By Emma Young
Is it really believable that Hillary Clinton operated a child sex ring out of a pizza shop — or that Donald Trump was prepared to deport his wife, Melania, after a fight at the White House? Though both these headlines seem obviously false, they were shared millions of times on social media.
The sharing of misinformation — including such blatantly false “fake news” — is of course a serious problem. According to a popular interpretation of why it happens, when deciding what to share, social media users don’t care if a “news” item is true or not, so long as it furthers their own agenda: that is, we are in a “post-truth” era. One recent study suggested, for example, that knowing something is false has little impact on the likelihood of sharing. However, a new paper by a team of researchers from MIT and the University of Regina in Canada further challenges that bleak view.
The studies reported in the paper, available as a preprint on PsyArXiv, suggest that in fact, social media users do care whether an item is accurate or not — they just get distracted by other motives (such as wanting to secure new followers or likes) when deciding what to share. As part of their study, the researchers also showed that a simple intervention that targeted a group of oblivious Twitter users increased the quality of the news that they shared. “Our results translate directly into a scalable anti-misinformation intervention that is easily implementable by social media platforms,” they write.
Continue reading “Most People Who Share “Fake News” Do Care About The Accuracy Of News Items — They’re Just Distracted”
By Emily Reynolds
Over the last few years, so-called “fake news” — purposefully untrue misinformation spread online — has become more and more of a concern. From extensive media coverage of the issue to government committees being set up for its investigation, fake news is at the top of the agenda — and more often than we’d like, on top of our newsfeeds.
But how does exposure to misinformation impact the way we respond to it? A new study, published in Psychological Science, suggests that the more we see it, the more we’re likely to spread it. And considering the fact that fake news is more likely to go viral than real news, this could have worrying implications.
Continue reading “The More We See Fake News, The More Likely We Are To Share It”
By Matthew Warren
From digital detoxes to the recent Silicon Valley fad of “dopamine fasting”, it seems more fashionable than ever to attempt to abstain from consuming digital media. Underlying all of these trends is the assumption that using digital devices — and being on social media in particular — is somehow unhealthy, and that if we abstain, we might become happier, more fulfilled people.
But is there any truth to this belief? When it comes to social media, at least, a new paper in Media Psychology suggests not. In one of the few experimental studies in the field, researchers have found that quitting social media for up to four weeks does nothing to improve our well-being or quality of life.
Continue reading “Abstaining From Social Media Doesn’t Improve Well-Being, Experimental Study Finds”
By Emma Young
What is it about social media that makes discussions about controversial topics so caustic and unpleasant? A variety of reasons have been put forward — such as the tendency for outrage to self-perpetuate, as we reported earlier this week. But now a new study, published in PLoS One, implicates a concept so far explored in philosophy rather than psychology. This is “moral grandstanding” — publicly opining on morality and politics to impress others, and so to seek social status.
Continue reading “Psychological Study Of “Moral Grandstanding” Helps Explain Why Social Media Is So Toxic”
By Emily Reynolds
Spend any amount of time online and you’re likely to see the same patterns repeat themselves over and over again: somebody says something offensive or controversial on social media, they’re met with anger and disgust, and they either apologise or double down.
For some, this cycle has become somewhat of a career, with the garnering of outrage forming the backbone of their (often incredibly tedious) public personas. But does responding to such toxic or offensive remarks, especially en masse, actually work? Or does it simply increase sympathy for the offender, no matter how bigoted their remarks were to begin with?
According to research published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, the latter is more likely. The paper looked at the impact of viral outrage on convincing observers that an offender is blameworthy — and found that as outrage increased, observers believed it was “more normative” to express condemnation, but simultaneously believed that outrage was excessive and felt more sympathy for the offender.
Continue reading “The Paradox Of Viral Outrage: Public Shaming Inspires Further Outrage — But Also Increases Sympathy For The Offender”
By Matthew Warren
At 8:07am on a Saturday morning in early 2018, phones throughout Hawaii buzzed with a distressing message. “Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter,” it read. “This is not a drill.” Similar warnings interrupted television and radio transmissions. And until a follow-up message 38 minutes later clarified that it had been a false alarm, many residents were left expecting the worst.
But according to a new study published in American Psychologist, the toll on Hawaii residents lasted much longer than those terrifying minutes. Researchers analysing the kinds of words tweeted before and after the false alarm have found that anxiety seemed to be heightened for days — particularly among those who appeared the least anxious to begin with.
Continue reading “Hawaiian Tweeters Displayed Heightened Anxiety For Days After False Missile Alert”
By Christian Jarrett
You might imagine – as prior research suggests many people do – that putting your feelings into words will only intensify them. In fact, many laboratory studies have found the opposite to be true. Stating out loud, or writing down, what you are feeling – a process that psychologists call “affect labelling” – seems to down-regulate emotions, diminishing their intensity.
Now an intriguing study has explored this phenomenon outside of the lab, analysing over a billion tweets to find examples of when people used a tweet to put their emotional state into words. From analysing the emotional language used in preceding and subsequent tweets, Rui Fan and his colleagues were able to see how the act of affect labelling influenced the course of an emotional state. “We found that, for a majority of individuals, emotional intensity decreased rapidly after their explicit expression in an ‘I feel’ statement,” the researchers write in their paper in Nature Human Behaviour.
Continue reading “Twitter Study Confirms The Power Of “Affect Labelling” – Emotions Are Calmed By Putting Them Into Words”
By guest blogger Jon Brock
Johannes Eichstaedt was sitting in a coffee shop by Lake Atitlan in Guatemala when he received a slack about a tweet about a preprint. In 2015, the University of Pennsylvania psychologist and his colleagues published a headline-grabbing article linking heart disease to the language used on Twitter. They’d found that tweets emanating from US counties with high rates of heart disease mortality tended to exhibit high levels of negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, disengagement, aggression, and hate. The study, published in Psychological Science, has proven influential, already accruing over 170 citations. But three years later, the preprint authors Nick Brown and James Coyne from the University of Groningen claimed to have identified “numerous conceptual and methodological limitations”. Within the month, Eichstaedt and his colleagues issued a riposte, publishing their own preprint that claims further evidence to support their original conclusions.
As recent revelations surrounding Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have highlighted, corporations and political organisations attach a high value to social media data. But, Eichstaedt argues, that same data also offers rich insights into psychological health and well-being. With appropriate ethical oversight, social media analytics could promote population health and perhaps even save lives. That at least is its promise. But with big data come new challenges – as Eichstaedt’s “debate” with Brown and Coyne illustrates.
Continue reading “Are tweets a goldmine for psychologists or just a lot of noise? Researchers clash over the meaning of social media data”
|Students showed less
comprehension of the items
they’d chosen to repost.
What fun it is to write something on Twitter or Facebook and see lots of people repost what you said – no matter the disclaimers in people’s online profiles, we usually interpret reposts of our comments as a mark of endorsement. However, a new study in Computers in Human Behavior puts a bit of a downer on things. The researchers based at Peking University and Cornell University say that the very option to share or repost social media items is distracting, and what’s more, the decision to repost is itself a further distraction and actually makes it less likely that readers will have properly understood the very items that they chose to share.
The research was conducted with dozens of Chinese undergrad users of the Chinese micro-blogging site Weibo (very similar to Twitter). In one study, the students had to read forty short (maximum 140 Chinese character) Weibo posts about a recent controversial issue in China – whether or not to help elderly people who have fallen over. Half the participants had the option to repost the items, whereas the others did not. The key finding was that the group who had the option to repost each item performed less well in a subsequent comprehension test of the 40 Weibo posts. Moreover, the participants who could repost made twice as many errors for the posts they had reposted than those they hadn’t. Why should this be? “The feedback function encourages individuals to make quick responses, taking away the time individuals would otherwise use to cogitate and integrate the content information they receive,” the researchers said. They added: “This finding has overarching implications given that the majority users of micro-blogging sites only read and repost others’ messages”.
A second study was similar, with some students given the option to repost Weibo items and others not given this option, but this time the Weibo part of the task was followed by a reading comprehension test on a New Scientist article. The finding – students who’d had the reposting option on Weibo performed worse at the subsequent reading comp test, and this seemed to be because they were more mentally tired after reading the Weibo posts. The researchers said: “When we are reposting and sharing information with others, we unwantedly add burden to our cognitive resources and, as a result, our own understanding of the information is compromised and our subsequent learning hindered.”
—Does micro-blogging make us “shallow”? Sharing information online interferes with information comprehension
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Our free fortnightly email will keep you up-to-date with all the psychology research we digest: Sign up!
Updated for November 2015, here are the 100 most followed psychologists and neuroscientists on Twitter based on follower counts recorded over the last few weeks. If we’ve missed anyone (individuals, not organisations or publications) who should be in the top 100, please let us know via comments and we’ll add them in. This is an update to our November 2014 post. We’re aware there are issues with lists like this (for example, Twitter accounts vary in how many active followers they have), but we hope you will find it useful nonetheless. Three BPS Twitter accounts are included below, but are not counted in the tally towards 100.
1st place Andrew Mendonsa. Clinical psychologist. Followers: 371769
Sam Harris. Neuroscientist, author. Followers: 343930
Steven Pinker. Evolutionary psychologist, author. Followers: 204280
Kiki Sanford. Neurophysiologist turned sci communicator. Followers: 198899
Ian Wallace. “Dream psychologist”. Followers: 147903
Richard Wiseman. Psychologist, blogger and author. Followers: 138755
Laura Kauffman. Child psychologist. Followers: 107074
Dan Ariely. Behavioural Economist, author. Followers: 100889
George Huba. Psychologist. Followers: 98273
10Travis Langley. Social psychologist and author. Followers: 92603
Joe Guse. Comedian turned psychologist. Followers: 72325
Neuroskeptic. Blogger and neuroscientist. Followers: 68538
Daniel Goleman. Emotional intelligence expert. Followers: 62290
Leah Klungness. Author and psychologist. Followers: 60591
Dolors Reig. Social psychologist (tweets in Spanish). Followers: 60875
BPS Research Digest. That’s Us! Followers: 57811
Anthony Risser. Neuropsychologist, blogger. Followers: 49283
Steve Silberman. Author on autism. Followers: 45500
The Psychologist magazine! Followers: 45449
Adam Grant. Organisational psychologist. Followers: 44464
Dylan William. Educational psychologist. Followers: 44060
20Yankı Yazgan. Child psychiatrist/ psychology faculty. Followers: 44073
Melanie Greenberg. Clinical health psychologist. Followers: 42835
Richard Thaler. Behavioural economist. Followers: 41971
BPS Official! Followers: 35062
Amy Cuddy. Social psychologist. Followers: 34125
Jeremy Dean. Psychology blogger. Followers: 25136
25 Shawn Achor. Positive psychologist. Followers: 33404
Vaughan Bell. Clinical neuropsychologist, blogger. Followers: 32683
Simon Rego. Cognitive behavioural psychologist. Followers: 32618
Miguel Escotet. Psychologist. Followers: 31420
Marsha Lucas. Neuropsychologist. Followers: 30353
30 Kelly McGonigal. Psychologist. Followers: 27458
David Eagleman. Neuroscientist, author. Followers: 25882
Mo Costandi. Neuroscience writer, blogger. Followers: 25869
Jo Hemmings. Celebrity psychologist. Followers: 25771
Bob Sutton. Organisational psychologist and author. Followers: 25592
Aleks Krotoski. Psychologist, tech journalist. Followers: 24900
Dean Burnett. Neuroscientist and comedian. Followers: 24896
Dan Gilbert. Psychologist. Followers: 24745
David Dobbs. Neuroscience writer. Followers: 24280
Paul Bloom. Psychologist. Followers: 24164
40 Evan Sinar. Organisational psychologist. Followers: 23,999
Noah Gray. Neuroscience editor. Followers: 22319
John Froiland. School psychologist. Followers: 21285
Susan Whitbourne. Psychologist. Followers: 21212
Sarah-Jayne Blakemore. Cognitive neuroscientist. Followers: 20283
David Ballard. Work psychologist. Followers: 20004
Dorothy Bishop. Developmental neuropsychologist. Followers: 19941
Jonathan Haidt. Psychologist. Followers: 19853
Simon Baron-Cohen. Developmental psychologist. Followers: 19700
Marilyn Price-Mitchell. Developmental Psychologist. Followers: 18937
50 Ciaran O’Keeffe. Parapsychologist. Followers: 18379
Scott Kaufman. Cognitive psychologist, author. Followers: 18649
Daniel Levitin. Psychologist, author. Followers: 17892
Heidi GrantHalvorson. Social psychologist. Followers: 17717
Craig Malkin. Clinical psychologist. Followers: 17701
Robert Cialdini. Social psychologist. Followers: 17298
Uta Frith. Developmental neuropsychologist. Followers: 17163
Sun Wolf. Social neuroscientist. Followers: 17058
Pascal Wallisch. Neuroscientist. Followers: 16275
Micah Allen. Cognitive neuroscientist. Followers: 16050
60 Melissa McCreery. Clinical Psychologist. Followers: 15094
Christian Jarrett. Editor of the Research Digest! Followers: 14950
Tanya Byron. Clinical psychologist, TV presenter, columnist. Followers: 13878
Stephan Guyenet. Neurobiologist. Followers: 13114
Lee Keyes. Psychologist. Followers: 13034
Andrea Kuszewski. Robopsychologist. Followers: 12924
Andrea Letamendi. Clinical psychologist. Followers: 12892
Todd Kashdan. Psychologist. Followers: 12792
Professor Bob. Psychologist. Followers: 12761
Cary Cooper. Occupational psychologist. Followers: 12646
70 David Webb. Psychology tutor, blogger. Followers: 12545
Sophie Scott. Neuroscientist. Followers: 11889
Pam Spurr. Agony aunt. Followers: 11816
Clark Quinn. Organisational psychologist. Followers: 11674
Petra Boynton. Psychologist, sex educator. Followers: 11622
Susan Weinschenk. Psychologist and author. Followers: 11605
Philip Zimbardo. You know, the Stanford Prison Experiment guy. 11547
David Rock. Work psychologist. Followers: 11433
Honey Langcaster-James. Psychologist and coach. Followers: 11337
Maia Szalavitz. Neuroscience journalist. Followers: 10961
80 James Moore. Cognitive Neuroscientist. Followers: 10943
Timothy Lomauro. Clinical psychologist. Followers: 10709
Shelley Bonanno. Psychologist and psychotherapist. Followers: 10341
Jason Goldman. Developmental psychologist, science writer. Followers: 10288
Neuro Bonkers. Blogger. Followers: 10208
Stew Friedman. Organisational psychologist, author. Followers: 10152
Bradley Voytek. Neuroscientist and self-professed geek. Followers: 10133
Michael Woodward “Dr. Woody”. Organisational psychologist. Followers: 10097
Claudia Hammond. Radio presenter. Followers: 9832
Cheryl Arutt. Clinical and forensic psychologist. Followers: 9719
90 Jay Watts. Clinical psychologist, Lacanian. Followers: 9569
Todd Finnerty. Psychologist. Followers: 9448
Margarita Holmes. Psychologist and sex therapist. Followers: 8906
Steven Novella. Neurologist and sceptic. Followers: 8450
Rory O’Connor. Health psychologist, suicide researcher. Followers: 8368
Bruce Hood. Cognitive scientist. Followers: 8336
Patrick McGee: Health psychologist. Followers: 8094
Kevin Mitchell. Neurogeneticist. Followers: 7837
Andy Field. Psychologist and stats whiz. Followers: 7680
Hugo Spiers. Neuroscientist. Followers: 7642
100 Graham Jones. Internet (cyber) psychologist. Followers: 7609
Our free fortnightly email will keep you up-to-date with all the psychology research we digest: Sign up!