CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The Psychology of Online Political Hostility: A Comprehensive, Cross-National Test of the Mismatch Hypothesis

Open access
BOR, ALEXANDER, PETERSEN, MICHAEL BANG·2022·American Political Science Review
DOI 10.1017/s0003055421000885

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Why are online discussions about politics more hostile than offline discussions? A popular answer argues that human psychology is tailored for face-to-face interaction and people’s behavior therefore changes for the worse in impersonal online discussions. We provide a theoretical formalization and empirical test of this explanation: the mismatch hypothesis. We argue that mismatches between human psychology and novel features of online environments could (a) change people’s behavior, (b) create adverse selection effects, and (c) bias people’s perceptions. Across eight studies, leveraging cross-national surveys and behavioral experiments (total N = 8,434), we test the mismatch hypothesis but only find evidence for limited selection effects. Instead, hostile political discussions are the result of status-driven individuals who are drawn to politics and are equally hostile both online and offline. Finally, we offer initial evidence that online discussions feel more hostile, in part, because the behavior of such individuals is more visible online than offline.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0003055421000885

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Feelings of marginalization coupled with dominance orientation make people more likely to engage in hostility on social media.

    “Studies suggest that feelings of marginalization coupled with dominance orientation make people more likely to engage in hostility on social media (Bor & Petersen 2022, Petersen et al. 2023)”

    From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Bor & Petersen 2022

    The Results (page not provided) find that hostility increases with status-driven risk taking in online political discussions. The Conclusions and General Discussion (page not provided) also describe status and dominance as motives for hostility. Neither passage supports the added claim that feelings of marginalization are coupled with dominance orientation. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • People who engage in aggressive and hostile behaviors in the offline world are also likely to do so in the online world, where their actions are accelerated by the structure of the Internet.

    “People who engage in aggressive and hostile behaviors in the offline world are also likely to do so in the online world, where their actions are accelerated by the structure of the Internet (Bor & Petersen 2022;Kowalski et al. 2014Kowalski et al. , 2019))”

    From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Bor & Petersen 2022

    The Conclusions and General Discussion say that individuals motivated by status and dominance engage in hostility in both online and offline political discussions. Study 8 and the Conclusions attribute the greater apparent online hostility to the Internet’s connectivity, which makes hostile actions more visible and gives them greater reach. They do not say that the Internet accelerates the actions themselves, and the findings concern political hostility rather than aggressive behavior generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Social media may not cause us to act more aggressively, but rather exposes us to more aggressive individuals.

    “social media may not cause us to act more aggressively, but rather exposes us to more aggressive individuals”

    From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Bor & Petersen 2022

  • Aggressive individuals appear to act equally aggressive in both offline and online contexts.

    “aggressive individuals appear to act equally aggressive in both offline and online contexts (Bor & Petersen 2022)”

    From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Bor & Petersen 2022

  • People perceive online discussions to be far more hostile than offline discussions.

    “people nevertheless perceive online discussions to be far more hostile (Bor & Petersen 2022)”

    From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Bor & Petersen 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Aguinis, Herman, and Kyle J Bradley. 2014. "Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies." Organizational Research Methods 17 (4): 351-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952. · DOI
  2. Ashton, Michael C., Kibeom Lee, Julie A. Pozzebon, Beth A. Visser, and Narnia C. Worth. 2010. "Status-Driven Risk Taking and the Major Dimensions of Personality." Journal of Research in Personality 44 (6): 734-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.09.003. · DOI
  3. Baek, Young Min, Magdalena Wojcieszak, and Michael X. Delli Carpini. 2012. "Online versus Face-to-Face Deliberation: Who? Why? What? With What Effects?" New Media & Society 14 (3): 363-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811413191. · DOI
  4. Bail, Christopher A, Brian Guay, Emily Maloney, Aidan Combs, D Sunshine Hillygus, Friedolin Merhout, Deen Freelon, and Alexander Volfovsky. 2020. "Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency's Impact on the Political Attitudes and Behaviors of American Twitter Users in Late 2017." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (1): 243 LP -250. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906420116. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Baltes, Boris B., Marcus W. Dickson, Michael P. Sherman, Cara C. Bauer, and Jacqueline S. LaGanke. 2002. "Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87 (1): 156- 79. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2961. · DOI
  6. Bartusevičius, Henrikas, Florian van Leeuwen, and Michael Bang Petersen. 2020. "Dominance-Driven Autocratic Political Orientations Predict Political Violence in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) and Non-WEIRD Samples." Psychological Science 31 (12): 1511-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620922476. · DOI
  7. Bisbee, James, and Jennifer M. Larson. 2017. "Testing Social Science Network Theories with Online Network Data: An Evaluation of External Validity." American Political Science Review 111 (3): 502-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000120. · DOI
  8. Bohnet, Iris, and Bruno S. Frey. 1999. "The Sound of Silence in Prisoner's Dilemma and Dictator Games." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 38: 43-57.
  9. Brady, William J., M. J. Crockett, and Jay J. Van Bavel. 2020. "The MAD Model of Moral Contagion: The Role of Motivation, Attention, and Design in the Spread of Moralized Content Online." Perspectives on Psychological Science 15 (4): 978-1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917336. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Buckels, Erin E., Paul D. Trapnell, and Delroy L. Paulhus. 2014. "Trolls Just Want to Have Fun." Personality and Individual Differences 67 (September): 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Chaplin, William F, Oliver P John, and Lewis R Goldberg. 1988. "Conceptions of States and Traits: Dimensional Attributes with Ideals as Prototypes." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (4): 541.
  12. Cheng, Joey T, Jessica L Tracy, Tom Foulsham, Alan Kingstone, and Joseph Henrich. 2013. "Two Ways to the Top: Evidence That Dominance and Prestige Are Distinct yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104 (1): 103-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030398. · DOI
  13. Cheng, Justin, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. "Anyone Can Become a Troll." In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 1217-30. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998213. · DOI
  14. Coe, Kevin, Kate Kenski, and Stephen A. Rains. 2014. "Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments." Journal of Communication 64 (4): 658-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104. · DOI
  15. Dahlberg, Lincoln. 2001. "The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere." Information, Communication & Society 4 (4): 615-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180110097030. · DOI
  16. Diamond, Pamela M., and Philip R. Magaletta. 2006. "The Short-Form Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ-SF): A Validation Study with Federal Offenders." Assessment 13 (3): 227-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287666. · DOI
  17. Duggan, Maeve. 2017. "Online Harassment 2017." Pew Research. https://doi.org/202.419.4372.
  18. Eady, Gregory, Jonathan Nagler, Andy Guess, Jan Zilinsky, and Joshua A. Tucker. 2019. "How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data." SAGE Open 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832705. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Epley, Nicholas, and David Dunning. 2000. "Feeling 'Holier than Thou': Are Self-Serving Assessments Produced by Errors in Self-or Social Prediction?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 861-75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.861. · DOI
  20. Eveland, William P., and Myiah Hutchens Hively. 2009. "Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and 'Heterogeneity' of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation." Journal of Communication 59 (2): 205-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x. · DOI
  21. Gentzkow, Matthew, and Jesse M. Shapiro. 2011. "Ideological Segregation Online and Offline." Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (4): 1799-1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr044. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Gerber, Alan S, and Todd Rogers. 2009. "Descriptive Social Norms and Motivation to Vote: Everybody's Voting and so Should You." Journal of Politics 71 (1): 178-91. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608090117. · DOI
  23. Gibson, Rachel, and Marta Cantijoch. 2013. "Conceptualizing and Measuring Participation in the Age of the Internet: Is Online Political Engagement Really Different to Offline?" Journal of Politics 75 (3): 701-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613000431. · DOI
  24. Gorrell, Genevieve, Mark Greenwood, Ian Roberts, Diana Maynard, and Kalina Bontcheva. 2018. "Online Abuse of UK MPs in 2015 and 2017: Perpetrators, Targets, and Topics." http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01498. · arXiv
  25. Griezel, Lucy, Linda R. Finger, Gawaian H. Bodkin-Andrews, Rhonda G. Craven, and Alexander Seeshing Yeung. 2012. "Uncovering the Structure of and Gender and Developmental Differences in Cyber Bullying." Journal of Educational Research 105 (6): 442-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.629692. · DOI
  26. Guess, Andrew M. 2015. "Measure for Measure: An Experimental Test of Online Political Media Exposure." Political Analysis 23 (1): 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu010. · DOI
  27. Guess, Andrew M., Kevin Munger, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua Tucker. 2019. "How Accurate Are Survey Responses on Social Media and Politics?" Political Communication 36 (2): 241-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1504840. · DOI
  28. Hertel, Guido, Susanne Geister, and Udo Konradt. 2005. "Managing Virtual Teams: A Review of Current Empirical Research." Human Resource Management Review 15 (1): 69-95.
  29. Hesse, Bradford W, Carol M Werner, and Irwin Altman. 1988. "Temporal Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication." Computers in Human Behavior 4 (2): 147-65.
  30. Hill, R. A., and R. I.M. Dunbar. 2003. "Social Network Size in Humans." Human Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-003-1016-y. · DOI
  31. Holmes, Marcus. 2013. "The Force of Face-to-Face Diplomacy: Mirror Neurons and the Problem of Intentions." International Organization 67 (4): 829-61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000234. · DOI
  32. Kalmoe, Nathan P. 2014. "Fueling the Fire: Violent Metaphors, Trait Aggression, and Support for Political Violence." Political Communication 31 (4): 545-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.852642. · DOI
  33. Kurzban, Robert. 2001. "The Social Psychophysics of Cooperation: Nonverbal Communication in a Public Goods Game." Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 25: 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1023/1012563421824. · DOI
  34. Li, Norman P., Mark van Vugt, and Stephen M. Colarelli. 2018. "The Evolutionary Mismatch Hypothesis: Implications for Psychological Science." Current Directions in Psychological Science 27 (1): 38-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417731378. · DOI
  35. Matias, J. Nathan. 2019. "Preventing Harassment and Increasing Group Participation through Social Norms in 2,190 Online Science Discussions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116 (20): 9785-89. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1813486116. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Mendes, Kaitlynn, Jessica Ringrose, and Jessalynn Keller. 2018. "#MeToo and the Promise and Pitfalls of Challenging Rape Culture through Digital Feminist Activism." European Journal of Women's Studies 25 (2): 236-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506818765318. · DOI
  37. Nelson, Michelle R., and Sharon Shavitt. 2002. "Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Achievement Values: A Multimethod Examination of Denmark and the United States." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33 (5): 439-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005001. · DOI
  38. Olaniran, Bolanle. 2002. "Computer-Mediated Communication: A Test of the Impact of Social Cues on the Choice of Medium for Resolving Misunderstandings." Journal of Educational Technology Systems 31 (2): 205-22.
  39. Petersen, Michael Bang, Mathias Osmundsen, and Alexander Bor. 2020. "Beyond Populism: The Psychology of Status-Seeking and Extreme Political Discontent." In The Psychology of Populism, edited by Joseph Forgas, Bill Crano, and Klaus Fiedler. Routledge.
  40. Rowe, Ian. 2015. "Civility 2.0: A Comparative Analysis of Incivility in Online Political Discussion." Information Communication and Society 18 (2): 121-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365. · DOI
  41. Scharlemann, Jörn P.W., Catherine C. Eckel, Alex Kacelnik, and Rick K. Wilson. 2001. "The Value of a Smile: Game Theory with a Human Face." Journal of Economic Psychology 22 (5): 617-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00059-9. · DOI
  42. Settle, Jaime E. 2018. Frenemies -How Social Media Polarizes America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Settle, Jaime E., and Taylor N. Carlson. 2019. "Opting Out of Political Discussions." Political Communication 36 (3): 476-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1561563. · DOI
  44. Siegel, Alexandra A, and Vivienne Badaan. 2020. "# No2Sectarianism: Experimental Approaches to Reducing Sectarian Hate Speech Online." American Political Science Review 114 (3): 837-55.
  45. Simpson, Jeffry A., and Jay Belsky. 2008. "Attachment Theory within a Modern Evolutionary Framework." Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications (2nd Ed.).
  46. Stein, Joel. 2016. "Tyranny of the Mob." Time 188 (8): 26-32. https://time.com/4457110/internet-trolls/.
  47. Sydnor, Emily. 2019. Disrespectful Democracy: The Psychology of Political Incivility. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
  48. Valenzuela, Sebastian, Yonghwan Kim, and Homero Gil de Zuniga. 2012. "Social Networks That Matter: Exploring the Role of Political Discussion for Online Political Participation." International Journal of Public Opinion Research 24 (2): 163-84.
  49. Wilson, Margo, and Martin Daly. 1985. "Competitiveness, Risk Taking, and Violence: The Young Male Syndrome." Ethology and Sociobiology 6 (1): 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(85)90041-X. · DOI
  50. Witschge, Tamara. 2004. "Online Deliberation: Possibilities of the Internet for Deliberative Democracy." In Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203485415. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BOR, A., & PETERSEN, M. B.
Affiliations
Aarhus University (DK)
Corresponding author
  • BOR, ALEXANDER
  • PETERSEN, MICHAEL BANG
ORCID
Venue
American Political Science Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2021-08-26
Volume
116
Issue
1
Pages
1-18
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
DOI
10.1017/s0003055421000885
OpenAlex
W3161386740
Cited by
128
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3
FWCI
28.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • American Political Science Association
  • Aarhus Universitet
  • Aarhus Universitets Forskningsfond (AUFF-E-2016-9-22, CF18-1108)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
mismatch hypothesis, online political discussion, face-to-face interaction, adverse selection, perceptual bias, cross-national comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review