Cited by 208Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionKnowledge Management and SharingExpert finding and Q&A systems

Preventing harassment and increasing group participation through social norms in 2,190 online science discussions

Open access
Matias, J. Nathan·2019·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Theories of human behavior suggest that people’s decisions to join a group and their subsequent behavior are influenced by perceptions of what is socially normative. In online discussions, where unruly, harassing behavior is common, displaying community rules could reduce concerns about harassment that prevent people from joining while also influencing the behavior of those who do participate. An experiment tested these theories by randomizing announcements of community rules to large-scale online conversations in a science-discussion community with 13 million subscribers. Compared with discussions with no mention of community expectations, displaying the rules increased newcomer rule compliance by >8 percentage points and increased the participation rate of newcomers in discussions by 70% on average. Making community norms visible prevented unruly and harassing conversations by influencing how people behaved within the conversation and also by influencing who chose to join.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1813486116

Cites

42 of 42 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?

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: 2

  1. Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York), pp 1166- 1207.
  2. Marwick AE, Miller RW (2014) Online harassment, defamation, and hateful speech: A primer of the legal landscape (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY), SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2447904.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matias, J. N.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Matias, J. Nathan
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2019-04-29
Volume
116
Issue
20
Pages
9785-9789
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2943327675
Cited by
208
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
Keywords
online harassment, social norms, community rules, online forums, group participation, rule compliance, online communities
MeSH terms
Harassment, Non-Sexual, Online Social Networking, Community Participation, Humans, Science, Social Norms

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