The DOI matches its Crossref record; 259 of the 259 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 48 of the 146 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Social Media and Morality.
Open accessAbstract
One of the primary goals of social media platforms is to capture and monetize human attention; morally and emotionally evocative content can capture attention and drive engagement.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
47 Own interpretation · 32 Sources not found · 26 No full text of the sources · 22 Partly supported · 14 Supported · 7 Supported so far · 3 No basis given · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 2 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“social media posts that contain moral emotional language are more likely to be shared on social media than those that do not contain moral emotional language (Brady et al. 2017)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > MORAL EMOTIONS CAPTURE ATTENTION ONLINE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Brady et al. 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that moral-emotional language predicted higher retweet rates across tweets about gun control, same-sex marriage, and climate change. The Discussion likewise describes increased transmission of political tweets, but the cited study does not establish the claim for social media posts generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“the absence of nonverbal cues that are essential in face-to-face communication may exaggerate the perceived intensity of users' outrage (Lieberman & Schroeder 2020)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > REINFORCEMENT AND SOCIAL NORMS INCREASE MORAL OUTRAGE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lieberman & Schroeder 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Fewer nonverbal cues online” section (page not provided) says text-based platforms lack nonverbal cues and that reading opinions rather than hearing them can impair judgments of a communicator’s feelings. The “Greater anonymity online” section separately discusses moral outrage on social media. Neither passage says that missing cues exaggerate the perceived intensity of users’ outrage. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“people nevertheless perceive online discussions to be far more hostile (Bor & Petersen 2022)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > SOCIAL CONFLICT AND POLARIZATION MANIFEST ONLINE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bor & Petersen 2022 source
The Results (page unavailable) describe a documented hostility gap in assessments of overall discussion climates: people perceive online political discussions as more hostile than offline ones. The paper distinguishes this from assessments of discussions people personally participate in, which they do not perceive as more severe online. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“one online experiment found that some people who are exposed to opposing partisan accounts on social media actually experience a backfire effect, such that they become more entrenched in their own beliefs (Bail et al. 2018)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > Mean effect sizes (reactions)
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bail et al. 2018 source
The Abstract reports that Republican participants expressed substantially more conservative views after following a bot that shared opposing political messages. The Discussion and Conclusion explicitly calls this a backfire effect among Republican respondents, supporting the claim's qualified wording, “some people.” (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“mentioning an out-group member is the strongest predictor of social media engagement out of a variety of predictors measured in an analysis of Facebook and Twitter posts (N = 2,730,215) by politicians and partisan news media sources (Rathje et al. 2021)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > DESIGN FEATURES AND ALGORITHMS MAY AMPLIFY MORAL CONTENT AND CONFLICT
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rathje et al. 2021 source
The Discussion reports 2,730,215 Facebook and Twitter observations and identifies out-group language as the most important predictor of sharing in posts from news media accounts and politicians. The Results sections for major media outlets and Congress members likewise report that out-group language ranked highest among the key predictors measured. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelationaln = 2,730,215- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“aggressive individuals appear to act equally aggressive in both offline and online contexts (Bor & Petersen 2022)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > REINFORCEMENT AND SOCIAL NORMS INCREASE MORAL OUTRAGE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bor & Petersen 2022 source
The Results report equal average self-reported hostility in online and offline political discussions and a high within-person correlation (r = 0.84). The Conclusions and General Discussion likewise describe hostile individuals as engaging in political hostility in both contexts. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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))”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN ONLINE MORALITY
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bor & Petersen 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kowalski et al. 2014 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kowalski et al. 2019 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN ONLINE MORALITY
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bor & Petersen 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Petersen et al. 2023 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Because there is such a large volume of people to connect with in the online context, there are significantly more extreme voices to affiliate with than there were in prior social groups that were limited by geography (Petersen et al. 2020, Törnberg 2022).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > EXTREMISTS DOMINATE ONLINE CONVERSATIONS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Petersen et al. 2020 source
- Partly supportedcites Törnberg 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) says digital media connect people outside their local social bubbles, supporting the comparison with geographically limited groups. It does not say that online networks offer significantly more extreme voices to affiliate with; the paper instead explains polarization through nonlocal interaction and partisan sorting. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Part of this trend might be explained by the Internet's informing users about government corruption (Zhuravskaya et al. 2020).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INFORMATION SHARING AND AWARENESS
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Zhuravskaya et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.1 reports that expanding 3G coverage benefited populist opposition parties in Europe. It also says mobile Internet exposed government corruption and suggests that informing voters explains part of its effect on government approval in a global analysis. The review does not establish that corruption information explains the specifically European populist-vote trend. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 54
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“social media may not cause us to act more aggressively, but rather exposes us to more aggressive individuals”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > REINFORCEMENT AND SOCIAL NORMS INCREASE MORAL OUTRAGE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bor & Petersen 2022 source
The Conclusions and General Discussion say that online hostility reflects the intentions of people who are hostile both online and offline, rather than aggression triggered by the online setting. They also say hostile individuals have greater reach and visibility online. The Results report greater exposure to attacks on strangers online, consistent with the claim’s hedged paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“people may voice moral judgments on social media to demonstrate their own moral commitment or undermine a rival's moral beliefs, garnering a higher online status through a behavior known as moral grandstanding (Grubbs et al. 2019)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > MOTIVATIONS FOR EXPRESSING OUTRAGE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Grubbs et al. 2019 source
The Introduction defines moral grandstanding as using moral talk to seek social status and discusses that motive in social-media discourse. Its Status-seeking section describes impressing others and shaming an ideological rival as ways to seek status, matching the two motives in the claim. The paper describes status-seeking, not a guarantee that a post will gain status. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Thus, while more voices can be heard through social media, more extreme voices may be prioritized (Bail 2022) and propaganda can foster divisive content (Simchon et al. 2022), which might distort the information people consume.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INFORMATION SHARING AND AWARENESS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bail 2022 source
- Supportedcites Simchon et al. 2022 source
The introduction describes state-affiliated social-media operations that seek to sow intergroup conflict. The Discussion reports that trolls share polarized content and that their messages can be echoed by mainstream media as “the voice of the people.” This supports the portion attributed to Simchon et al.: organized propaganda can foster divisive content that may affect what people consume. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Other work finds that moralization may amplify a preference to share both true and false politically congruent partisan news, which can amplify polarization (Marie et al. 2023).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > POLARIZATION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Marie et al. 2023 source
The Discussion of Experiments 1–4 reports that moralization amplified participants’ preference to share politically congruent over incongruent news, whether true or false. The Abstract links this selective sharing to belief polarization. The claim’s tentative wording is consistent with those findings. (LLM, conf=0.92)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, if misinformation is defined as misleading claims made by politicians and public figures (Mosleh & Rand 2022) or political images (Yang et al. 2023), then misinformation exposure is likely much more common and potentially impactful.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > MISINFORMATION AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Mosleh & Rand 2022 source
The Introduction defines the paper’s focus as misinformation from political elites, including public figures and organizations that make false or inaccurate claims. Mosleh and Rand (2022) is cited for that form of misinformation, not for the separate reference to political images or the citing authors’ conclusion about its prevalence and impact. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites Yang et al. 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, these echo chambers about vaccine attitudes were not observed in the United Kingdom, suggesting that political leaders in the United States may have polarized the pandemic (Rathje et al. 2022a; see also Altay et al. 2022).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE MORALITY AND MISINFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rathje et al. 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Altay et al. 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that untrustworthy news outlets did better in the United States than in the UK, supporting a general cross-country contrast. The paper examines news use and Facebook engagement, not echo chambers about vaccine attitudes or whether US political leaders polarized the pandemic. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“While many might think that exposure to misinformation is very common, exposure to untrustworthy news sites is actually rare, and people tend to see far more legitimate news online (Altay et al. 2022).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > MISINFORMATION AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Altay et al. 2022 source
The RQ1 section reports that untrustworthy outlets accounted for a small minority of news-site visits in the US, UK, France, and Germany, while trustworthy outlets dominated the web-traffic top five. The Discussion likewise says untrustworthy outlets received little attention compared with more reliable information. The finding concerns measured news-site traffic; the paper notes a larger share of Facebook engagement for untrustworthy outlets in the US and France. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“As we noted above, posts with misinformation tend to contain high-arousal emotions such as surprise or disgust (Vosoughi et al. 2018) and often derogate out-group members (Osmundsen et al. 2021).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > MISINFORMATION AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vosoughi et al. 2018 source
- Supportedcites Osmundsen et al. 2021 source
The Abstract says people who share political fake news selectively share content useful for derogating political opponents. The discussion of Figure 5 adds that pro-Republican fake-news sources consistently portrayed Democrats more negatively than Republicans. The separate claim about surprise and disgust is attributed to Vosoughi et al., not this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Pro-vaccine individuals in the United States tended to follow liberal politicians on Twitter (such as Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton), whereas anti-vaccine individuals were more likely to follow conservative politicians and influencers (such as Candace Owens or Tucker Carlson).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE MORALITY AND MISINFORMATION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rathje et al. 2022 source
Study 1’s ‘Specific influencers associated with vaccine confidence’ section reports that US followers of liberal or Democratic politicians had higher vaccine confidence, while followers of conservative politicians and influencers had lower confidence. Its Table 1 includes Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton among accounts associated with high confidence, and Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson among those associated with low confidence. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“These false beliefs help explain why social media can fuel (moral) conflicts, as most people are more moderate than people think (Levendusky & Malhotra 2016) and consume news from the same sources on social media (Guess 2021), while those who engage on social media are the most engaged partisans (Settle 2018).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > SOCIAL MEDIA ACCELERATES MORAL DYNAMICS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Levendusky & Malhotra 2016 source
The section “Americans Perceive Greater Polarization Than Actually Exists” states that people are relatively moderate on average but perceive others as more extreme than they are. This supports the clause attributed to Levendusky and Malhotra; the social-media clauses cite other sources. No page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guess 2021 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Settle 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“People hold exaggerated meta-perceptions of their political outgroups and overstate the magnitude of partisan animosity the political out-group feels about one's own political in-group (Ruggeri et al. 2021), and they also overestimate the degree of polarization between groups.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > SOCIAL MEDIA ACCELERATES MORAL DYNAMICS
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Ruggeri et al. 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Previous field experiments have examined whether online news sources and social media increase polarization (Bail et al. 2018) and how negative emotionality (Robertson et al. 2023a) and toxicity (Beknazar-Yuzbashev et al. 2022) affect engagement.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > FUTURE RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bail et al. 2018 source
The Research Design describes a field experiment in which participants followed Twitter bots retweeting political accounts, including media organizations. The Abstract and Discussion and Conclusion identify political polarization as the outcome examined. Bail et al. support the cited part of the sentence; the claims about emotionality and toxicity have separate citations. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites Robertson et al. 2023a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beknazar-Yuzbashev et al. 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, recent research suggests that the psychological impact of social media appears to be very different in the Global North versus the Global South (Ghai et al. 2023), or in established democracies versus less-established democracies (Lorenz-Spreen et al. 2023).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > FUTURE RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Ghai et al. 2023 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Sample diversity between regions; page not provided) report a small, significant association between social media use and adolescent depression in Global North samples, but a nonsignificant association in Global South samples. The Discussion says the evidence for a North–South difference is mixed, and the moderation analysis found no significant difference by region. Because the studies were correlational, the paper also does not establish a psychological impact caused by social media. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Not matchedcites Lorenz-Spreen et al. 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This tendency may be playing out online as well, as recent studies suggest that in political discussions online, divisive or moralized content is more likely to go viral (Brady et al. 2017, Rathje et al. 2021), which may fuel intergroup conflict both offline and online (Van Bavel et al. 2022).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > SOCIAL MEDIA ACCELERATES MORAL DYNAMICS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Brady et al. 2017 source
The Discussion reports that moral-emotional words increased the transmission of tweets about three polarizing political issues by approximately 20% per word. This supports the moralized-content portion attributed to Brady et al.; the sentence cites Van Bavel et al. for the separate suggestion about offline and online conflict. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites Rathje et al. 2021 source
The Abstract reports that posts about political opponents are substantially more likely to be shared and describes divisive content as particularly likely to go viral. It also reports that moral and emotional content is more likely to be retweeted in online political conversations. The separate claim about fueling conflict offline and online is attached to Van Bavel et al. (2022), not this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites Van Bavel et al. 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In recent years, the social sciences provided early guidance on responses to the COVID-19 pandemic to inform policy decisions (Ruggeri et al. 2022, Van Bavel et al. 2020).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > FUTURE RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ruggeri et al. 2022 source
The Introduction says academics presented hypotheses about managing collective behavior at the beginning of the pandemic and that governments incorporated behavioral concepts covered in that work into pandemic policies. This supports the claim that social sciences offered early guidance relevant to policy decisions. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites Van Bavel et al. 2020 source
The introduction (p. 1) says the paper discusses social and behavioural science insights for managing the pandemic and their implications for policy-makers. Its April 2020 publication date (Conclusion, p. 8) supports the description of this as early guidance. The paper cautions (p. 2) that these policy implications drew largely on prior research and should be interpreted carefully. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
In the paper
“People express moral outrage online for a variety of reasons, such as to demonstrate their commitment to certain moral principles, signal their membership in their group, or enhance their reputation as moral individuals (Brady et al. 2020a)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > MOTIVATIONS FOR EXPRESSING OUTRAGE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brady et al. 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“moral outrage is attention grabbing and particularly effective at signaling group affiliation”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > REINFORCEMENT AND SOCIAL NORMS INCREASE MORAL OUTRAGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“people now encounter more acts related to morality and experience stronger feelings of moral outrage from online content than from print media, TV, and radio combined (Crockett 2017)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crockett 2017 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“social media may change the reputational dynamics in moral conflicts and lead to some unintended social consequences”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > REINFORCEMENT AND SOCIAL NORMS INCREASE MORAL OUTRAGE
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One cross-platform analysis of homophily (the tendency for people to affiliate with those who are similar to them) and affective polarization (the tendency to view opposing partisans negatively and co-partisans positively) found that Twitter had the most homophily and Facebook had the lowest (Yarchi et al. 2021).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > Mean effect sizes (reactions)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Yarchi et al. 2021 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This pattern has been observed now across 27 different studies and is consistent across lay people and political elites (Brady et al. 2018)”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > MORAL EMOTIONS CAPTURE ATTENTION ONLINE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brady et al. 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“public expressions of outrage can lead to benefits for individuals, and this behavior online may therefore be motivated by extrinsic goals”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > MOTIVATIONS FOR EXPRESSING OUTRAGE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A major reason social media is different from prior forms of media, such as books, newspapers, and television, is that information can be shared with much lower effort, with a greater number of people, and much faster than ever before-as there are fewer gatekeepers for the sharing of online information (and misinformation).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INFORMATION SHARING AND AWARENESS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, when asked what type of content they would want to go viral on social media, people reported that they do not want to see divisive content and instead would like more accurate, thoughtful, or nuanced content to go viral.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > EXTREMISTS DOMINATE ONLINE CONVERSATIONS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rathje et al. 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In line with some prior research, a representative sample of Americans reported thinking that moral outrage, polarizing content, misinformation, and out-group animosity all tend to go viral on social media platforms.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > EXTREMISTS DOMINATE ONLINE CONVERSATIONS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rathje et al. 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Extremists tend to be dogmatic and to present their beliefs as facts (Harris & Van Bavel 2020, Toner et al. 2013), and they may incite others to become more ideologically polarized.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > EXTREMISTS DOMINATE ONLINE CONVERSATIONS
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, social media may have played a role in increasing violent sectarian conflicts in Myanmar and Sri Lanka through the spreading of harmful misinformation, or in the United States through the spreading of antidemocratic #stopthesteal conspiracy theories about the 2020 US presidential election (Fisher 2022b).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INFORMATION SHARING AND AWARENESS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fisher 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“moralized political discussions on social media might amplify, reward, and select for people with certain traits”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN ONLINE MORALITY
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, both Democrats and Republicans reported that divisive content should be much less viral than it currently is, indicating that there is broad consensus across the political spectrum that people do not want divisive content to go viral.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > EXTREMISTS DOMINATE ONLINE CONVERSATIONS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rathje et al. 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This creates a paradox: Social media can be a liberating technology, giving marginalized voices who are normally excluded the chance to speak, but it can also be a repressive technology, providing bad actors, conspiracy theorists, or propagandists with the opportunity to spread harmful messages (Tucker et al. 2017).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INFORMATION SHARING AND AWARENESS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tucker et al. 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, one study found that the rollout of 3G Internet access around the world was associated with decreased support for political institutions and increased support for populist political parties (Guriev et al. 2021).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INFORMATION SHARING AND AWARENESS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guriev et al. 2021 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This also feeds into political segregation on social media.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > EXTREMISTS DOMINATE ONLINE CONVERSATIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that outrage is attention grabbing and social media algorithms prioritize popular content, our online feeds are saturated with expressions of outrage distorting our perceptions of polarization.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > EXTREMISTS DOMINATE ONLINE CONVERSATIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Outrage is attention grabbing.
- Rests on an assumption: Social media algorithms prioritize popular content.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, there is clear evidence that social media is used to facilitate collective action to benefit marginalized groups; however, the impact of these efforts is often unclear.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE MORALITY AND MISINFORMATION
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, moralized rhetoric may increase polarization, harassment, misinformation, and false norms about the amount of outrage and hostility present in people's online social networks.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > POLARIZATION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, social media might have very different impacts on polarization in different places, demonstrating a need for more global research on the effects of social media.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > POLARIZATION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One analysis during the 2013-2014 Maidan protests in Ukraine found that protestors who took to Facebook spread awareness, garnering millions of likes ( Jost et al. 2018; see Figure 4).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE MORALITY AND MISINFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jost et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of oversight can lead to the spread of misinformation that can undercut democratic institutions and might even lead to ethnic or political violence.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INFORMATION SHARING AND AWARENESS
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The spread of moral messages on social media can lead to important collective action (such as protests, political participation, and mobilization), as well as harmful behaviors (such as political violence).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE MORALITY AND MISINFORMATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, one randomized controlled trial found that deactivating Facebook for one month reduced ideological polarization (or polarization around political issues) and marginally reduced affective polarization in the United States (Allcott et al. 2020).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > POLARIZATION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Allcott et al. 2020 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another study found that, while someone's expression of moral-emotional language made in-group members view that person as a good group member, it made out-group members view that person as less open-minded and more partisan (Brady & Van Bavel 2021b).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > POLARIZATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brady & Van Bavel 2021b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Similarly, the #MeToo hashtag was included in over 13 million tweets and was highly correlated with real-life social and political events (Williams et al. 2019).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE MORALITY AND MISINFORMATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Williams et al. 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These contradicting findings may reflect difficulties in defining misinformation.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > MISINFORMATION AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Information spread online is governed, in part, by social media algorithms, which might dramatically change the kind of information that people consume (Rathje et al. 2022b).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > INFORMATION SHARING AND AWARENESS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rathje et al. 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, morality and social identities shape behavior on social media and people share misinformation because it supports their social, political, and moral goals.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > ADDRESSING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND MORALITY
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People share misinformation because it supports their social, political, and moral goals.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“For instance, Americans believe that social media companies censor political viewpoints (Vogels et al. 2020) and believe it is hard to regulate social media because people cannot agree upon what should and should not be removed (Pew Res.Cent.2019).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > ADDRESSING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND MORALITY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vogels et al. 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Pew Res.Cent.2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These studies suggest that regulating threatening content that causes severe harm is in line with public opinion, although there may be disagreement on what constitutes severe harm.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > ADDRESSING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND MORALITY
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While studies on Twitter are relatively abundant, other popular platforms such as Reddit, LinkedIn, Instagram, or YouTube have not received the same level of attention (Iandoli et al. 2021).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > FUTURE RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Iandoli et al. 2021 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Overall, social media platforms are very hesitant to share data and are not transparent about how their underlying algorithms work, even though 92% of people support social media companies being more transparent about how their algorithms work (Rathje et al. 2022b; see Figure 3).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > FUTURE RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rathje et al. 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Political allegiances also shape perceptions of hostility (Muddiman 2017, Mutz 2015) and censorship (Amira et al. 2021, Ashokkumar et al. 2020, Lelkes & Westwood 2017), and they may make people willing to compromise civil liberties for advancing political goals (Frederiksen 2022, Graham & Svolik 2020, Simonovits et al. 2022, Svolik 2020).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > ADDRESSING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND MORALITY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Muddiman 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Mutz 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Amira et al. 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In other words, they may perceive immoral behaviors on social media as more harmful for the victim, which in turn justifies regulation (Crawford 2017, Graham et al. 2009, Walter & Redlawsk 2019).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > ADDRESSING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND MORALITY
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There is a growing recognition among scholars and the public that social media has deleterious consequences for society, and there is a growing appetite for greater transparency and some form of regulation of social media platforms (Rathje et al. 2023).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > ADDRESSING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND MORALITY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rathje et al. 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, regulation, incentive structures, and interventions may help mitigate the negative consequences of social media in the short-term, but they would likely be more effective if they addressed the broader social and cultural problems that underlie problematic behaviors.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > ADDRESSING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND MORALITY
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, while moral outrage may lead to collective action, the research literature so far has found stronger association with more extreme or harmful action such as violence or radicalization.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE MORALITY AND MISINFORMATION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is in part due to the fact that Twitter data have been historically much easier and less expensive to access, whereas platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok share very little data with researchers.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > FUTURE RESEARCH
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We do not believe that social media is primarily responsible for polarization and threats to democracy, but simply that it might serve as an accelerant of existing cultural divisions.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > SOCIAL MEDIA ACCELERATES MORAL DYNAMICS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
One primary goal of social media platforms is to capture and monetize human attention.
“One of the primary goals of social media platforms (and of their leaders, employers, and shareholders) is to capture and monetize human attention (usually by selling advertisements).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The limits of human attention create an attention economy.
“Yet, the limits of human attention create an attention economy, whereby individuals must prioritize which information they will attend to while platforms, advertisers, and other users compete for that scarce attention.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Social media platforms employ personalized algorithms, compelling design features, and prominent influencers to capture and retain users' attention.
“This leads platforms to employ personalized algorithms, compelling design features, and prominent influencers to capture and retain users' attention.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Users who comment on trending topics, hashtags, or threads are promoted by the platforms and receive additional attention, engagement, and followers.
“users who comment on trending topics, hashtags, or threads are promoted by the platforms and receive additional attention, engagement, and followers.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Outrage is attention grabbing.
“Given that outrage is attention grabbing and social media algorithms prioritize popular content, our online feeds are saturated with expressions of outrage distorting our perceptions of polarization.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Social media algorithms prioritize popular content.
“Given that outrage is attention grabbing and social media algorithms prioritize popular content, our online feeds are saturated with expressions of outrage distorting our perceptions of polarization.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People engage with divisive content on social media because it captures attention and drives engagement.
“In other words, even though people engage with divisive content on social media-perhaps because it captures attention and drives engagement-this behavior does not align with people's stated preferences (see Figure 3).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Social media platforms are designed to reinforce online outrage.
“Given that people are unlikely to change their behaviors and social media is designed to reinforce online outrage, we outline a range of measures that can ameliorate some of the adverse consequences of the interplay between social media and morality.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People are unlikely to change their behaviors.
“Given that people are unlikely to change their behaviors and social media is designed to reinforce online outrage, we outline a range of measures that can ameliorate some of the adverse consequences of the interplay between social media and morality.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Regulation is inherently controversial because it is associated with censorship.
“Currently, there is relatively little editorial oversight on the content even on mainstream platforms, yet the association of regulation with censorship makes regulation inherently controversial.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Authoritarian states can suppress dissent through the regulation of speech on social media.
“Moreover, authoritarian states can suppress dissent through the regulation of speech on social media.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People share misinformation because it supports their social, political, and moral goals.
“In other words, morality and social identities shape behavior on social media and people share misinformation because it supports their social, political, and moral goals.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > FUTURE RESEARCH
“even though 92% of people support social media companies being more transparent about how their algorithms work (Rathje et al. 2022b; see Figure 3).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > Perceptions of what does (vs. should) go viral
“Figure 3 A representative sample of 511 US participants revealed that while people think that divisive content, moral outrage, misinformation, and people criticizing their enemies all go viral online, they report that they do not want these types of content to go viral.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE MORALITY AND MISINFORMATION
“December 26, 2014”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Social Media and Morality > THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE MORALITY AND MISINFORMATION
“January 10, 2014 January 25, 2014 February 9, 2014 February 24, 2014”
Citations
Cites
Items 201–259 of 259
Don’t @ Me: Experimentally Reducing Partisan Incivility on Twitter
Munger, K. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2020.14 · Cited by 31
The Contact Hypothesis RevisitedPreprint
Paluck, E. L., & Green, S. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2973474 · Cited by 31
How strong is the association between social media use and false consensus?
Bunker, C. J., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106947 · Cited by 30
The Evolutionary Psychology of Conflict and the Functions of Falsehood
Petersen, M. B., Osmundsen, M., & Tooby, J. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/kaby9 · Cited by 30
Moralized language predicts hate speech on social media
Solovev, K., & Pröllochs, N. (2022) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac281 · Cited by 30
Engagement with fact-checked posts on Reddit
Bond, R. M., & Garrett, R. K. (2023) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad018 · Cited by 30
Brady, W. J., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/dgt6u · Cited by 29
Self-citationThe Costs of Polarizing a Pandemic: Antecedents, Consequences, and Lessons
Van Bavel, J. J., Pretus, C., Rathje, S., Pärnamets, P., Vlasceanu, M., & Knowles, E. D. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231190395 · Cited by 29
Self-citationHarris, E. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/hfuas · Cited by 28
Self-citationHarris, E. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2021) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620968792 · Cited by 27
Self-citationThe Evolutionary Psychology of Conflict and the Functions of Falsehood
Petersen, M. B., Osmundsen, M., & Tooby, J. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197578384.003.0007 · Cited by 27
Short of Suspension: How Suspension Warnings Can Reduce Hate Speech on Twitter
Yildirim, M. M., Nagler, J., Bonneau, R., & Tucker, J. A. (2021) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592721002589 · Cited by 23
Generalized morality culturally evolves as an adaptive heuristic in large social networks.
Jackson, J. C., Halberstadt, J. B., Takezawa, M., Liew, K., Smith, K. M., Apicella, C. L., & Gray, K. J. (2023) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspa0000358 · Cited by 22
The Effects of Target Characteristics on Public Support for Hate Speech LawsPreprint
Rasmussen, J. S. (2022) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/j4nuc · Cited by 21
Self-citationMeasuring exposure to misinformation from political elites on TwitterPreprint
Mosleh, M., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ye3pf · Cited by 20
Is a Refrigerator Good or Evil? The Moral Evaluation of Everyday Objects
Jarudi, I., Kreps, T., & Bloom, P. (2008) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0082-z · Cited by 19
Ruggeri, K., Stock, F., Haslam, S. A., Capraro, V., Boggio, P., Ellemers, N., Cichocka, A., Douglas, K., Rand, D. G., Cikara, M., et al. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/58udn · Cited by 19
Self-citationExposure to justice diminishes moral perception.
Gantman, A. P., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000241 · Cited by 18
Self-citationThe general fault in our fault linesPreprint
Ruggeri, K., Većkalov, B., Bojanić, L., Andersen, T. L., Ashcroft-Jones, S., Ayacaxli, N., Barea-Arroyo, P., Berge, M. L., Bjørndal, L. D., Bursalıoğlu, A., et al. (2020) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/xvksa · Cited by 18
Reinero, D. A., Harris, E., Rathje, S., Duke, A., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/z4df3 · Cited by 14
Self-citationThe COVID States Project #57: Social media news consumption and COVID-19 vaccination rates
Lazer, D., Green, J., Ognyanova, K., Baum, M., Lin, J., Druckman, J., Perlis, R., Santillana, M., & Uslu, A. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/uvqbs · Cited by 13
Brady, W. J., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/s4w2x · Cited by 13
Public Health Communication Reduces COVID-19 Misinformation Sharing and Boosts Self-Efficacy
Rasmussen, J. S., Lindekilde, L. E., & Petersen, M. B. (2024) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2024.2 · Cited by 13
Self-citationField experiments on social mediaPreprint
Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/dgmc2 · Cited by 12
How effective is online outrage?Preprint
Brady, W. J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/knw5g · Cited by 12
Social Media and Intergroup Communication
Carr, C. T. (2017) · Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.460 · Cited by 11
Are Conservatives from Mars and Liberals from Venus?
Skitka, L. J., & Washburn, A. N. (2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315644387-5 · Cited by 9
Koppel, L., Robertson, C. E., Doell, K. C., et al. (2023) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x2300105x · Cited by 9
Self-citationOnline misinformation is linked to COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal (Preprint)Preprint
Pierri, F., Perry, B. L., DeVerna, M., Yang, K.-C., Flammini, A., Menczer, F., & Bryden, J. (2021) · doi:10.2196/preprints.32237 · Cited by 9
The role of moral outrage in the spread of misinformation
McLoughlin, K. L., Brady, W. J., & Crockett, M. J. (2022) · TMS Proceedings 2021 · doi:10.1037/tms0000136 · Cited by 8
Morally Homogeneous Networks and RadicalismPreprint
Atari, M., Davani, A. M., Kogon, D., Kennedy, B., Saxena, N. A., Anderson, I. A., & Dehghani, M. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/h3udp · Cited by 8
Generalized Morality Culturally Evolves as an Adaptive Heuristic in Large Social NetworksPreprint
Jackson, J. C., Halberstadt, J. B., Takezawa, M., Liew, K., Smith, K. M., Apicella, C. L., & Gray, K. J. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sx4rt · Cited by 6
An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content among political elites
Brady, W. J., Van Bavel, J. J., Jost, J., & Wills, J. A. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/43n5e · Cited by 5
Self-citationProsocial thinkers and the social transmission of justice
Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M. J., Imai, L., Mayer, D. M., & Bell, C. M. (2017) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2256 · Cited by 4
Rasmussen, S. H. R., & Petersen, M. B. (2022) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/vzu4q · Cited by 4
Cheng, J. T. (2013) · cIRcle (University of British Columbia) · doi:10.14288/1.0074049 · Cited by 4
How Social Identity Shapes Conspiratorial Belief
(2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/xqh45 · Cited by 3
Harris, E., Rathje, S., Robertson, C., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2023) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/gtbj3 · Cited by 3
Self-citationExposure to Opposing Views can Increase Political Polarization
Bail, C. A. (2018) · Harvard Dataverse · doi:10.7910/dvn/nseseh · Cited by 3
How People Justify Online Political HostilityPreprint
Rasmussen, J. S. (2023) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/r3y5u · Cited by 1
Self-citationBrady, W. J., Rathje, S., Globig, L. K., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/s4w2x_v1 · Cited by 1
Self-citationMoral Emotions Shape the Virality of COVID-19 Misinformation on Social MediaPreprint
Solovev, K., & Pröllochs, N. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.03590
Simonovits, G. (2021) · Harvard Dataverse · doi:10.7910/dvn/sihbrn
Replication Data for: Short of Suspension: How Suspension Warnings Can Reduce Hate Speech on Twitter
Yildirim, M. M. (2021) · Harvard Dataverse · doi:10.7910/dvn/6ftrzz
Don’t @ Me: Experimentally Reducing Partisan Incivility on Twitter – Erratum
Munger, K. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2020.31
The Sisyphean Cycle of Technology Panics
Orben, A. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/dqmju
Negativity drives online news consumption: (503632024-001)
Robertson, C., Prollocchs, N., Schwarzenegger, K., et al. (2023) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e503632024-001
Self-citationCensoring Political Opposition Online: Who Does it and Why
Ashokkumar, A., Talaifar, S., Fraser, W. T., et al. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/r9c5z
Grubbs, J. B., Warmke, B., Tosi, J., James, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/gnaj5
Koppel, L., Robertson, C., Doell, K. C., Javeed, A., Rasmussen, J., Rathje, S., Vlasceanu, M., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3qvpb
Self-citationResolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation
Kozyreva, A., Herzog, S. M., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Leiser, M., & Reifler, J. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/2pc3a
Voice-Only Communication Enhances Empathic Accuracy
Kraus, M. W. (2016) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/y36nx_v1
WITHDRAWN: Audience effects on moralistic punishment☆
Kurzban, R., DeScioli, P., & O'Brien, E. (2006) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.06.003
Trolls Just Want to Have Fun: (520722015-006)
Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e520722015-006
How Strong is the Association Between Social Media Use and False Consensus?
Bunker, C. J., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/eyjaq
What makes online content viral?
Berger, J. (2012) · Strategic Direction · doi:10.1108/sd.2012.05628haa.014
Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2020) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123419000024
The Costs of Polarizing a Pandemic: Antecedents, Consequences, and Lessons
Bavel, J. J. V., Pretus, C., Rathje, S., Pärnamets, P., Vlasceanu, M., & Knowles, E. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qdb97
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- Allport GW., 1954, The Nature of Prejudice
- Altay S, 2023, Soc. Media Soc., 9
- Altay S, 2022, J. Quant. Descr. Digit. Media, 2
- Andresen MJ, 2022, Danskernes oplevelse af had på sociale medier
- Di Placido D., 2021, Forbes
- Dias NC, 2022, How and why Americans misperceive the prevalence of, and motives behind, “cancel culture
- Duggan M., 2017, Pew Research Center
- Fisher M., 2022, New York Times
- Fisher M., 2022, The Chaos Machine: The Inside Story of How Social Media Rewired Our Minds and Our World
- Haidt J., 2022, Atlantic
- Harris EA, 2023, Int. J. Commun., 17, 5316
- Harv. Mag, 2009, Harvard Magazine
- Kaye D., 2019, OneZero
- Marwick AE., 2021, Soc. Media Soc., 7
- McCluskey M., 2021, TIME
- Morant L., 2018, Medium
- Muddiman A., 2017, Int. J. Commun., 11, 21
- Munger K., 2019, Soc. Media Soc., 5
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691165110.001.0001 · DOI
- Pew Res. Cent., 2019, Pew Research Center
- Pretus C, 2022, The misleading count: an identity-based intervention to mitigate the spread of partisan misinformation
- Statista, 2023, Statista
- Valentino-DeVries J, 2022, New York Times
- Van Bavel JJ, 2021, The Power of Us: Harnessing Our Shared Identities to Improve Performance, Increase Cooperation, and Promote Social Harmony
- Vogels EA, 2020, Pew Research Center
- Williams JB, 2019, Univ. Chicago Legal Forum, 2019, 22
- Yang Y, 2023, J. Commun., 2023, jqac051
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Inside the funhouse mirror factory: How social media distorts perceptions of norms
Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2024) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101918 · Cited by 72
Self-citationAI language model rivals expert ethicist in perceived moral expertise
Dillion, D., Mondal, D., Tandon, N., & Gray, K. J. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-86510-0 · Cited by 64
The bias beneath: analyzing drift in YouTube’s algorithmic recommendations
Çakmak, M. C., Agarwal, N., & Oni, R. (2024) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-024-01343-5 · Cited by 29
“The interplay between social media and morality can amplify both negative (e.g., outrage, inter-group conflict) and positive (e.g., social support, prosocial-ity) aspects of morality (Van Bavel et al. 2024).”
Morality in the anthropocene: The perversion of compassion and punishment in the online world
Robertson, C. E., Shariff, A., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae193 · Cited by 28
Self-citationMultispecies Cohesion: Humans, Machinery, AI, and Beyond
Huo, F. Y., Manrique, P. D., & Johnson, N. F. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.247401 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA;, , ,
- New York University (US)
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2024-01-18
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 311-340
- ISSN
- 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2085
- OpenAlex
- W4388074450
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 215
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 17
- FWCI
- 4.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- social media, morality, moral content, attention economy, engagement, viral content, moral behavior, punishment, outrage, status seeking, intergroup conflict, prosocial behavior, social support, collective action
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Morals, Punishment, Social Support, Social Media
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
