University of Isfahan New Marketing Research Journal 2228-7744 16 1 2026 03 21 Online Firestorms: A Systematic Mapping Review of Existing Research Online Firestorms: A Systematic Mapping Review of Existing Research 39 68 30192 10.22108/nmrj.2025.144431.3161 FA Sajede Sadat Majidi Dorche Ph.D. student, Department of Business, Faculty of Management and Accounting, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran Morteza Soltani Department of Business,Faculty of Management and Accounting , College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran Hamidreza Irani Associate professor, Department of Business, Faculty of Management and Accounting, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran Elham Ebrahimi Associate professor, Department of Management, Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran 0000-0002-2276-4453 Journal Article 2025 02 20 The advent of social media has revolutionized consumer interactions, giving rise to the phenomenon of the “online firestorm”. This phenomenon entails rapid and widespread public backlash against organizations driven by negative online feedback and exerts significant repercussions on brand reputation. This study aimed to review and classify primary literature regarding online firestorms and propose a framework for future research. Employing a systematic mapping method, this study analyzed 45 research articles published between 2014 and 2024. Findings indicated that the majority of studies had been conducted by utilizing a qualitative approach at the organizational level of analysis. Theories like Social Norm, Social Influence, Moral Panic, and Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) served as prevalent theoretical frameworks in explicating this phenomenon. Furthermore, social and communicational deficits had been identified as primary drivers underlying the formation of online firestorms. The scholarly focus on the organizational level had underscored the impact of this phenomenon on corporate reputation and financial performance; specifically, erroneous decisions, poor communication, and unethical behaviors had been identified as major triggers. Research had predominantly been conducted in European and American contexts attributed to the heightened consumer sensitivity toward social and communicational violations and the distinct cultural values inherent to these societies. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook had been considered the primary venues for these firestorms due to their technical affordances and the rapid propagation of critical reactions. The extensive application of social science and psychological theories had elucidated the roots of social interactions, collective emotional arousal, and cognitive biases in explaining online firestorms. Introduction Proliferation of digital platforms has fundamentally transformed stakeholder interactions during organizational crises (Zarepour Nasirabadi et al., 2023; Rahimnia et al., 2019). The networked nature of social media has given rise to the phenomenon of “online firestorms” defined by Pfeffer et al. (2014) as the sudden discharge of massive volumes of Negative electronic Word-of-Mouth (NeWOM) against a person, brand, or organization. Characterized by viral speed and high emotional intensity, this phenomenon poses a serious threat to organizational reputation (Rost & Stahel, 2022). It is estimated that approximately 50% of organizations have encountered this issue within the past two years (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2021). Researchers like Rauschnabel et al. (2016) and Chan et al. (2018) have examined the triggers and consequences of this phenomenon. Furthermore, studies by Kim et al. (2021) and Rost and Stahel (2022) have confirmed the role of psychological theories, including social norms and moral panic, in explaining this phenomenon. Despite the increase in research over the past decade, the existing literature remains fragmented and requires systematic consolidation (Li et al., 2019). This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of existing research by addressing 5 fundamental questions: the research approaches employed, levels of analysis, temporal changes in focus areas, reciprocal relationships between theoretical perspectives and focus areas, and the associations among firestorm audiences, geographical location, and triggers of firestorm emergence. Materials & Methods This study employed a systematic mapping methodology following the guidelines of Petersen et al. (2008) and Batory (2005). Unlike traditional systematic reviews, this approach focuses on mapping the landscape of a specific topic rather than answering a targeted research question (Heidari et al., 2018). As Sohrabi et al. (2021), citing Grant and Booth (2009), have noted, this type of review aims to categorize existing research to identify knowledge gaps. The Scopus citation database was selected as the data source due to its comprehensive coverage of credible sources (Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019). The search was conducted by using keywords, such as “online firestorm”, “social media firestorm”, “collaborative brand attacks”, and “shitstorm” across title, abstract, and keyword fields within the timeframe of 2014 to 2024. From 70 identified articles, after removing duplicates and applying exclusion criteria, including non-English texts, dissertations, and editorial notes, 45 studies were selected. For quality assessment, the CASP checklist with 10 evaluation criteria was applied. This assessment focused on 3 dimensions: validity, methodology, and applicability of findings. Only articles scoring above 35 out of 50 were included in the analysis. Finally, the studies were classified based on research approach (quantitative, qualitative, mixed), level of analysis (individual, organizational, societal), focus area (what, why, how), theoretical perspectives, and geographical context. Research Findings A systematic analysis of 45 selected studies within the 2014- 2024 timeframe revealed an unbalanced pattern in the geographical and platform distribution of the “online firestorm” phenomenon. The geographical focus of the research was predominantly centered on the United States and Germany, reflecting the mature digital activism ecosystem in these regions, whereas research in Asia and Africa accounted for a negligible share. From a technical platform perspective, “Twitter” hosting more than half of the studied cases served as the primary locus for the formation of these crises due to its instantaneous nature and rapid information dissemination capabilities with Facebook ranking second. An examination of methodological trends indicated a predominance of qualitative approaches (such as content analysis and text mining) over quantitative methods, suggesting the exploratory stage of knowledge in this field. The dominant level of analysis was the “organizational level” focusing on reputational consequences for firms, while social and individual levels had been less explored. The temporal evolution of the research also demonstrated a significant shift from describing the “what” of the phenomenon towards explaining the “why” and, more recently, the “how” of its management. In the theoretical dimension, pluralism was evident; to explain the “why”, theories of “social norm”, “moral panic”, and “social influence” exhibited the highest frequency, whereas in explaining crisis management mechanisms, “Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)” remained dominant. A key finding was the revelation of a correlation between “geographical context” and “trigger type”: in Western societies (Europe and the US), firestorms were mainly rooted in “social and communicational” violations (such as racism or insults), while in Asian societies, functional inefficiencies and “product/service failures” were the primary drivers of public outrage. Discussion of Results & Conclusion Synthesizing the findings of this study allowed for the delineation of a 3-stage “causal-processual model” (input-process-output) for the dynamics of online firestorms that transcended technological determinism. At the input stage, “cultural context” acted as a moderating variable; the high sensitivity of Western societies to normative values as opposed to the sensitivity of Eastern societies to functionalism dictated the type of crisis-inducing trigger. At the process stage, platform architecture (specifically Twitter) played the role of an “algorithmic amplifier”. Here, psychological mechanisms (grounded in social norm and moral panic theories) transformed fragmented individual complaints into “collective moral outrage” through emotional contagion. At the output stage, the literature focus on the organizational level and SCCT indicated that success in crisis containment was contingent upon the strategic alignment of the organizational response with the perceived origin of the crisis. This study argued that firestorms were inherently “sociological” phenomena, for which technology served merely as an acceleration medium. The scarcity of research in non-Western contexts (except for limited cases on China’s Weibo) represented a serious knowledge gap resulting from structural and cultural barriers to the disclosure of conflicts. Therefore, it is suggested that future research move beyond qualitative single-case studies towards “longitudinal quantitative” designs and “predictive modeling”. Furthermore, it is essential to expand the focus from text-centric platforms (Twitter) to image-centric and emerging platforms (such as TikTok) and develop indigenous crisis management models for emerging markets (like the Middle East) by considering specific cultural components. The advent of social media has revolutionized consumer interactions, giving rise to the phenomenon of the “online firestorm”. This phenomenon entails rapid and widespread public backlash against organizations driven by negative online feedback and exerts significant repercussions on brand reputation. This study aimed to review and classify primary literature regarding online firestorms and propose a framework for future research. Employing a systematic mapping method, this study analyzed 45 research articles published between 2014 and 2024. Findings indicated that the majority of studies had been conducted by utilizing a qualitative approach at the organizational level of analysis. Theories like Social Norm, Social Influence, Moral Panic, and Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) served as prevalent theoretical frameworks in explicating this phenomenon. Furthermore, social and communicational deficits had been identified as primary drivers underlying the formation of online firestorms. The scholarly focus on the organizational level had underscored the impact of this phenomenon on corporate reputation and financial performance; specifically, erroneous decisions, poor communication, and unethical behaviors had been identified as major triggers. Research had predominantly been conducted in European and American contexts attributed to the heightened consumer sensitivity toward social and communicational violations and the distinct cultural values inherent to these societies. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook had been considered the primary venues for these firestorms due to their technical affordances and the rapid propagation of critical reactions. The extensive application of social science and psychological theories had elucidated the roots of social interactions, collective emotional arousal, and cognitive biases in explaining online firestorms. Introduction Proliferation of digital platforms has fundamentally transformed stakeholder interactions during organizational crises (Zarepour Nasirabadi et al., 2023; Rahimnia et al., 2019). The networked nature of social media has given rise to the phenomenon of “online firestorms” defined by Pfeffer et al. (2014) as the sudden discharge of massive volumes of Negative electronic Word-of-Mouth (NeWOM) against a person, brand, or organization. Characterized by viral speed and high emotional intensity, this phenomenon poses a serious threat to organizational reputation (Rost & Stahel, 2022). It is estimated that approximately 50% of organizations have encountered this issue within the past two years (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2021). Researchers like Rauschnabel et al. (2016) and Chan et al. (2018) have examined the triggers and consequences of this phenomenon. Furthermore, studies by Kim et al. (2021) and Rost and Stahel (2022) have confirmed the role of psychological theories, including social norms and moral panic, in explaining this phenomenon. Despite the increase in research over the past decade, the existing literature remains fragmented and requires systematic consolidation (Li et al., 2019). This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of existing research by addressing 5 fundamental questions: the research approaches employed, levels of analysis, temporal changes in focus areas, reciprocal relationships between theoretical perspectives and focus areas, and the associations among firestorm audiences, geographical location, and triggers of firestorm emergence. Materials & Methods This study employed a systematic mapping methodology following the guidelines of Petersen et al. (2008) and Batory (2005). Unlike traditional systematic reviews, this approach focuses on mapping the landscape of a specific topic rather than answering a targeted research question (Heidari et al., 2018). As Sohrabi et al. (2021), citing Grant and Booth (2009), have noted, this type of review aims to categorize existing research to identify knowledge gaps. The Scopus citation database was selected as the data source due to its comprehensive coverage of credible sources (Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019). The search was conducted by using keywords, such as “online firestorm”, “social media firestorm”, “collaborative brand attacks”, and “shitstorm” across title, abstract, and keyword fields within the timeframe of 2014 to 2024. From 70 identified articles, after removing duplicates and applying exclusion criteria, including non-English texts, dissertations, and editorial notes, 45 studies were selected. For quality assessment, the CASP checklist with 10 evaluation criteria was applied. This assessment focused on 3 dimensions: validity, methodology, and applicability of findings. Only articles scoring above 35 out of 50 were included in the analysis. Finally, the studies were classified based on research approach (quantitative, qualitative, mixed), level of analysis (individual, organizational, societal), focus area (what, why, how), theoretical perspectives, and geographical context. Research Findings A systematic analysis of 45 selected studies within the 2014- 2024 timeframe revealed an unbalanced pattern in the geographical and platform distribution of the “online firestorm” phenomenon. The geographical focus of the research was predominantly centered on the United States and Germany, reflecting the mature digital activism ecosystem in these regions, whereas research in Asia and Africa accounted for a negligible share. From a technical platform perspective, “Twitter” hosting more than half of the studied cases served as the primary locus for the formation of these crises due to its instantaneous nature and rapid information dissemination capabilities with Facebook ranking second. An examination of methodological trends indicated a predominance of qualitative approaches (such as content analysis and text mining) over quantitative methods, suggesting the exploratory stage of knowledge in this field. The dominant level of analysis was the “organizational level” focusing on reputational consequences for firms, while social and individual levels had been less explored. The temporal evolution of the research also demonstrated a significant shift from describing the “what” of the phenomenon towards explaining the “why” and, more recently, the “how” of its management. In the theoretical dimension, pluralism was evident; to explain the “why”, theories of “social norm”, “moral panic”, and “social influence” exhibited the highest frequency, whereas in explaining crisis management mechanisms, “Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)” remained dominant. A key finding was the revelation of a correlation between “geographical context” and “trigger type”: in Western societies (Europe and the US), firestorms were mainly rooted in “social and communicational” violations (such as racism or insults), while in Asian societies, functional inefficiencies and “product/service failures” were the primary drivers of public outrage. Discussion of Results & Conclusion Synthesizing the findings of this study allowed for the delineation of a 3-stage “causal-processual model” (input-process-output) for the dynamics of online firestorms that transcended technological determinism. At the input stage, “cultural context” acted as a moderating variable; the high sensitivity of Western societies to normative values as opposed to the sensitivity of Eastern societies to functionalism dictated the type of crisis-inducing trigger. At the process stage, platform architecture (specifically Twitter) played the role of an “algorithmic amplifier”. Here, psychological mechanisms (grounded in social norm and moral panic theories) transformed fragmented individual complaints into “collective moral outrage” through emotional contagion. At the output stage, the literature focus on the organizational level and SCCT indicated that success in crisis containment was contingent upon the strategic alignment of the organizational response with the perceived origin of the crisis. This study argued that firestorms were inherently “sociological” phenomena, for which technology served merely as an acceleration medium. The scarcity of research in non-Western contexts (except for limited cases on China’s Weibo) represented a serious knowledge gap resulting from structural and cultural barriers to the disclosure of conflicts. Therefore, it is suggested that future research move beyond qualitative single-case studies towards “longitudinal quantitative” designs and “predictive modeling”. Furthermore, it is essential to expand the focus from text-centric platforms (Twitter) to image-centric and emerging platforms (such as TikTok) and develop indigenous crisis management models for emerging markets (like the Middle East) by considering specific cultural components.

https://nmrj.ui.ac.ir/article_30192_a6aa0d720814763d34b849d275d2e4a0.pdf