Which verbal de-escalation strategies are most effective for bystanders in online conflicts?

Abstract This study explores the effectiveness of verbal de-escalation strategies in reducing social media outrage, particularly focusing on bystanders’ roles in mitigating aggression from hostile posters. Based on the Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), four response styles — two divergent, one convergent, and one maintaining — were evaluated. This theory suggests that an adapting communication style (convergence) should reduce hostility differently from diverging or maintaining styles. Eighty-four participants read scenarios involving verbal aggression and responded to a questionnaire on tone, bystander response, and expected outcomes. The results showed that divergent communication, using modality markers (e.g., “maybe,” “could”), was most effective in calming aggressors. Downgraders (e.g., “a little bit”) also reduced aggression, though to a lesser degree. A qualitative analysis of the open-ended question confirmed that modality markers were more successful than other strategies. The study emphasizes the importance of rhetorical choices in managing online conflict.