Restorative justice appeals trump retributive vigilance on social media

Human beings have a powerful urge to confront wrongdoing and reestablish justice. In online spaces, this typically takes the form of vigilante-like actions that shame or threaten wrongdoers. Though morally motivated, these retributive actions can draw disapproval, and even reciprocal shaming and threats, from others in the community, creating a toxic environment. This study investigates a prosocial alternative to retribution-restorative vigilance-aimed at reestablishing community values through moral appeals and encouraging apologies from offenders. We conducted two randomized experiments (N = 3,516 in total) on a simulated social media platform to examine how community members perceive and respond to different forms of vigilante interventions. Through observing actual user behaviors, our study demonstrates the effectiveness of restorative justice appeals in facilitating prosocial norms and achieving community goals. Specifically, the results reveal that while retribution is considered a legitimate response, restorative appeals are seen as a more effective way to achieve justice. Consequently, restorative responses elicit more supportive behaviors from the community, evidenced by increased upvotes and reduced downvotes/flags, as well as enhancing community members' satisfaction and future engagement intentions. However, in cases involving morally irredeemable offenders, the preference for restorative approaches over retribution diminishes. Our research sheds light on reasons why retribution is so common and directly informs interventions to promote restorative justice and foster more constructive and civil online communities.