People Think That Social Media Platforms Do (but Should Not) Amplify Divisive Content
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21786327 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Steve Rathje (0000-0001-6727-571X, New York University), Carol E Robertson (0000-0001-8403-6358, New York University), William J Brady (0000-0001-6075-5446, Kellogg's (Canada)), Jay Joseph Van Bavel (0000-0002-2520-0442, New York University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 781-795 |
| Publication date | 2024-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Perspectives on Psychological Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1745-6916 • E-ISSN: 1745-6924 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/17456916231190392 |
| PMID | 37751603 |
| OpenAlex | W4387037812 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 17 |
| References cited | 83 |
Recent studies have documented the type of content that is most likely to spread widely, or go “viral,” on social media, yet little is known about people’s perceptions of what goes viral or what should go viral. This is critical to understand because there is widespread debate about how to improve or regulate social media algorithms. We recruited a sample of participants that is nationally representative of the U.S. population (according to age, gender, and race/ethnicity) and surveyed them about their perceptions of social media virality ( n = 511). In line with prior research, people believe that divisive content, moral outrage, negative content, high-arousal content, and misinformation are all likely to go viral online. However, they reported that this type of content should not go viral on social media. Instead, people reported that many forms of positive content—such as accurate content, nuanced content, and educational content—are not likely to go viral even though they think this content should go viral. These perceptions were shared among most participants and were only weakly related to political orientation, social media usage, and demographic variables. In sum, there is broad consensus around the type of content people think social media platforms should and should not amplify, which can help inform solutions for improving social media
Cognitive psychology · Cognitive science · Internet privacy · Social media · World Wide Web · Computer Science · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Psychology · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology
Rethinking Assumptions About Moral Content Selection
Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information
Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media
The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making
How social media users adopt the toxic behaviors of ingroup and outgroup accounts
From cricket diplomacy to digital fronts
Social Media is Shifting the Values in Our Societies
The impact of social media exposure to war content on emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and work performance
Moral Outrage Predicts the Virality of Petitions for Change on Social Media, But Not the Number of Signatures They Receive
Belief in Instrumental Extremism and Social Media Incivility
Moral Language and Political Polarisation
Sharing, commenting, and reacting to Danish misinformation
Research on the influence mechanism of emotional communication on Twitter (X) and the effect of spreading public anger
Experiments offering social media users the choice to avoid toxic political content
Following news on social media boosts knowledge, belief accuracy and trust
Low-emissions, High Tensions
A research agenda for encouraging prosocial behaviour on social media
Social Media and Democracy
Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter
Good Friends, Bad News - Affect and Virality in Twitter
How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?
How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks
How are preferences revealed?
Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on Twitter
Arousal Increases Social Transmission of Information
Revealed Preference Theory
Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion
Angry by design
Social media users produce more affect that supports cultural values, but are more influenced by affect that violates cultural values
Incivility Is Rising Among American Politicians on Twitter
Behavioral Effects of Framing on Social Media Users
The MAD Model of Moral Contagion
The Welfare Effects of Social Media
Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age
The language of conspiracy
Political polarization on twitter
Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest
Viral News on Social Media
Social Media and the Changing Information Environment
Cross-Platform Emotions and Audience Engagement in Social Media Political Campaigning
Ideology, Not Affect
The Montagu Principle
Bad is Stronger than Good
Stand out of our Light
Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information
Reconsidering evidence of moral contagion in online social networks
Moral outrage in the digital age
Negativity drives online news consumption
Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere
Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter
The Psychology of Online Political Hostility
Misinformation on Misinformation
| Unique citing works | 17 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 5,67 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 14 |