This study examined the influence of design "nudges" on bystanders' willingness to intervene in online harassment using a social media simulation. Utilizing a 2 × 2 experimental design, we tested the ability of key design features (community guidelines and pop-up messaging) to induce a sense of self-efficacy (low/high) and personal responsibility (low/high) and thence to influence intervention levels. Participants (n = 206) were invited to "beta test" a new social networking site (SNS) for 15 minutes. All participants were exposed to four instances of online harassment against a victim. Bystanders in the low efficacy and high responsibility condition were most likely to intervene, although this finding only applied to "private" (e.g., direct, 1-2-1 messaging) rather than "public" (e.g., posting on a public feed) interventions. Overall, participants preferred "private" interventions that avoided public confrontation. Qualitative insights highlight a perceived lack of transparency in reporting options and a belief that interventions rarely made a difference as the "damage had been done." Results are discussed in relation to the amplification of personal responsibility when the SNS does not provide clear guidelines and reminders. We recommend ways of "designing in" nudges in practice, to facilitate bystander intervention.

中文翻译：

---

并非所有干预措施都是平等的：利用设计和信息传递来推动旁观者干预。


本研究使用社交媒体模拟检查了设计“助推”对旁观者干预在线骚扰意愿的影响。利用 2 × 2 实验设计，我们测试了关键设计特征（社区指南和弹出消息）诱导自我效能感（低/高）和个人责任感（低/高）的能力，从而影响干预水平。参与者 （n = 206） 被邀请对一个新的社交网站 （SNS） 进行 15 分钟的“beta 测试”。所有参与者都遭受了四次针对受害者的在线骚扰。在低效率和高责任条件下的旁观者最有可能进行干预，尽管这一发现仅适用于“私人”（例如，直接的 1-2-1 消息传递）而不是“公共”（例如，在公共提要上发布）干预。总体而言，参与者更喜欢避免公开对抗的 “私人” 干预。定性见解强调了报告选项缺乏透明度，并且认为干预措施很少产生影响，因为“损害已经造成”。当 SNS 没有提供明确的指导方针和提醒时，讨论了与个人责任的放大相关的结果。我们建议在实践中采用“设计”助推的方法，以促进旁观者的干预。