Moral perceptions of digital death threats in athletics
Start Date
April 2026
Location
2nd floor - Library
Abstract
Digital advancements have amplified the ways fans interact with athletes, sometimes extending to morally charged behaviors such as online harassment and death threats (Kearns et al., 2023). Despite the potential impact, these threats are often dismissed as harmless or unserious (Penza, 2018), downplaying their real consequences. The rise of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies further complicates public attitudes, as compensation may shape how fans perceive athletes. The present study examines how individuals evaluate the morality of fans’ online death threats, and how these perceptions are influenced by athlete gender and NIL status. Participants (N = 103) were randomly assigned to one of four vignettes in a 2 × 2 design. Both the athlete’s gender (male vs. female) and their NIL status ($50,000 vs. none) varied across conditions. After reading a mock news article, participants completed measures assessing moral evaluation, blame, anger/disgust, emotional distress, and punishment recommendations. Results showed significant main effects of NIL status. Threats toward athletes without NIL compensation elicited greater anger/disgust toward the fan, F(1,102) = 4.93, p = .029, higher participant distress (ps = .006-.009), and stronger punishment recommendations, F(1,102) = 6.15, p = .015. Marginal gender effects emerged, with male athletes rated higher on “not moved” and “cold” (ps ≈ .06). Significant interaction effects were also found for emotional distress (ps = .003-.050). Overall, findings suggest that compensation and gender shape how harmful fan behavior is perceived, highlighting bias in moral judgments within digital sports contexts.
Moral perceptions of digital death threats in athletics
2nd floor - Library
Digital advancements have amplified the ways fans interact with athletes, sometimes extending to morally charged behaviors such as online harassment and death threats (Kearns et al., 2023). Despite the potential impact, these threats are often dismissed as harmless or unserious (Penza, 2018), downplaying their real consequences. The rise of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies further complicates public attitudes, as compensation may shape how fans perceive athletes. The present study examines how individuals evaluate the morality of fans’ online death threats, and how these perceptions are influenced by athlete gender and NIL status. Participants (N = 103) were randomly assigned to one of four vignettes in a 2 × 2 design. Both the athlete’s gender (male vs. female) and their NIL status ($50,000 vs. none) varied across conditions. After reading a mock news article, participants completed measures assessing moral evaluation, blame, anger/disgust, emotional distress, and punishment recommendations. Results showed significant main effects of NIL status. Threats toward athletes without NIL compensation elicited greater anger/disgust toward the fan, F(1,102) = 4.93, p = .029, higher participant distress (ps = .006-.009), and stronger punishment recommendations, F(1,102) = 6.15, p = .015. Marginal gender effects emerged, with male athletes rated higher on “not moved” and “cold” (ps ≈ .06). Significant interaction effects were also found for emotional distress (ps = .003-.050). Overall, findings suggest that compensation and gender shape how harmful fan behavior is perceived, highlighting bias in moral judgments within digital sports contexts.
