Doc Hoff’s #BlogBlogProject: The Shock-Value Factor and High Conflict
By University of Delaware student, Kayleigh O’Kane, double-major in Psychology and Communication
I’ve been sharing blogs written by my University of Delaware students since 2013. This blog, by Kayleigh O’Kane, a senior majoring in Psychology and Communication with a minor in Advertising, was written for my National Agenda class and examines what happens when political influencers post “hot takes” to stir up conflict among those who engage with the post. It is based upon her reading of Amanda Ripley’s 2021 book, “High Conflict.”
We all know that the Internet can be a toxic environment. People can be ignorant, judgmental, controversial, and quick to argue. It seems easy to sit behind a screen and harass others for their views and opinions. We know that the things we say online can never truly be deleted, yet that doesn’t stop some people from attacking strangers on social media. Children of the new millennium have grown up with this normalcy and have become desensitized to the subtle aggressions and conflicts that invade the Internet. Nonetheless, we have seen an increase in politically-motivated, severely-controversial, “shock factor” posts from influencers who want to stir up conflict. Their tweets and “hot take” opinions usually prompt heated discussion in the comments and typically lead to insult and name-calling. While this phenomenon can be observed by both sides of the political spectrum, far right-wing activists such as Tomi Lahren and Kaitlin “Kent State Gun Girl’’ Bennett are perfect examples.
Public figures in politics, such as Lahren and Bennett, use the strategy of “shock-value” to create conflict. They capitalize on this “conflict” through increased publicity, views, and attention. When much of social media profits come from the reach and exposure of an influencer’s content, it is no doubt that these women want to get people talking. Their controversial opinions on popular issues such as climate change, gun control, and specific current events tend to make people angry; their comments are flooded with heated debate.
Oftentimes, the “shock” of seeing such a controversial opinion causes users to react prematurely and lash out. On Twitter, for example, users may insult either the creator, or others who disagree with them, rather than engaging in civil discussion about the topic. I would argue that Lahren and Bennett intentionally pursue these reactions in order to generate more likes, views, comments, followers, and thus, profits.
The ways in which controversial online posts can quickly lead to unhealthy altercations amongst engagers would be described by Amanda Ripley as “high conflict”, in her book titled High Conflict. Ripley claims that this type of conflict occurs when our brains become “charged”, “we feel increasingly certain of our own superiority,” and we refuse to listen or engage civilly with the other side. When we let our emotions get the best of us, we are more likely to respond ignorantly. Some of the comments include derogatory names such as “snowflake” or “libtard”, while others make accusations of involvement with white supremacy and terrorism.
Bennett’s Twitter account, which features the bio “Trump is my president”, is a place where conservative followers gather to share similar opinions, while liberals tend to share their distaste and disagreement. The contrast fuels intense debate and unruly dispute. Those familiar with Bennett’s agenda would know that she advocates for second amendment rights in rather provocative ways on college campuses. In addition to her outlandish tweets and Facebook posts, Bennett has been known to show up to college campuses and pose for photos with her AR-10 rifle. Knowing the reaction she would receive from the public, Bennett proudly posted the photos on social media and engaged in heated arguments with anyone who expressed their distaste. She has also been accused of making anti-Semitic and misogynistic comments. The Independent reports that Bennett has alluded to an opposition of women’s suffrage by stating that it “wasn’t one of the best ideas” and that she would “rather lose [her] right to vote than lose [her] right to defend [herself] with a firearm.”
Similarly, Lahren has been known to take high-profile social movements and rephrase them to reflect an alt-right agenda. For example, she countered the “Defund the Police” movement (a response to racially-motivated police brutality) with “Defund the Democrats”, supports the anti-mask movement “My Body My Choice” (a term borrowed from pro-choice activism), and has continuously compared left-wing policies to communism. These contentious stances have allowed Lahren to gain online popularity and uphold the political divide.
These examples show how political figures can use the “shock-value” strategy to generate publicity by intentionally instigating high conflict. Thus, high conflict leads to publicity, which leads to followers, which leads to money. Even former President Donald Trump has been known to use “shock value” in order to appeal to the conservative party and alienate the left.
I am certain that Amanda Ripley would have strong opinions on the phenomenon of “shock value” online. It is certainly effective in grabbing people’s attention and gaining popularity. However, I can’t help but wonder about the implications of this phenomenon for civil discourse and our society as a whole. If we normalize anger-driven, quick-reaction commenting and resort to insults and name-calling as a response to differing opinions, we close ourselves off to the opportunities to learn or make healthy conversation. Even when someone’s opinion seems completely outlandish and ignorant, it is important to maintain composure and try to understand their reasons behind it. In the case of “stunt activist” influencers like Bennett and Lahren, this can only be done by recognizing their intent to provoke people and get them to react vehemently. By instigating the “high-conflict” that Ripley discusses, these influencers effectively attract the attention and publicity that they crave.
The solution to this problem seems simple — just don’t give these people a platform. However, the issue is far more complicated. The solution lies not in social media itself, but the ways in which people interact with social media. Platforms like Twitter are simply tools at our disposal. We can use them to share our opinions and thoughts and communicate with others, but we can also let our deepest insecurities and projections manifest there. By learning to develop a healthier relationship with social media, people will better understand the motives, provocations, and implications of shock-value influences and opinion leaders.
This blog was written by University of Delaware student, Kayleigh, a senior majoring in Psychology and Communication, for my National Agenda class.
