The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1126/science.adu5584 · Paper page
Abstract
Today, social media platforms hold sole power to study the effects of feed ranking algorithms. We developed a platform-independent method that reranks participants' feeds in real-time and used this method to conduct a preregistered 10-day field experiment with 1,256 participants on X during the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign. Our experiment used a large language model to rerank posts that expressed antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity (AAPA). Decreasing or increasing AAPA exposure shifted out-party partisan animosity by two points on a 100-point feeling thermometer, with no detectable differences across party lines, providing causal evidence that exposure to AAPA content alters affective polarization. This work establishes a method to study feed algorithms without requiring platform cooperation, enabling independent evaluation of ranking interventions in naturalistic settings.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Piccardi, T., Saveski, M., Jia, C., Hancock, J. T., Tsai, J. L., & Bernstein, M.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Northeastern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Piccardi, Tiziano
- Saveski, Martin
- Jia, Chenyan
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 390
- Issue
- 6776
- Pages
- eadu5584-eadu5584
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2411.14652
- OpenAlex
- W4416752539
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 7
- FWCI
- 65.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2214203, 2403433, 2403434, 2403435)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- algorithmic curation, partisan animosity, affective polarization, Twitter, feeling thermometers
- MeSH terms
- Affect, Algorithms, Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Politics, United States, 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.
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
