A few weeks ago my daughter called me about the postings on the local radio station’s website - she was concerned for my safety because of the tone of the posts. I shrugged it off as simply ranting by kooky people, especially since they are mostly anonymous.
However, shortly thereafter a major search engine referred to a new study about ranting on the web. I looked up some information and found that both reading and writing on rant-sites tend to be unhealthy practices, suggesting persons with maladaptive expression styles.
A study which focused solely on rant websites that are devoted to back-and-forth virtual screaming has implications for Facebook and Twitter, and even news sites and blogs. The combination of being anonymous by using a screen name and having "social distance" reduce an individual's sense of restraint or caution about how to interact. Websites that function as virtual punching bags reinforce harmful behavior.
For some people, venting online is caused by a sense of powerlessness and a feeling that they just can't make a difference. A survey of users of a number of popular rant sites found that users scored unusually high on trait anger (how anger-prone one is in general) and experienced many negative consequences related to anger, such as verbal and physical fights, damaged relationships, property damage, and dangerous driving. Nearly half reported that someone had told them they had an anger problem, and over a third admitted that this was true.
Published research on the content of rant sites found that "people are angry at big groups of people: Democrats, Republicans, illegal immigrants… People want to feel they're doing something and think just expressing their feelings to the world will help."
"Most of these sites encourage venting as a way of dealing with anger…They think of venting as a healthy adaptive approach, and it's not…. Venting often results in short term feelings of calmness and relaxation; however venting is associated with increases in anger in the long term.”
In spite of the fact that venting is likely to backfire in the long run, belief in its value is widespread and even encouraged. Popular self-help books promote venting, and there was even once a billboard in Missouri that said: “Hit a Pillow, Hit a Wall, But Don’t Hit Your Kids!” Hitting a pillow is obviously preferable to hitting one’s kids, but ironically such advice may actually increase the likelihood of real violence rather than preventing it.
In one study, participants were asked about the benefit of reading other’s rants. Responses included: simple curiosity (78.1 percent), entertainment (56.3 percent), a sense of community (50 percent), and making them feel better about their own lives by comparison (37.5 percent).
In response to an open-ended question regarding why they would go back, participants described the following: found the Web site ‘‘interesting’’ (66 percent), found the posts ‘‘funny’’ (33 percent), thought the Web site would help ‘‘feel less alone’’ (17 percent), and thought the Web site would provide a ‘‘an outlet’’ (17 percent).
1. Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, MBA, BCIA, Editor-in-Chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, from the Interactive Media Institute, San Diego, CA.
2. Anger on the Internet: The Perceived Value of Rant-Sites by Ryan C. Martin, PhD; Kelsey Ryan Coyier, BS; Leah M. VanSistine, BS; and Kelly L. Schroeder, BS
3. Internet Ranting and the Myth of Catharsis; Why ranting and venting are terrible ways of handling anger; by Scott A. McGreal published on March 28, 2013 in Psychology Today
However, shortly thereafter a major search engine referred to a new study about ranting on the web. I looked up some information and found that both reading and writing on rant-sites tend to be unhealthy practices, suggesting persons with maladaptive expression styles.
A study which focused solely on rant websites that are devoted to back-and-forth virtual screaming has implications for Facebook and Twitter, and even news sites and blogs. The combination of being anonymous by using a screen name and having "social distance" reduce an individual's sense of restraint or caution about how to interact. Websites that function as virtual punching bags reinforce harmful behavior.
For some people, venting online is caused by a sense of powerlessness and a feeling that they just can't make a difference. A survey of users of a number of popular rant sites found that users scored unusually high on trait anger (how anger-prone one is in general) and experienced many negative consequences related to anger, such as verbal and physical fights, damaged relationships, property damage, and dangerous driving. Nearly half reported that someone had told them they had an anger problem, and over a third admitted that this was true.
Published research on the content of rant sites found that "people are angry at big groups of people: Democrats, Republicans, illegal immigrants… People want to feel they're doing something and think just expressing their feelings to the world will help."
"Most of these sites encourage venting as a way of dealing with anger…They think of venting as a healthy adaptive approach, and it's not…. Venting often results in short term feelings of calmness and relaxation; however venting is associated with increases in anger in the long term.”
In spite of the fact that venting is likely to backfire in the long run, belief in its value is widespread and even encouraged. Popular self-help books promote venting, and there was even once a billboard in Missouri that said: “Hit a Pillow, Hit a Wall, But Don’t Hit Your Kids!” Hitting a pillow is obviously preferable to hitting one’s kids, but ironically such advice may actually increase the likelihood of real violence rather than preventing it.
In one study, participants were asked about the benefit of reading other’s rants. Responses included: simple curiosity (78.1 percent), entertainment (56.3 percent), a sense of community (50 percent), and making them feel better about their own lives by comparison (37.5 percent).
In response to an open-ended question regarding why they would go back, participants described the following: found the Web site ‘‘interesting’’ (66 percent), found the posts ‘‘funny’’ (33 percent), thought the Web site would help ‘‘feel less alone’’ (17 percent), and thought the Web site would provide a ‘‘an outlet’’ (17 percent).
1. Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, MBA, BCIA, Editor-in-Chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, from the Interactive Media Institute, San Diego, CA.
2. Anger on the Internet: The Perceived Value of Rant-Sites by Ryan C. Martin, PhD; Kelsey Ryan Coyier, BS; Leah M. VanSistine, BS; and Kelly L. Schroeder, BS
3. Internet Ranting and the Myth of Catharsis; Why ranting and venting are terrible ways of handling anger; by Scott A. McGreal published on March 28, 2013 in Psychology Today