Don’t @ Me: Experimentally Reducing Partisan Incivility on Twitter
Abstract
I conduct an experiment which examines the impact of moral suasion on partisans engaged in uncivil arguments. Partisans often respond in vitriolic ways to politicians they disagree with, and this can engender hateful responses from partisans from the other side. This phenomenon was especially common during the contentious 2016 US Presidential Election. Using Twitter accounts that I controlled, I sanctioned people engaged partisan incivility in October 2016. I found that messages containing moral suasion were more effective at reducing incivility than were messages with no moral content in the first week post-treatment. There were no significant treatment effects in the first day post-treatment, emphasizing the need for research designs that measure effect duration. The type of moral suasion employed, however, did not have the expected differential effect on either Republicans or Democrats. These effects were significantly moderated by the anonymity of the subjects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Identity- and empathy-based bystander interventions on social media can effectively reduce incivility, hate speech, and misinformation.
“For instance, identity-and empathy-based bystander interventions on social media can effectively reduce incivility (Munger 2020), hate speech (Hangartner et al. 2021, Munger 2017, Siegel & Badaan 2020), and misinformation (Pretus et al. 2022).”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Munger 2020
Cites
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123 · Cited by 2,630 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
The Paradigm-Shift of Social Spambots: Evidence, Theories, and Tools for the Arms Race
Cresci, S., Di Pietro, R., Petrocchi, M., Spognardi, A., & Tesconi, M. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion - WWW '17 Companion · doi:10.1145/3041021.3055135 · Cited by 381 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Increasingly sophisticated “social spam bots” have been developed that are difficult for human coders to detect (Cresci et al., 2017).”
BackgroundThe Critical Periphery in the Growth of Social Protests
Barberá, P., Wang, N., Bonneau, R., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J., & González-Bailón, S. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143611 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Empathy-based counterspeech can reduce racist hate speech in a social media field experiment
Hangartner, D., Gennaro, G., Alasiri, S., Bahrich, N., Bornhoft, A., Boucher, J., Demirci, B. B., Derksen, L., Hall, A., Jochum, M., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2116310118 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Van Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
- Authors
- Munger, K.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Munger, Kevin
- ORCID
- Munger, Kevin
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Political Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-07-16
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 102-116
- ISSN
- 2052-2630 (ISSN-L)
- 2052-2649
- OpenAlex
- W3043018575
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 5.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Political Science (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- moral suasion, online political discourse, Twitter, 2016 US presidential election, sanctions, anonymity, political polarization, vitriol
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