by others. Second, the selected trolling cases exhibited continuity (i.e., the trolling acts were done frequently) and could be observed (e.g., it was possible to trace the trolling activity). Third, to capture a variety of trolling behaviors, the cases varied in terms of trolling strategies (e.g., shock vs. digress) (Hardaker 2013), channels where trolling occurs (e.g., video games vs. comments sections), number of people trolling (e.g., one troll vs. a group of trolls), and who the target of the trolling was (e.g., online community manager vs. gamer) (see Table A1 in Appendix A). This sampling approach allowed us to both document diversity of actors and their actions and identify common patterns that cut across that diversity (Patton 2015). The cases, carrying the names of their respective troll(s), who served as a point of departure in our process of following the actors, are presented in Appendix A.
Data Collection
Our collection of archival, elicited, and reflexive (Kozinets 2010) data started in October 2015 and concluded in August 2017 (for an overview see Table 1 and Table 2). In contrast to prior qualitative consumer research, which rarely took secondary data as primary data (Fischer and Parmentier 2010), this research predominantly drew on archival data. Our main research method was non-participant covert and overt, asynchronous and synchronous observation of trolling practices. During our 330 hours of observation of trolling, the focus was on staying close to the practices (Mol 2002) and on following the actors and their associations (Latour 2005). The observations were supplemented by seven in-depth, semi-standardized interviews (Arsel 2017; Berg and Lune 2012): five interviews were conducted with the main protagonists of the selected cases and two interviews were conducted with trolls (i.e., Luke and Eli) who did not belong to the cases, but exhibited trolling behaviors shown in the cases. All interviews but one were conducted via instant messaging and revolved around the questions of “what happened and who did what when” (Langley 1999, p. 692), providing background information on the context behind the trolling practices. Interviews lasted from 75 minutes to 111 minutes. In addition to the interviews, we exchanged short electronic messages with trolls and community managers on Reddit. To contextualize the data, we collected and reviewed various documents, such as social platforms’ terms of use and community guidelines, trolling-relevant laws, trolling-related newspaper articles, blog entries, and other materials, including podcasts on online community management. The data collection was accompanied by extensive field-noting and informed with ongoing data analysis.
The Outline of Data Collection Techniques Employed in the Study.
Specification of the Utilized Methods and Data Sources.
Data Analysis
The data analysis started with an in-depth exploration of a single actor-network, treating each case as a distinct representation of trolling. The coding focused on identifying the actors and registering the associations among them. Guided by the principle of following the actors (Latour 2005), we examined who and what the troll actor associated with (i.e., influencing and/or being influenced by). For each identified association, we noted the type of association and the place of association. Considering all the networks, we identified 300 actors and 1308 interactions between the actors. Table 3 provides an overview of the number of actors coded within each case. To aid the analysis we visually mapped out the networks with the help of the network visualization tool Gephi. An illustrative example of the visualization of the actor-network is provided in Appendix B. Gephi was used as a tool that allowed a different view on the data and not as a tool to analyze the networks in the manner of social network analysis (SNA) (for an overview of differences between ANT and SNA see Venturini, Munk and Jacomy 2016).
Number of Coded Actors Within a Particular Actor-Network.
After identification of the actors and their interactions within a single actor-network, we started comparing and contrasting studied actor-networks. Our cross-case analysis was shaped by the research questions. First, codes were assembled based on being distinct elements of the same construct (Belk, Fischer and Kozinets 2012). In this regard, the outcome of our analyses was different types of actors performing in trolling. Second, the categorization of the codes was made based on codes representing phases in a trolling process (Belk, Fischer and Kozinets 2012). In this regard, an outcome of the analysis was the process of how trolling occurs. Third, a final stage of the analysis was concerned with how the codes can be related based on the premise that some codes can be interpreted as assisting in understanding condition that give rise to a focal phenomenon (Belk, Fischer and Kozinets 2012). The understanding of how trolling behaviors are sustained emerged out of this type of analysis and interpretation. In general, the analysis process was iterative, including the repeated going back and forth between the raw data, codes, and emerging theorizing (Belk, Fischer and Kozinets 2012).
To ensure the trustworthiness of our findings we conducted triangulations across data sources (e.g., comparing trolling practices of different informants) and types of data collected (e.g., comparing elicited and archival data) (Tracy 2010). In the process of triangulation, we paid special attention to comparing and contrasting the data collected from our observations and the data collected by personal interaction (i.e., elicited data). The convergences and disjunctures were examined and provided an opportunity for interpretation building (Arnould and Wallendorf 1994). To further enhance the credibility of our research, we conducted member reflections, inviting our participants to clarify, question, critique, and affirm our emerging findings (Tracy 2010). In reporting our findings, we focus on descriptions, rather than explanations; this approach is aligned with ANT (Latour 2005) and observational research.
Findings: Trolling in Action
Our analysis reveals that trolling is performed by a collection of human and non-human actors interacting more or less in concert with each other. The following sections present what and who these actors are and how trolling emerges and is sustained through the associations among the actors. The answers to these questions are conceptually captured in a framework presented in Figure 1 and explained in the sections that follow.
Trolling in Action: Actors and Associations Enacting Trolling.
What Actors Are Involved in Trolling?
Considering all five explored networks of trolling, we identified nine categories of actors participating in trolling: troll(s), target(s), medium, other trolls, audience, trolling artifacts, regulators, revenue streams, and assistants. These categories are defined and illustrated with data in Table 4.
Description and Illustration of the Categories of Actors Involved in Trolling.
The categories of actors should be seen as distinct in terms of the role they play in the trolling act (e.g., trolls perform trolling and medium hosts trolling). That said, individual actors (e.g., the like button) can play more than one role in the performance of a trolling act (e.g., in some cases, the like button served as a regulator and a revenue stream) and a particular actor could play different roles in different trolling acts (e.g., a troll in the context of one act can be transformed into an assistant in the context of other act). Overall, our analyses revealed that some actors are essential for trolling to manifest and others keep trolling alive. In different ways, the act of trolling can be interpreted as a side effect—an unintended consequence—of the actions of the actors and their interactions.
How Does Trolling (Un)Intentionally Emerge?
An assemblage of three associating actors—troll(s), target(s), and medium—must be in place for a trolling act to emerge. For the trolls to accomplish their programs of action (i.e., to troll) they have to first ally themselves with the medium. When asked how I should start trolling, Luke replied: “OK so the first thing you would want to do is find your trolling platform where do you think the easiest place to troll for you would be.” Overall, “the easiest place to troll” was considered to be a place that has fitting 1 technical affordance, discernible 2 medium culture, and/or absent or incapable regulators. It is one of these or a combination of these three characteristics that make a particular medium trolling-friendly.
First, a medium conducive to trolling is the channel that offers attractive features that match the troll's capabilities. For instance, trolls that lack skills in improvisation will be less likely to choose a platform that is based on verbal communication, as it is illustrated in Eli's comment below: In the verbal part of communication, there is the constant threat of revealing oneself by laughing and a constant threat of creating contradictions due to improvisation required in the verbal art. If one is communicating textually, one is given complete control of the engagement. The post can be edited and reviewed, the fine details being corrected and added as needed, and then you may post a verified, convincing post that will fool your enemies. It is not as fine an art as that of the verbal troll, but it is the preferred one.
A medium conducive to trolling is also a medium that has a discernible medium culture—this is a set of shared and easily observable attitudes and practices that characterize a medium. All trolls provided examples of how the knowledge of the medium culture informed their selection of the trolling places and shaped the nature of the trolling. Alfie, for instance, reported that he avoids trolling on Fox News, as people there are “extremely right-wing” and “extremely angry” and it “is harder to turn [the conversation] into something light and silly.” On the other hand, he likes trolling within online brand communities, as community managers “tend to have to respond to everything” and they respond “with this lawyerly, … condescending fake friendliness.” Figure 2 illustrates how Alfie took advantage of this knowledge in communicating with a brand of canned baked beans. Several other trolls indicated that the guarantee of receiving a response and the predictability of the responses make corporate social media channels a good place to troll. Overall, this finding further supports the notion that “trolling performances require an understanding of the idiosyncratic elements of a given community” (Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018, 21).
An example of Alfie trolling brand community manager on Facebook corporate channel.
Finally, a third factor playing a role in the troll's choice of a channel for trolling was the presence of the regulators who could deter the potential trolling act or delimit the occurring trolling act. Trolls mentioned that some places were particularly good for trolling as they did not employ regulators (e.g., no human moderators) or the regulators were incapable (e.g., human moderators that are too slow in applying their actions). These aspects are illustrated in the comment of one of the raiders, who stated that a particular forum was “made for trolling” as “[t]he Admins go home on the weekends” and “[a]ll the mods can do is lock threads, they cannot ban.”
On a medium, trolls proactively or reactively search for a target—an online user who would take the bait. Our observations of live trolling and interviews with the trolls suggest that trolls do not seem to be guided by elaborate targeting criteria: rather, they look for the first person who would respond (see Figure C.1. in Appendix C). Only an online user who has been deceived is translated into the target. As indicated by Eli: “If there is not a convincing proposition made, there shall not be a victim for the troll, no engagement, and thus, no win.” A deceived online user (i.e., target) is the last necessary actor needed for the trolling act to emerge. The process of emergence of the trolling act through the associations among the troll, trolling-friendly medium, and target, which has been described in this section, is illustrated in the left side of the Figure 1.
How Is Trolling (Un)Intentionally Sustained?
While the presence of troll, trolling-friendly medium, and target are necessary for the trolling act to manifest, other actors (i.e., audience, other trolls, artifacts, regulators, revenue streams, and assistants) through their associations with the punctualized actor (i.e., the trolling act) and with the individual main three actors more or less intentionally act favorably toward trolling. As shown in the right side of the Figure 1, we identified four ways in which associating actors more or less intentionally support trolling by celebrating it, boosting it, facilitating it, and normalizing it. These distinct, yet interrelated, practices are defined in Table 5 and presented in the sections that follow.
Overview of the Interrelated Practices Supporting Trolling.
* Troll, target and medium are present in all trolling acts.
Celebrating trolling behaviors
One of the most surprising findings of our research is that trolling behaviors and their perpetrators are praised and honored, in particular by the actors that correspond to the categories of the audience, artifacts, revenue streams, and other trolls. Some trolls managed to build a strong base of fans—people who were following and liking their work (see Figure C.2. in Appendix C). For example, more than 1,000 people typically tuned in within the first five minutes of Ollie's livestreaming of trolling people within multiplayer video games. His videos based on the livestreams had, on average, more than 500,000 views each, while one of his videos received more than 10,000 shares and 1.5 million views. Trolls’ fans actively supported trolling by showering the trolls with compliments. Under one of the Ollie's videos a fan wrote: “First, I’d like to say I’ve seen a fair share of ‘troll’ youtubers. I’ve seen the big ones, the little ones. But you, [Ollie]. You fucking mastered it.” Trolls seemed to appreciate such positive comments, sporadically replying to followers and receiving in return another shot of adulation. “He himself comments on my post! I am so incredibly happy,” wrote one of Alfie's followers. Being hero-worshipped influenced the trolls to feel indebted to followers and pressured them to create new trolling content. “Lately I’m not a fan of myself due to the low turnout of new content but I’m really trying to change that,” posted Alfie on his Facebook page, apologizing to his followers for his recent trolling inactivity.
A troll's fans were not the only actors celebrating trolls and trolling behaviors. An important group of actors, which to a large extent unintentionally contributed to the celebrity status of some trolls, was the mass media, which has regularly shared screenshots showing trolling, praised funny trolling examples, and sensationalized the more distasteful ones (see Figure C.3. in Appendix C). Five of our interviewed trolls—both “glamourous” and “notorious” (Rojek 2001) ones—reported that being featured in the media “felt good” and made them feel like celebrities. “WE ARE FAMOUS WE ARE FUCKING FAMOUS” cried one of the raiders, celebrating the news that their McDonald's fire alarm prank call got featured on NBC news. Such findings are in line with the research within the celebrity studies field, which maintains that the phenomenon of celebrity and media are closely linked (Marwick 2015; Rojek 2001).
A troll's public impact through their capacity to generate fans or attract media attention is not something that happens by chance—our observations highlighted a variety of self-presentation practices (e.g., carefully selecting profile photos and social media cover photos, being consistent in the style of trolling) that trolls use to self-brand themselves. This suggests that the term “microcelebrities” (Marwick 2015; Senft 2013) does not apply only to the consumers taking selfies with brands (Rokka and Canniford 2016), political activists (Tufekci 2013), and fashion bloggers (Marwick 2013) but also to misbehaving consumers. In this view, trolling thrives within the attention economy, in which the ability to attract attention is a status symbol and people value whatever helps them get attention (Marwick and boyd 2011).
Boosting trolling behaviors
Our analyses suggest that trolling is being supported by the associating actors promoting it. Representatives from all categories of actors have been found to play this role, some of them directly and intentionally, and others indirectly and unknowingly encouraging trolling. Examples of the actors from the first category would be a troll's followers who demand new trolling content and who are asking the troll to troll them (see Figure C.4. in Appendix C). Some online users went so far as to manipulate their online identity and position themselves as a potential target. Several trolls mentioned how some users “make themselves easy target for ignorant and inexperienced trolls” (Eli) and “feign naivete or weakness with the intention of becoming a target” (raiders). Interestingly, these “wannabe targets” have been noticed in the cases of both glamorous and notorious trolls. A possible explanation for this is that “wannabe targets” are trolls themselves. Another possible explanation is that such online users, like trolls, engage in microcelebrity practices (Marwick 2015; Senft 2013), using trolling to appeal to existing followers or to gain new followers.
The quest for attention is supported by the infrastructure of the social media, which offers comparable and quantifiable metrics of one's success (Marwick and Boyd 2011). Non-humans such as the number of views, “likes,” shares, and followers act as a currency in this attention economy. A trolling act that is rich in currency—that is being viewed, “liked,” and shared—sells trolling to other online users and to the trolls themselves, suggesting that this is a potential way of grabbing public attention. Otto, for instance, “started working on [trolling] every day” after he was pleasantly surprised by “how much it got shared and liked.” At the same time, the ubiquity of social media metrics seems to inspire other trolls to push themselves harder. The videos that received many views and presented well-executed raids were the ones that, reportedly, motivated the raiders to engage in raiding in hope of achieving similar or better results. Trolls reported how, in an attempt to outrank others, they had to be funnier, more provocative, or more shocking.
Social media metrics are not the only non-human actors boosting trolling. One unanticipated finding is that some regulators actually promote trolling, rather than discouraging it. During our fieldwork, we observed how different regulators’ reactions such as enforced sanctions (e.g., down-voting or deleting trolling comments) actually indicated to the troll that his or her actions were successful. During the interviews, trolls reported that the reward for their trolling is when the target “starts mass banning everyone” (Antonio) or when people threaten them, claiming that “their brother/uncle/neighbour are in the police, cia, have [his] IP, are coming around to kill [him]” (Jon). The regulators’ attempts to stop trolling were often publicly mocked (see Figure C.5. in Appendix C). What is more, even the most severe penalties (e.g., getting your account permanently or temporarily suspended) were considered to be, in Jon's words, not only “part and parcel” of the trolling but also a badge of honor. Flinn, for instance, proudly shared with us that he had been 16 times permanently banned from RaidBoard and that this makes him the most banned user on this forum. Several trolls stated that they use the trolling sanctions as a means of further provocation—Jon, for instance, reported that opening new accounts after just being banned was like “waving a red flag to a bull.” Such findings support Herring et al.'s (2002) notion that responses to trolling (e.g., a reply from the brand manager or a trolling sanction) are used as a base for further attacks. Moreover, several trolls reported that they have selected places to troll based on witnessing the responses that other trolls received. In this way, the responses to trolling seem to serve as an invitation to other trolls in the same way that publicly rewarding online complainers may lead to an increase in complainers (Gallaugher and Ransbotham 2010).
Trolling is also boosted by being a potential source of income. In contrast to Phillips (2015, 8), who explicitly stated that “trolling behaviors aren’t rewarded with a paycheck,” our research shows that some trolls, in particular the glamorous and celebrity ones, are being paid for trolling. These trolls were selling their mischievous ways to their fans, who donated money to them. Two of our troll informants, Ollie and Alfie, were both sharing their trolling content on Patreon. Offering his patrons three different packages, Alfie reported he was earning $184 per month. Other reported types of income included money from the ads that YouTube placed within their videos and from collaborations with various businesses. In relation to the latter, Alfie reported that he had been receiving requests “from small business owners asking [him] to troll their page.”
Besides bringing money, trolling behaviors rewarded trolls with an experience of pleasant emotional states, such as feelings of thrill, having fun, relief of boredom, and relief of tension. The “fun element” of trolling was not only mentioned in the interviews with the trolls but also came across during live observations of trolling, in which the trolls laughed out loud and seemed cheerful and in good spirits. The trolls’ need to have fun seems to stem from their professional lives. Several trolls mentioned the therapeutic value of trolling, with this type of misbehavior providing trolls an avenue to “wind down after work” (Jon). This can be observed in the case of Otto, who in the media interview talked about how trolling helped him cope with his customer representative job: I think it stemmed from the frustration of having to work in customer-facing positions being forced to wear a fake smile and be polite to customers, regardless of how entitled or unreasonable or even abusive they are. It was a good way to lighten up what can be a very stressful job.
In this sense, trolling can be understood as a coping mechanism or an unintended consequence of the emotional labor involved in customer-facing jobs, where employees are obliged to interact with consumers courteously, regardless of how the consumers behave (Yagil and Shultz 2017). In this view, trolling may represent an attempt to attenuate the perceived power imbalance created in the encounters between the customer service representatives and (problematic) customers.
Facilitating trolling behaviors
Some of the actors, in particular assistants and regulators, seem to actively and passively make trolling easier. In the process of trolling, trolls use, misuse, and abuse the features and functionalities offered on online platforms. The public display of performance metrics (e.g., showing number of likes or views), quick and easy creation of new online accounts and online groups, ability to tag other users, the option to set alerts so that you are notified when an online user starts streaming, easy sharing of the content, suggestions of “similar others,” and permissible revisions of the posted content are only a few of the features facilitating online mischief-making consumer misbehaviors such as trolling. These examples highlight that the functions trolls use for trolling are in their essence no different from the functions other online users use. While, for instance, an “ordinary” Facebook user employs the feature “people you may know” to add new friends, a troll such as Jon uses it to add his troll friends to a fake Facebook group. By mobilizing non-humans that automatically suggest the accounts of other misbehaving consumers, Jon saves time and simplifies his work. Together this indicates that online platforms have an infrastructure in place that allows consumers to misbehave with minimal effort. In terms of ANT, since online misbehaving consumers typically do not have problems with enrolling the non-humans offered by the platforms, these non-humans “must” have interests that are in harmony with the interests of the troll. It should be noted that such an argument does not imply that the infrastructure of online social platforms enables trolling behaviors. Rather, this study argues that it passively facilitates it. Trolling behaviors such as pranks, practical jokes, and horseplay are not exclusively limited to online worlds, yet it seems that the online world makes such behaviors easier to conduct. One potential explanation for this may be that online environments offer a plethora of options to control the performance of trolling—Eli, for instance, explained that while a troll trolling in the analogue world could be disclosed by starting to laugh out loud, an online troll can use a mute button to hide the revealing laughter from the targets.
The ability to disguise misbehaving seems to be one of the key facilitators of trolling behaviors. One manner in which misbehaving consumers try to disguise themselves is through enrolling into the network actors that help them hide their “real-life” identities. This research to some extent agrees with the scholars who claim that trolling behaviors are facilitated by anonymity (e.g., Griffiths 2014; Hardaker 2013). This has been typically observed in the case of notorious trolls, who closely guarded their offline identities. Raiders, for instance, reported that they are using proxy servers or virtual private networks to mask their real IP addresses when trolling. On the other hand, at the same time, this paper further supports Coles and West (2016) in challenging the idea that trolling behaviors can be attributed to anonymity. Some trolls—the glamorous ones and the ones with a strong base of followers—are not particularly worried about being anonymous. In fact, while they are not posting under real names, they make sure that their trolling names are associated with real names via other channels, such as media interviews. While such a finding is surprising, it may be explained by the fact that such trolls have managed to build strong personal brands that they want to protect and nurture. Their trolling behaviors are typically more innocent in nature and disclosing their real identities allows the trolls to reap the benefits of trolling beyond the online world and to maintain control over their online trolling identities. As Alfie, a comedian by profession, explained during the interview: … trolling is a comedy job anyway . . . when people start imitating me or there is this rumor that [Alfie's pseudonym] is like anon, just thousands of people, I just correct the record by saying: no, his name is [Alfie's real name and surname], for better for worse, he is one person, this is what he does. Just to keep it from turning into meme that I have no control over.
The affordances of the online environment make sociotechnical practices such as trolling behaviors also more durable. If offline trolling may be more ephemeral in nature, online trolling has the potential to be preserved forever in the forms of screenshots and videos that, as we observed, are circulating through the network for years after an actual trolling event has occurred. This durability of materials is “a relational effect” (Law 1992, 387), supported by the actors, such as assistants who preserve materials, audience members who share the materials, and regulators who by being ineffective in interrupting trolling acts allow trolling to be materialized and/or shared. The seemingly “passive” attitude toward managing trolling behaviors on the part of regulators, particularly human moderators on social media platforms, is not a surprising finding—prior research has shown that marketers lean toward ignoring consumer misbehaviors (Berry and Seiders 2008; Fullerton and Punj 2004). The problem is that by ignoring misbehaviors such as trolling, particularly in the cases when they are not the targets but the medium for trolling, marketers facilitate trolling by giving trolls free access to the targets. While this would be an example of the actor (i.e., marketers) actively facilitating trolling, most of the time the facilitation was passive in nature with actors unknowingly or unintentionally supporting trolls and trolling.
Normalizing trolling behaviors
The associating actors, in particular, the trolling artifacts, other trolls, audience, and regulators, play a role in positioning trolling as an ordinary, taken-for-granted part of the online experience. The trolling artifacts, representing trolling behaviors that occurred in a variety of online places and in a particular online place on a variety of occasions, insinuate that trolling is a widespread phenomenon. The audience members play an important role in circulating these artifacts, thereby reinforcing this perception of the ubiquity of trolling. One thing that makes the artifacts such as trolling screenshots shareable is that they are easy to understand. They seem to share a similar destiny with memes, which once were only comprehensible by insiders but have now lost their relative obscurity and gone mainstream (Phillips 2015). That screenshots of trolling are shareable, or as Green and Jenkins (2011) would put it, “spreadable,” connotes that people who share them find the content worth watching and worth sharing.
However, audience members do not normalize trolling only by watching and sharing; they also normalize it by not actively condemning trolling or trolls. While we observed situations when the audience members verbally attacked the trolls or tried to help out the targets upon witnessing a trolling act, such attempts were rare. Most of them were badly executed and therefore prone to furthering trolls’ manipulation, or were at least less visible and quickly silenced by the fans of the trolls. Audience support, executed through viewing the video or by blaming the target (e.g., “[the target] totally deserved it, you can’t be that stupid”) helped trolls by neutralizing potential guilt. Receiving upvotes, likes, and shares connoted to the misbehaving consumers that they are engaging in perhaps problematic but certainly acceptable behaviors. As one troll put it: “The audience obviously likes what I’m doing here.”
In saying that the associations between the trolling actors normalize trolling, it has to be noted that this process of normalization was better represented by some online settings than others. To put it differently, trolling behaviors seem to be more expected within the particular online places, and the same misbehavior that constituted “normal trouble” (Cavan 1966, 18) and were thus ignored within one place were severely sanctioned at another. This suggests that consumer misbehaviors are normalized and localized in place (Cavan 1966). Such an argument further supports the idea that how misbehaviors, in particular trolling, are received depends on the context in which they are enacted (Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018; Hardaker 2013; Kirman, Linehan and Lawson 2012; Sanfilippo, Yang and Fichman 2017).
Implications
Theoretical Implications
In contrast to prior studies, which overwhelmingly focus on studying the trolls (e.g., Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus 2014; Craker and March 2016; March et al. 2017; Sest and March 2017), this study shifts the focus from the trolls to the act of trolling itself (see also Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018). While prior research maintains that trolling behaviors stem from innate factors such as a troll's personality (e.g., Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus 2014; Craker and March 2016) or from situational factors such as exposure to prior troll posts written by other online users (Cheng et al. 2017), this paper suggests that trolling behavior is a relational phenomenon, arising out of the relationships between various actors. In this sense, and as suggested by our theoretical model of how trolling comes about and is nourished (Figure 1), the success of consumer misbehaviors such as trolling depends on the whole network of associating actors. These actors include not only trolls, targets, and medium but also other actors such as regulators, artifacts, assistants, audience, revenue streams, and other trolls who celebrate, boost, facilitate, and normalize trolling. These practices support trolling individually and interconnectedly, where one practice has an effect on another (e.g., the celebration of trolling can lead to the normalization of trolling). In this sense one practice, supporting trolling, could be interpreted as a side effect of another practice. Our study identifies other ways in which trolling behaviors could be interpreted as a side effect. While from the troll's perspective trolling acts are always deliberate, the discussion that follows presents how trolling could be understood as an unintended but not necessarily unanticipated or undesirable consequence of the interactions between the actors joined in the performance of trolling.
First, our research shows that trolling is supported by actions and non-humans “initiated for other purposes” (Giddens 1993, 765) rather than for intentionally supporting trolls or trolling. In this context, we contribute to research on trolling and consumer misbehaviors by unearthing two previously “invisible” actors in trolling: audience members and non-humans. Extending the prior research that argues that trolling is done for trolls’ amusement (e.g., Baker 2001; Dahlberg 2001; Hardaker 2010, 2013), our findings suggest that trolling behaviors have entertainment value also for their spectators. These spectators exert power “in actu” (Latour 1984, p. 265): they strongly influence the actions of trolls and other actors and allow the trolls to draw the power from the network (Labrecque et al. 2013) and gain some sort of celebrity status through misbehaving. In the light of our finding that even the most “passive” audience members, consuming trolling vicariously (Hartmann, Wiertz and Arnould 2015), encourage trolling as their presence is noted and made visible to the troll by non-humans such as the number of views button, we question the relevance of framing users as passive or active (cf. Pagani, Hofacker and Goldsmith 2011). Instead, we advocate for thinking about them in terms of their actions being more or less visible.
Making audience members’ actions more visible is only one way how non-humans (various material or technical elements) support trolling. This study enhances the understanding of the role of non-humans (bots, buttons, notifications, tech features) in the performance of trolling and illustrates how misbehaving consumers use non-humans in ways unintended by the marketers. Our contribution lies in showing that trolls as an instance of “creative consumers” (Berthon et al. 2007) do not actually need to adapt, modify, or transform non-human entities to further their goal to troll, as many of these non-human entities support trolling by design.
The finding that trolling behaviors are in great measure supported by the affordances of online platforms suggests that trolling is to some extent an anticipated side effect. What is more, our study shows that trolling could be interpreted as a desirable and thus “permitted outcome” (de Zwart 2015, 295). We demonstrate that consumer misbehaviors such as trolling can positively affect targets, trolls, and their followers, platforms, and bystanders, complementing prior research that has identified positive impacts of trolling on online communities (Coles and West 2016; Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018; Herring et al. 2002; Hopkinson 2013; Phillips 2015). This the first study to propose that, considering the potential positive impacts of trolling, some marketers might be interested in encouraging rather than discouraging these misbehaviors.
On the other hand, this research contributes by highlighting how mischief-making consumer misbehaviors such as trolling may be exacerbated by the marketers’ efforts to manage them. While within the social marketing field, Peattie, Peattie and Newcombe (2016) demonstrate that marketing interventions may have negative unintended consequences, and the possibility of counterproductive consumer misbehavior managing strategies has been briefly mentioned by Fullerton and Punj (2004), we add empirical support to the idea that there may be surprising unintended consequences in the context of managing consumer misbehaviors. This empirical finding also provides a new understanding of the role of compliance of the actors in the success of the network. Namely, our study demonstrates that the lack of compliance among the actors (e.g., between regulators and a troll) may stabilize and energize the network, rather than destabilize it, as a classical interpretation of actor-network theory would suggest (e.g., Callon 1984).
Managerial Implications
A better understanding of the trolling practice allows for the development of more tailored, and arguably more effective, ways to manage trolling. Taking into consideration the presented conceptual model of the manifestation of trolling behaviors (see Figure 1), individual trolling acts can be prevented or disrupted by removing from the actor-network at least one of the three key actors that are needed for every trolling act to occur: the troll, the trolling-friendly medium, or the target.
First, to remove the troll from the actor-network, managers need to act on an understanding of what attracts trolls to trolling and what spoils trolling for them. While our research has not focused on examining what motivates trolls to troll, our findings suggest that some trolls used trolling to blow off steam after finishing their work as a customer service representative. Such a finding indicates that active management of the emotional labor of service employees could play a role in preventing trolling. Another way trolls could be deterred from trolling is by putting them under unreasonable pressure by asking them to troll more or in a particular way, as good trolling requires planning and inspiration and trolls were found to be discouraged by unrealistic demands. Trolling as a form of play or mischief-making is a “free activity” and “[o]ne plays only if and when one wishes to” (Caillois 2001, 7).
Besides removing the troll from the network, trolling acts may be stopped or interrupted by making the online place less or not at all friendly to trolling. As can be seen from Figure 1, an online place that has a fitting technical affordance, discernible medium culture, and/or absent or incapable regulators represents a trolling-friendly place. Considering that the technical affordance and medium culture are difficult to change, the most practical approach to make an online place less friendly to trolling is by employing regulators—human and nonhuman actors (e.g., human moderators, autoblock feature) that are capable of dealing with trolling. Our observations of how trolling is (not) enacted suggest that regulators should give the impression that a particular channel is actively monitored (e.g., displaying the online moderator's status as online) and that sanctions for trolling are applied swiftly (e.g., auto-banning users who keep trolling after being warned once).
Third, managers can disrupt trolling by designing strategies that minimize the chances of a person becoming a target of trolling. In this regard, the actor-network within which a trolling act is performed may be disrupted by removing one of its obligatory points of passage through which an “ordinary” online user becomes a target of trolling—this is deception. In this sense, managerial and public policy mechanisms that are designed to help recognize trolling and trolls are of key importance. An example of such a mechanism would be to introduce troll badges that would mark online users as trolls and warn their potential targets. Such a tactic would be appropriate for cases when a target of the trolling is a consumer. In the case of brands being the targets, online community managers should be trained to identify (il)legitimate complainants, in order to make sure that they are fair to consumers with genuine complaints (Reynolds and Harris 2005) who exhibit some troll-like characteristics.
While removing the troll, trolling-friendly medium, or target would, theoretically speaking, break the network and prevent trolling acts from occurring and/or continuing, we need to acknowledge that these strategies are not always practical, workable, or desirable in practice. In particular, we challenge the effectiveness and feasibility of focusing on removing the trolls, as among all the actors in the network, trolls may be the most difficult to manage: they are difficult to both identify and catch. There is an additional challenge with the removal of the troll from the network in the sense that this does not necessarily lead to the collapse of the network. The trolling networks consist of many other actors the trolls did or did not intentionally enlist who, at least temporarily, continue associating in the absence of the troll. Together, this suggests that marketing practitioners who exclusively concentrate their efforts on deterring perpetrators of trolling-like misbehaviors are, at best, only temporarily solving the problems of misbehavior and most likely only displacing those behaviors to other times and places.
A better option to manage misbehaving consumers would be to manage the socio-technical networks that allow and feed these misbehaviors. The findings of this study suggest that without managing the audience and other, at first glance invisible, actors, it will be difficult to stymy trolling behaviors. To break the networks within which trolling exist and thrive, marketing practitioners should develop and employ actions that do not unintentionally support trolling by celebrating it, boosting it, facilitating it, or normalizing it. An example of a trolling-management tactic in the spirit of suppressing the celebration of trolling behaviors would be to hide the viewing metrics on the trolling content. Demonetizing trolling content by marking such content as advertising-unfriendly is an example of a marketing tactic that would not boost trolling. To stop facilitating trolling, marketers of platforms should re-introduce friction for creation of new accounts. Last, to stop normalizing more distasteful and notorious trolling, brand community managers should be quick and decisive in imposing sanctions (e.g., sending warnings, banning users) for trolling that violates their community rules and could negatively impact brand performance or the experience of other online users.
While eliminating trolling entirely might not be possible, our research suggests that some brands and online communities might strive to encourage trolling in anticipation of positive side effects such as increased traffic to their communities. In any case, managers should avoid completely ignoring trolling and other similar misbehaviors, as management inaction violates consumers’ expectations that marketers will address these misbehaviors (Bacile et al. 2018; Fullerton and Punj 2004) and could impact brands adversely (see Gensler et al. 2013). In selecting strategies to address trolling, managers need to balance the need to protect users from potential harm of trolling and “the need to enable a diversity of expressions – including ironic, disruptive, or playful ones – to emerge” within their communities (Cruz, Seo and Rex 2018, p. 26).
Future Research Opportunities
Future research should continue to examine the relationships between the different actors involved in trolling. One fruitful area for further work would be to examine systematically the (un)intended effects of online trolling on the targets of trolling (i.e., brands and consumers) and its observers. Firms would benefit from understanding how trolling affects brands differently. A particularly interesting and currently unexplored research topic would be the investigation of trolling in the context when a brand is not the target or the medium but rather the perpetrator of trolling, mocking their competitors, person-brands, or public (e.g., Future Proof Media 2019). Future research could also investigate the management of trolling, especially from the perspective of how different actors independently and collaboratively attempt to deal with trolling. It would be useful to better understand how management of trolling on the part of one actor impacts other actors’ actions, their (community) engagement, and their attitudes toward the community/brand or medium where trolling occurs.
Most of the limitations of our research (e.g., focus on more successful or renowned trolls, silencing other actors’ points of view by taking the trolls as a point of departure in exploring the network, and small number of interviews) could be addressed in future studies. One limitation, however, is unavoidable and an unintended consequence in itself. By reporting about trolling, this study unintentionally celebrates, potentially boosts, facilitates, and normalizes such misbehaviors. At best, our research expands our knowledge of this poorly understood phenomenon. At worst, it is a guide on how to troll.
Footnotes
Appendices
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.