Do social media undermine social cohesion? A critical review DOI Creative Commons
Sandra González‐Bailón, Yphtach Lelkes

Social Issues and Policy Review, Journal Year: 2022, Volume and Issue: 17(1), P. 155 - 180

Published: Dec. 31, 2022

Abstract We evaluate the empirical evidence interrogating question of whether social media erodes cohesion. look at how networks, information exchange, and norms operate on these platforms. also conditions under which can be conducive to forming capital encouraging prosocial behavior. discuss psychological mechanisms that individual level assess create environment incentives sustain cooperation constructive exchange. Our discussion literature centers attitudes, perceptions, beliefs are formed during type online interactions encouraged by platforms, their design, affordances. consider policy implications existing research, focusing studies may inform regulatory efforts platform interventions.

Language: Английский

Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media DOI Creative Commons
Steve Rathje, Jay Joseph Van Bavel, Sander van der Linden

et al.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Journal Year: 2021, Volume and Issue: 118(26)

Published: June 23, 2021

Significance Almost four billion people around the world now use social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, is one of primary ways access news or receive communications from politicians. However, may be creating perverse incentives for divisive content because this particularly likely to go “viral.” We report evidence that posts about political opponents are substantially more shared on out-group effect much stronger than other established predictors sharing, emotional language. These findings contribute scholarly debates role in polarization can inform solutions healthier environments.

Language: Английский

Citations

388
Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public DOI Open Access
Sander van der Linden

Nature Medicine, Journal Year: 2022, Volume and Issue: 28(3), P. 460 - 467

Published: March 1, 2022

Language: Английский

Citations

375
A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy DOI Creative Commons
Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Lisa Oswald, Stephan Lewandowsky

et al.

Nature Human Behaviour, Journal Year: 2022, Volume and Issue: 7(1), P. 74 - 101

Published: Nov. 7, 2022

Abstract One of today’s most controversial and consequential issues is whether the global uptake digital media causally related to a decline in democracy. We conducted systematic review causal correlational evidence ( N = 496 articles) on link between use different political variables. Some associations, such as increasing participation information consumption, are likely be beneficial for democracy were often observed autocracies emerging democracies. Other declining trust, populism growing polarization, detrimental more pronounced established While impact systems depends specific variable system question, several variables show clear directions associations. The calls research efforts vigilance by governments civil societies better understand, design regulate interplay

Language: Английский

Citations

172
Why do so few people share fake news? It hurts their reputation DOI

Sacha Altay,

Anne-Sophie Hacquin, Hugo Mercier

et al.

New Media & Society, Journal Year: 2020, Volume and Issue: 24(6), P. 1303 - 1324

Published: Nov. 24, 2020

In spite of the attractiveness fake news stories, most people are reluctant to share them. Why? Four pre-registered experiments ( N = 3,656) suggest that sharing hurt one’s reputation in a way is difficult fix, even for politically congruent news. The decrease trust source (media outlet or individual) suffers when one story against background real larger than increase enjoys A comparison with real-world media outlets showed only sources no at all had similar ratings mainstream media. Finally, we found majority declare they would have be paid news, congruent, and more so their stake.

Language: Английский

Citations

142
Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents DOI
Antonio A. Arechar, Jennifer Allen,

Adam J. Berinsky

et al.

Nature Human Behaviour, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 7(9), P. 1502 - 1513

Published: June 29, 2023

Language: Английский

Citations

106
Spread of misinformation on social media: What contributes to it and how to combat it DOI
Sijing Chen, Lu Xiao,

Akit Kumar

et al.

Computers in Human Behavior, Journal Year: 2022, Volume and Issue: 141, P. 107643 - 107643

Published: Dec. 28, 2022

Language: Английский

Citations

98
State of the world 2021: autocratization changing its nature? DOI Creative Commons
Vanessa A. Boese, Martin Lundstedt, Kelly Morrison

et al.

Democratization, Journal Year: 2022, Volume and Issue: 29(6), P. 983 - 1013

Published: May 23, 2022

This article analyses the state of democracy around world in 2021. The level enjoyed by average global citizen 2021 was down to 1989 levels. In 2021, autocracies were on rise, harbouring 70% population, or 5.4 billion people. There also a record number countries autocratizing 2021: 33 countries, home 36% population. recent years, EU seems be facing its own wave autocratization, with 20% members over last decade. addition continued downturn democracy, this documents several signs that autocratization is changing nature. Polarization increased substantially and significantly 40 between 2011 our analysis indicates polarization increasingly damages especially recently under anti-pluralist governments. Over past decade, data shows autocratic governments more frequently used misinformation shape domestic international opinion. Finally, five military coups one self-coup, featured an unprecedented increase for century. These contributed uptick closed seem signal shift toward emboldened actors.

Language: Английский

Citations

96
Research note: Fighting misinformation or fighting for information? DOI Creative Commons
Alberto Acerbi,

Sacha Altay,

Hugo Mercier

et al.

Published: Jan. 12, 2022

A wealth of interventions have been devised to reduce belief in fake news or the tendency share such news. By contrast, aimed at increasing trust reliable sources received less attention. In this article we show that, given very limited prevalence misinformation (including news), reducing acceptance spread are bound small effects on overall quality information environment, especially compared sources. To make argument, simulate effect that a global score, which increases when people accept and decreases misinformation.

Language: Английский

Citations

94
Sharing of misinformation is habitual, not just lazy or biased DOI Creative Commons
Gizem Ceylan, Ian A. Anderson, Wendy Wood

et al.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 120(4)

Published: Jan. 17, 2023

Why do people share misinformation on social media? In this research (N = 2,476), we show that the structure of online sharing built into platforms is more important than individual deficits in critical reasoning and partisan bias-commonly cited drivers misinformation. Due to reward-based learning systems media, users form habits information attracts others' attention. Once form, automatically activated by cues platform without considering response outcomes such as spreading As a result user habits, 30 40% false news shared our was due 15% most habitual sharers. Suggesting part broader pattern established media platforms, also challenged their own political beliefs. Finally, not an inevitable consequence habits: Social sites could be restructured build accurate information.

Language: Английский

Citations

81
Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences DOI
Eugen Dimant

Management Science, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 70(1), P. 1 - 31

Published: Feb. 24, 2023

Exhibiting altruism toward and cooperativeness with others is a key ingredient for successful work relationships managerial decision making. Rising political polarization creates hazard because it ruptures this fabric impedes the interaction of employees, especially across isles. This paper’s focus to examine various behavioral-, belief-, norm-based layers (non)strategic making that are plausibly affected by polarization. I quantify phenomenon via five preregistered studies in context Donald J. Trump, comprising 15 well-powered behavioral experiments diverse set over 8,600 participants. To capture pervasiveness polarization, contrast findings nonpolitical identities. Overall, consistently document strong heterogeneous effects: ingroup-love occurs perceptional domain (how close one feels others), whereas outgroup-hate helps/harms/cooperates others). The rich setting also enables me mechanisms observed intergroup conflict, which can be attributed one’s grim expectations regarding opposing faction, rather than actual unwillingness cooperate. For first time, paper tests whether popular interventions (defaults norm-nudges) reduce detrimental impact contexts studied here. tested improve prosociality but ineffective closing gap. was accepted Yan Chen, economics analysis. Funding: supported Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Grant EXC 2126/1– 390838866]. Supplemental Material: Data online appendix available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4701 .

Language: Английский

Citations

75