1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Psychology
  4. Volume 75, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 75, 2024

Social Media and Morality

Abstract

Nearly five billion people around the world now use social media, and this number continues to grow. One of the primary goals of social media platforms is to capture and monetize human attention. One means by which individuals and groups can capture attention and drive engagement on these platforms is by sharing morally and emotionally evocative content. We review a growing body of research on the interrelationship of social media and morality as well its consequences for individuals and society. Moral content often goes viral on social media, and social media makes moral behavior (such as punishment) less costly. Thus, social media often acts as an accelerant for existing moral dynamics, amplifying outrage, status seeking, and intergroup conflict while also potentially amplifying more constructive facets of morality, such as social support, prosociality, and collective action. We discuss trends, heated debates, and future directions in this emerging literature.

Keyword(s): emotions, identity, morality, outrage, politics, social media
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258
2024-01-18
2024-05-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/75/1/annurev-psych-022123-110258.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allcott H, Braghieri L, Eichmeyer S, Gentzkow M. 2020. The welfare effects of social media. Am. Econ. Rev. 110:3629–76
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Boston: Addison-Wesley
  3. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O. 2008. Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J. Public Econ. 92:51047–60
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Altay S, Berriche M, Acerbi A. 2023. Misinformation on misinformation: conceptual and methodological challenges. Soc. Media Soc. 9:1 https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305122115041
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Altay S, Kleis Nielsen R, Fletcher R 2022. Quantifying the “infodemic”: People turned to trustworthy news outlets during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. J. Quant. Descr. Digit. Media 2: https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.020
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Amira K, Wright JC, Goya-Tocchetto D. 2021. In-group love versus out-group hate: Which is more important to partisans and when?. Political Behav. 43:473–94
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Andresen MJ, Karg STS, Rasmussen SHR, Pradella L, Rasmussen J et al. 2022. Danskernes oplevelse af had på sociale medier The Danes’ experience of hate on social media]. Rep. Aarhus Univ. Aarhus, Den.: https://pure.au.dk/portal/files/271291115/Danskernes_oplevelse_af_had_pa_de_sociale_medier_Rapport_Aarhus_Universitet_.pdf
  8. Aramovich NP, Lytle BL, Skitka LJ. 2012. Opposing torture: moral conviction and resistance to majority influence. Soc. Influence 7:121–34
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Asch SE, Block H, Hertzman M. 1938. Studies in the principles of judgments and attitudes: I. Two basic principles of judgment. J. Psychol. 5:2219–51
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ashokkumar A, Talaifar S, Fraser WT, Landabur R, Buhrmester M et al. 2020. Censoring political opposition online: Who does it and why. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 91:104031
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Asimovic N, Nagler J, Bonneau R, Tucker JA. 2021. Testing the effects of Facebook usage in an ethnically polarized setting. PNAS 118:25e2022819118
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Atari M, Davani AM, Kogon D, Kennedy B, Ani Saxena N et al. 2022. Morally homogeneous networks and radicalism. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 13:6999–1009
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Axelrod R, Hamilton WD. 1981. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:44891390–96
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bail C. 2022. Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  15. Bail CA, Argyle LP, Brown TW, Bumpus JP, Chen H et al. 2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. PNAS 115:379216–21
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bak-Coleman JB, Alfano M, Barfuss W, Bergstrom CT, Centeno MA et al. 2021. Stewardship of global collective behavior. PNAS 118:27e2025764118
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bakshy E, Messing S, Adamic LA. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348:62391130–32
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Balliet D, Mulder LB, Van Lange PAM. 2011. Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 137:594–615
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Barberá P. 2015. Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Anal. 23:176–91
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Beknazar-Yuzbashev G, Jiménez Durán R, McCrosky J, Stalinski M 2022. Toxic content and user engagement on social media: evidence from a field experiment. Work. Pap. Univ. Chicago Chicago:
  21. Berger J, Milkman KL. 2012. What makes online content viral?. J. Mark. Res. 49:2192–205
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Bernhard H, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. 2006. Parochial altruism in humans. Nature 442:7105912–15
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Boehm C. 2012. Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame New York: Soft Skull Press
  24. Bond RM, Garrett RK. 2023. Engagement with fact-checked posts on Reddit. PNAS Nexus 2:3pgad018
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Bond RM, Messing S. 2015. Quantifying social media's political space: estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on Facebook. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109:162–78
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Bor A, Petersen MB. 2022. The psychology of online political hostility: a comprehensive, cross-national test of the mismatch hypothesis. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 116:11–18
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Boyd R, Gintis H, Bowles S, Richerson PJ. 2003. The evolution of altruistic punishment. PNAS 100:63531–35
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Boyd R, Richerson PJ. 1992. Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethol. Sociobiol. 13:3171–95
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Brady WJ, Crockett MJ. 2019. How effective is online outrage?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23:79–80
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Brady WJ, Crockett MJ, Van Bavel JJ. 2020a. The MAD model of moral contagion: the role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15:4978–1010
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Brady WJ, Gantman AP, Van Bavel JJ. 2020b. Attentional capture helps explain why moral and emotional content go viral. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149:4746–56
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Brady WJ, McLoughlin K, Doan TN, Crockett MJ. 2021. How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Sci. Adv. 7:33eabe5641
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Brady WJ, McLoughlin KL, Torres MP, Luo KF, Gendron M, Crockett MJ. 2023. Overperception of moral outrage in online social networks inflates beliefs about intergroup hostility. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7:6917–27
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Brady WJ, Van Bavel JJ. 2021a. Estimating the effect size of moral contagion in online networks: a pre-registered replication and meta-analysis Work. Pap. Northwestern Univ. Evanston, IL:
  35. Brady WJ, Van Bavel JJ. 2021b. Social identity shapes antecedents and functional outcomes of moral emotion expression in online networks Work. Pap. Northwestern Univ. Evanston, IL:
  36. Brady WJ, Wills JA, Burkart D, Jost JT, Van Bavel JJ. 2018. An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148:101802–13
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Brady WJ, Wills JA, Jost JT, Tucker JA, Bavel JJV. 2017. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. PNAS 114:287313–18
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Broockman DE, Kalla JL, Westwood SJ. 2022. Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. Am. J. Political Sci. 67:3808–28
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Buckels EE, Trapnell PD, Paulhus DL. 2014. Trolls just want to have fun. Pers. Individ. Differ. 67:97–102
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Bunker CJ, Varnum MEW. 2021. How strong is the association between social media use and false consensus?. Comput. Hum. Behav. 125:106947
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Carr CT. 2017. Social media and intergroup communication. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Intergroup Communication 2 H Giles, J Harwood 349–67 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Carr CT, Hayes RA. 2015. Social media: defining, developing, and divining. Atl. J. Commun. 23:146–65
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Chater N, Loewenstein G. 2023. The i-frame and the s-frame: how focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behav. Brain Sci. 46:e147
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Foulsham T, Kingstone A, Henrich J. 2013. Two ways to the top: evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104:1103–25
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Cho D, Kwon KH. 2015. The impacts of identity verification and disclosure of social cues on flaming in online user comments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51:363–72
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Cho J, Ahmed S, Hilbert M, Liu B, Luu J. 2020. Do search algorithms endanger democracy? An experimental investigation of algorithm effects on political polarization. J. Broadcast. Electron. 64:2150–72
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. 2004. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55:591–621
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Cinelli M, De Francisci Morales G, Galeazzi A, Quattrociocchi W, Starnini M. 2021. The echo chamber effect on social media. PNAS 118:9e2023301118
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Clifford S. 2019. How emotional frames moralize and polarize political attitudes. Political Psychol. 40:175–91
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Cohen AB. 2015. Religion's profound influences on psychology: morality, intergroup relations, self-construal, and enculturation. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24:177–82
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Crawford JT. 2017. Are conservatives more sensitive to threat than liberals? It depends on how we define threat and conservatism. Soc. Cogn. 35:4354–73
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Crockett MJ. 2017. Moral outrage in the digital age. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:11769–71
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Crosier BS, Webster GD, Dillon HM. 2012. Wired to connect: evolutionary psychology and social networks. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 16:2230–39
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Di Placido D. 2021. The ballad of “Bean Dad” shows the cruel, petty side of Twitter. Forbes Jan. 5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2021/01/05/the-ballad-of-bean-dad-shows-the-cruel-petty-side-of-twitter/?sh=72128800648e
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Dias NC, Druckman JN, Levendusky M. 2022. How and why Americans misperceive the prevalence of, and motives behind, “cancel culture.” Work. Pap. Univ. Pa. Philadelphia:
  56. Duggan M. 2017. Online harassment 2017. Pew Research Center July 11. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/07/11/online-harassment-2017/
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Eady G, Nagler J, Guess A, Zilinsky J, Tucker JA. 2019. How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data. Sage Open 9:12158244019832705
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Ellemers N, van den Bos K. 2012. Morality in groups: on the social-regulatory functions of right and wrong. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 6:12878–89
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Enders AM, Uscinski JE, Seelig MI, Klofstad CA, Wuchty S et al. 2023. The relationship between social media use and beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation. Political Behav. 45:781–804
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Erjavec K, Kovačič MP. 2012. You don't understand, this is a new war!” Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Commun. Soc. 15:6899–920
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Fincher KM, Tetlock PE. 2016. Perceptual dehumanization of faces is activated by norm violations and facilitates norm enforcement. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145:2131–46
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Finkel EJ, Bail CA, Cikara M, Ditto PH, Iyengar S et al. 2020. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370:6516533–36
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Fisher M. 2022a. Even as Iranians rise up, protests worldwide are failing at record rates. New York Times Sept. 30. http://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/30/world/middleeast/iran-protests-haiti-russia-china.html
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Fisher M. 2022b. The Chaos Machine: The Inside Story of How Social Media Rewired Our Minds and Our World New York: Little, Brown & Co.
  65. Fiske AP, Rai TS. 2014. Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  66. Fletcher R, Kalogeropoulos A, Nielsen RK. 2023. More diverse, more politically varied: how social media, search engines and aggregators shape news repertoires in the United Kingdom. New Media Soc. 25:82118–39
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Frederiksen KVS. 2022. Does competence make citizens tolerate undemocratic behavior?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 116:31147–53
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Gantman AP, Van Bavel JJ. 2014. The moral pop-out effect: enhanced perceptual awareness of morally relevant stimuli. Cognition 132:122–29
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Gantman AP, Van Bavel JJ. 2015. Moral perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19:11631–33
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Gantman AP, Van Bavel JJ. 2016. Exposure to justice diminishes moral perception. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145:121728–39
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Ghai S, Fassi L, Awadh F, Orben A. 2023. Lack of sample diversity in research on adolescent depression and social media use: a scoping review and meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 11:5759–72
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Ghai S, Magis-Weinberg L, Stoilova M, Livingstone S, Orben A. 2022. Social media and adolescent well-being in the Global South. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 46:101318
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Goldenberg A, Abruzzo JM, Huang Z, Schöne J, Bailey D et al. 2023. Homophily and acrophily as drivers of political segregation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7:219–30
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Gollwitzer A, Martel C, Brady WJ, Pärnamets P, Freedman IG, Knowles ED, Van Bavel JJ. 2020. Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4:1186–97
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek BA. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96:51029–46
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Graham MH, Svolik MW. 2020. Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 114:2392–409
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Grossman M, Hopkins DA. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  78. Grubbs JB, Warmke B, Tosi J, James AS, Campbell WK. 2019. Moral grandstanding in public discourse: status-seeking motives as a potential explanatory mechanism in predicting conflict. PLOS ONE 14:10e0223749
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Guess AM. 2021. (Almost) everything in moderation: new evidence on Americans' online media diets. Am. J. Political Sci. 65:41007–22
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Guess AM, Barberá P, Munzert S, Yang J. 2021. The consequences of online partisan media. PNAS 118:14e2013464118
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Guess AM, Coppock A. 2020. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Political Sci. 50:41497–515
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Guess AM, Lerner M, Lyons B, Montgomery JM, Nyhan B, Reifler J, Sircar N. 2020a. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. PNAS 117:2715536–45
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Guess AM, Nyhan B, Reifler J. 2020b. Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4:5472–80
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Guriev S, Melnikov N, Zhuravskaya E. 2021. 3G internet and confidence in government. Q. J. Econ. 136:42533–613
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Haidt J 2003. The moral emotions. Handbook of Affective Sciences RJ Davidson, KR Scherer, HH Goldsmith 852–70 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Haidt J. 2007. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 316:5827998–1002
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Haidt J. 2022. Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid. Atlantic April 11. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Haidt J, Graham J. 2007. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Soc. Justice Res. 20:198–116
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Hall JA, Schmid Mast M. 2007. Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm. Emotion 7:2438–46
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Hangartner D, Gennaro G, Alasiri S, Bahrich N, Bornhoft A et al. 2021. Empathy-based counterspeech can reduce racist hate speech in a social media field experiment. PNAS 118:50e2116310118
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Harris EA, Rathje S, Robertson C, Van Bavel JJ. 2023. The SPIR model of social media and polarization: exploring the role of selection, platform design, incentives, and real-world context. Int. J. Commun. 17:5316–35
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Harris EA, Van Bavel JJ. 2020. Pre-registered replication of “Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts belief superiority. Psychol. Sci. 32:3451–58
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Hartman R, Blakey W, Womick J, Bail C, Finkel EJ et al. 2022. Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6:91194–205
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Harv. Mag 2009. An intellectual entente. Harvard Magazine Sept. 10. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/breaking-news/james-watson-edward-o-wilson-intellectual-entente
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E et al. 2005. Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain. Sci. 28:6795–815
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Hill RA, Dunbar RIM. 2003. Social network size in humans. Hum. Nat. 14:153–72
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Hornsey MJ, Majkut L, Terry DJ, McKimmie BM. 2003. On being loud and proud: non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 42:3319–35
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Hutcherson CA, Gross JJ. 2011. The moral emotions: a social-functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100:4719–37
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Iandoli L, Primario S, Zollo G. 2021. The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: a systematic literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 170:120924
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Iyengar S, Lelkes Y, Levendusky M, Malhotra N, Westwood SJ. 2019. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 22:129–46
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Iyengar S, Westwood SJ. 2015. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. Am. J. Political Sci. 59:3690–707
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Jackson JC, Halberstadt J, Takezawa M, Kongmeng L, Smith KM et al. 2023. Generalized morality culturally evolves as an adaptive heuristic in large social networks. PsyArXiv, March 22. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sx4rt
    [Crossref]
  103. Jarudi I, Kreps T, Bloom P. 2008. Is a refrigerator good or evil? The moral evaluation of everyday objects. Soc. Justice Res. 21:457–69
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Johnen M, Jungblut M, Ziegele M. 2018. The digital outcry: What incites participation behavior in an online firestorm?. New Media Soc. 20:93140–60
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Jost JT, Barberá P, Bonneau R, Langer M, Metzger M et al. 2018. How social media facilitates political protest: information, motivation, and social networks. Adv. Political Psychol. 39:85–118
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Kaye D. 2019. Four questions about regulating online hate speech. OneZero Aug. 12. https://onezero.medium.com/four-questions-about-online-hate-speech-ae3e0a134472
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Kim JW, Guess A, Nyhan B, Reifler J. 2021. The distorting prism of social media: how self-selection and exposure to incivility fuel online comment toxicity. J. Commun. 71:6922–46
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Kim T. 2023. Violent political rhetoric on Twitter. Political Sci. Res. Methods 11:4673–95
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Kingzette J, Druckman JN, Klar S, Krupnikov Y, Levendusky M, Ryan JB. 2021. How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opin. Q. 85:2663–77
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Koppel L, Robertson CE, Doell KC, Javeed AM, Rasmussen J et al. 2023. Individual-level solutions may support system-level change—if they are internalized as part of one's social identity. Brain Behav. Sci. 46:e165
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. 2014. Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol. Bull. 140:41073–137
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Kowalski RM, Limber SP, McCord A. 2019. A developmental approach to cyberbullying: prevalence and protective factors. Aggress. Violent Behav. 45:20–32
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Kozyreva A, Herzog SM, Lewandowsky S, Hertwig R, Lorenz-Spreen P et al. 2023. Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation. PNAS 120:7e2210666120
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Kraus MW. 2017. Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy. Am. Psychol. 72:7644–54
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Kraus MW, Callaghan B. 2016. Social class and prosocial behavior: the moderating role of public versus private contexts. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 7:8769–77
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Krebs DL. 2008. Morality: an evolutionary account. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3:3149–72
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Kross E, Verduyn P, Sheppes G, Costello CK, Jonides J, Ybarra O. 2021. Social media and well-being: pitfalls, progress, and next steps. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25:155–66
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Kubin E, von Sikorski C. 2021. The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 45:3188–206
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Kurzban R, DeScioli P, O'Brien E. 2007. Audience effects on moralistic punishment. Evol. Hum. Behav. 28:275–84
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Lazer D, Green J, Ognyanova K, Baum M, Lin J et al. 2021. The COVID States Project #57: social media news consumption and COVID-19 vaccination rates Rep. COVID States Proj. https://www.covidstates.org/reports/social-media-news-consumption-and-covid-19-vaccination-rates
  121. Leimar O, Hammerstein P. 2001. Evolution of cooperation through indirect reciprocity. Proc. R. Soc. B 268:1468745–53
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Lelkes Y, Westwood SJ. 2017. The limits of partisan prejudice. J. Politics 79:2485–501
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Levendusky MS, Malhotra N. 2016. (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opin. Q. 80:S1378–91
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Li NP, van Vugt M, Colarelli SM. 2018. The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: implications for psychological science. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27:138–44
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Lieberman A, Schroeder J. 2020. Two social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 31:16–21
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ. 2021. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5:3337–48
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Lorenz-Spreen P, Oswald L, Lewandowsky S, Hertwig R. 2023. A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7:74–101
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Mackie D, Cooper J. 1984. Attitude polarization: effects of group membership. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:3575–85
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Marie A, Altay S, Strickland 2023. Moralization and extremism robustly amplify myside sharing. PNAS Nexus 2::pgad078
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Marwick AE. 2021. Morally motivated networked harassment as normative reinforcement. Soc. Media Soc. 7:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211021378
    [Google Scholar]
  131. McCluskey M. 2021. 4 big takeaways from the Facebook whistleblower congressional hearing. TIME Oct. 5. https://www.time.com/6104070/facebook-whistleblower-congressional-hearing-takeaways/
    [Google Scholar]
  132. McLoughlin KL, Brady WJ, Crockett MJ. 2021. The role of moral outrage in the spread of misinformation. Technology, Mind & Society 2021 Conference Proceedings Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1037/tms0000136
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Mendes WB, Koslov K. 2013. Brittle smiles: positive biases toward stigmatized and outgroup targets. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142:3923–33
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Mernyk JS, Pink SL, Druckman JN, Willer R. 2022. Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. PNAS 119:16e2116851119
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Mooijman M, Hoover J, Lin Y, Ji H, Dehghani M. 2018. Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence during protests. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2:6389–96
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Moor L, Anderson JR. 2019. A systematic literature review of the relationship between dark personality traits and antisocial online behaviours. Pers. Individ. Differ. 144:40–55
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Morant L. 2018. The truth behind 6 second ads. Medium, Febr. 8. https://medium.com/@Lyndon/the-tyranny-of-six-seconds-592b94160877
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Moscovici S, Zavalloni M. 1969. The group as a polarizer of attitudes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 12:2125–35
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Mosleh M, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2022. Field experiments on social media. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 31:169–75
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Mosleh M, Rand DG. 2022. Measuring exposure to misinformation from political elites on Twitter. Nat. Commun. 13:17144
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Muddiman A. 2017. Personal and public levels of political incivility. Int. J. Commun. 11:21
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Munger K. 2017. Tweetment effects on the tweeted: experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behav. 39:629–49
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Munger K. 2019. The limited value of non-replicable field experiments in contexts with low temporal validity. Soc. Media Soc. 5:3 https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119859294
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Munger K. 2020. Don't @ me: experimentally reducing partisan incivility on Twitter. J. Exp. Political Sci. 8:2102–16
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Mutz DC. 2015. In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  146. Nesi J, Prinstein MJ. 2015. Using social media for social comparison and feedback-seeking: Gender and popularity moderate associations with depressive symptoms. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 43:81427–38
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Nitschinsk L, Tobin SJ, Vanman EJ. 2022. The disinhibiting effects of anonymity increase online trolling. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 25:6377–83
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Ok E, Qian Y, Strejcek B, Aquino K. 2021. Signaling virtuous victimhood as indicators of Dark Triad personalities. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 120:61634–61
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Orben A. 2020. The Sisyphean cycle of technology panics. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15:51143–57
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Orben A, Przybylski AK. 2019. The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3:2173–82
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Orben A, Przybylski AK, Blakemore SJ, Kievit RA. 2022. Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media. Nat. Commun. 13:11649
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Osmundsen M, Bor A, Vahlstrup PB, Bechmann A, Petersen MB. 2021. Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 115:3999–1015
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Paluck EL, Green DP. 2009. Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60:339–67
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Paluck EL, Green SA, Green DP. 2019. The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behav. Public Policy 3:2129–58
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Paluck EL, Porat R, Clark CS, Green DP. 2021. Prejudice reduction: progress and challenges. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72:533–60
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Pennycook G, Epstein Z, Mosleh M, Arechar AA, Eckles D, Rand DG. 2021. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592:7855590–95
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Petersen M, Osmundsen M, Arceneaux K. 2023. The “need for chaos” and motivations to share hostile political rumors. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 117:41486–505
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Petersen M, Osmundsen M, Tooby J. 2020. The evolutionary psychology of conflict and the functions of falsehood. PsyArXiv, Aug. 29. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kaby9
  159. Petersen MB, Sell A, Tooby J, Cosmides L. 2012. To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay intuitions about modern criminal justice. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33:6682–95
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Pew Res. Cent. 2019. The challenge of knowing what's offensive. Pew Research Center June 19. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/06/19/the-challenge-of-knowing-whats-offensive/
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Pierri F, Perry BL, DeVerna MR, Yang K-C, Flammini A et al. 2022. Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal. Sci. Rep. 12:5966
     [Google Scholar]
  162. Pretus C, Javeed A, Hughes DR, Hackenburg K, Tsakiris M et al. 2022. The misleading count: an identity-based intervention to mitigate the spread of partisan misinformation Work. Pap. Univ. Auton. Barcelona Barcelona, Spain:
  163. Quintelier E, Theocharis Y. 2013. Online political engagement, Facebook, and personality traits. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 31:3280–90
     [Google Scholar]
  164. Rajkumar K, Saint-Jacques G, Bojinov I, Brynjolfsson E, Aral S. 2022. A causal test of the strength of weak ties. Science 377:66121304–10
     [Google Scholar]
  165. Rasmussen J. 2022. When do the public support hate speech restrictions? Symmetries and asymmetries across partisans in Denmark and the United States. PsyArXiv, June 8. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/j4nuc
  166. Rasmussen J. 2023. Pathways to online political hostility on social media. PsyArXiv, March 27. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r3y5u
  167. Rasmussen J, Lindekilde L, Petersen MB. 2022. Public health communication reduces COVID-19 misinformation sharing and boosts self-efficacy. PsyArXiv, July 7. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8wdfp
  168. Rasmussen SHR, Petersen MB. 2022. From echo chambers to resonance chambers: how offline political events enter and are amplified in online networks. PsyArXiv, May 26. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vzu4q
  169. Rathje S, He JK, Roozenbeek J, Van Bavel JJ, van der Linden S. 2022. Social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy. PNAS Nexus 1:4pgac207
     [Google Scholar]
  170. Rathje S, Robertson C, Brady W, Van Bavel JJ. 2023. People think that social media platforms do (but should not) amplify divisive content. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Rathje S, Van Bavel JJ, van der Linden S. 2021. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. PNAS 118:26e2024292118
     [Google Scholar]
  172. Reinero DA, Harris EA, Rathje S, Duke A, Van Bavel JJ. 2023. Partisans are more likely to entrench their beliefs in misinformation when political outgroup members fact-check claims. PsyArXiv, May 11. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z4df3
  173. Robertson CE, Pretus C, Rathje S, Harris EA, Van Bavel JJ. 2022. How social identity shapes conspiratorial belief. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 47:101423
     [Google Scholar]
  174. Robertson CE, Pröllochs N, Schwarzenegger K, Pärnamets P, Van Bavel JJ, Feuerriegel S. 2023a. Negativity drives online news consumption. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7:812–22
     [Google Scholar]
  175. Robertson RE, Green J, Ruck DJ, Ognyanova K, Wilson C, Lazer D. 2023b. Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search. Nature 618:342–48
     [Google Scholar]
  176. Rockenbach B, Milinski M. 2006. The efficient interaction of indirect reciprocity and costly punishment. Nature 444:718–23
     [Google Scholar]
  177. Rothschild ZK, Keefer LA. 2017. A cleansing fire: Moral outrage alleviates guilt and buffers threats to one's moral identity. Motiv. Emot. 41:209–29
     [Google Scholar]
  178. Rozin P. 1999. The process of moralization. Psychol. Sci. 10:3218–21
     [Google Scholar]
  179. Rozin P, Lowery L, Imada S, Haidt J. 1999. The CAD triad hypothesis: a mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76:4574–86
     [Google Scholar]
  180. Ruggeri K, Stock F, Haslam SA, Capraro V, Boggio P et al. 2022. Evaluating expectations from social and behavioral science about COVID-19 and lessons for the next pandemic. PsyArXiv, Oct. 10. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/58udn
  181. Ruggeri K, Većkalov B, Bojanić L, Andersen TL, Ashcroft-Jones S et al. 2021. The general fault in our fault lines. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5:101369–80
     [Google Scholar]
  182. Salerno JM, Peter-Hagene LC. 2013. The interactive effect of anger and disgust on moral outrage and judgments. Psychol. Sci. 24:102069–78
     [Google Scholar]
  183. Sawaoka T, Monin B. 2018. The paradox of viral outrage. Psychol. Sci. 29:101665–78
     [Google Scholar]
  184. Schmitz RM, Coley JS, Thomas C, Ramirez A. 2022. The cyber power of marginalized identities: intersectional strategies of online LGBTQ+ Latinx activism. Fem. Media Stud. 22:2271–90
     [Google Scholar]
  185. Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. 2007. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18:5429–34
     [Google Scholar]
  186. Settle JE. 2018. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  187. Shteynberg G, Gelfand M, Imai L, Mayer DM, Bell C. 2017. Prosocial thinkers and the social transmission of justice. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 47:4429–42
     [Google Scholar]
  188. Siegel AA, Badaan V. 2020. #No2Sectarianism: experimental approaches to reducing sectarian hate speech online. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 114:3837–55
     [Google Scholar]
  189. Siegel AA, Nikitin E, Barberá P, Sterling J, Pullen B et al. 2021. Trumping hate on Twitter? Online hate speech in the 2016 US election campaign and its aftermath. Q. J. Political Sci. 16:171–104
     [Google Scholar]
  190. Simchon A, Brady WJ, Van Bavel JJ. 2022. Troll and divide: the language of online polarization. PNAS Nexus 1:1pgac019
     [Google Scholar]
  191. Simon B, Klandermans B. 2001. Politicized collective identity: a social psychological analysis. Am. Psychol. 56:4319–31
     [Google Scholar]
  192. Simonovits G, McCoy J, Littvay L. 2022. Democratic hypocrisy and out-group threat: explaining citizen support for democratic erosion. J. Politics 84:31806–11
     [Google Scholar]
  193. Simpson B, Willer R, Harrell A. 2017. The enforcement of moral boundaries promotes cooperation and prosocial behavior in groups. Sci. Rep. 7:42844
     [Google Scholar]
  194. Sisco MR, Weber EU. 2019. Examining charitable giving in real-world online donations. Nat. Commun. 10:13968
     [Google Scholar]
  195. Skitka LJ. 2010. The psychology of moral conviction. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4:4267–81
     [Google Scholar]
  196. Skitka LJ, Bauman CW, Sargis EG. 2005. Moral conviction: another contributor to attitude strength or something more?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88:6895–917
     [Google Scholar]
  197. Skitka LJ, Morgan GS. 2014. The social and political implications of moral conviction. Adv. Political Psychol. 35:95–110
     [Google Scholar]
  198. Skitka LJ, Washburn AN 2016. Are conservatives from Mars and liberals from Venus? Maybe not so much. Social Psychology of Political Polarization P Valdesolo, J Graham 78–101 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  199. Smith LGE, Thomas EF, McGarty C. 2015. We must be the change we want to see in the world”: integrating norms and identities through social interaction. Political Psychol 36:5543–57
     [Google Scholar]
  200. Solovev K, Pröllochs N. 2022. Moral emotions shape the virality of COVID-19 misinformation on social media. ArXiv:2202.03590 [cs.SI]
  201. Solovev K, Pröllochs N. 2023. Moralized language predicts hate speech on social media. PNAS Nexus 2:pgac281
     [Google Scholar]
  202. Spring VL, Cameron CD, Cikara M. 2018. The upside of outrage. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22:121067–69
     [Google Scholar]
  203. Statista 2023. Number of social media users worldwide from 2017 to 2027. Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users
    [Google Scholar]
  204. Suler J. 2004. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 7:3321–26
     [Google Scholar]
  205. Svolik M. 2020. When polarization trumps civic virtue: partisan conflict and the subversion of democracy by incumbents. Q. J. Political Sci. 15:3–31
     [Google Scholar]
  206. Tetlock PE, Kristel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS. 2000. The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78:5853–70
     [Google Scholar]
  207. Toner K, Leary MR, Asher MW, Jongman-Sereno KP. 2013. Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychol. Sci. 24:122454–62
     [Google Scholar]
  208. Törnberg P. 2022. How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting. PNAS 119:42e2207159119
     [Google Scholar]
  209. Tosi J, Warmke B. 2016. Moral grandstanding. Philos. Public Affairs 44:3197–217
     [Google Scholar]
  210. Tosi J, Warmke B. 2020. Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  211. Tucker JA, Theocharis Y, Roberts ME, Barberá P. 2017. From liberation to turmoil: social media and democracy. J. Democr. 28:446–59
     [Google Scholar]
  212. Valentino-DeVries J, Eder S. 2022. For Trump's backers in Congress, “devil terms” help rally voters. New York Times Oct. 23 . www.nytimes.com/2022/10/22/us/politics/republican-election-objectors-rhetoric.html
    [Google Scholar]
  213. Valenzuela S, Piña M, Ramírez J. 2017. Behavioral effects of framing on social media users: how conflict, economic, human interest, and morality frames drive news sharing. J. Commun. 67:5803–26
     [Google Scholar]
  214. Van Bavel JJ, Baicker K, Boggio PS, Capraro V, Cichocka A et al. 2020. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4:5460–71
     [Google Scholar]
  215. Van Bavel JJ, Harris EA, Pärnamets P, Rathje S, Doell KC, Tucker JA. 2021a. Political psychology in the digital (mis)information age: a model of news belief and sharing. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 15:184–113
     [Google Scholar]
  216. Van Bavel JJ, Packer DJ. 2021. The Power of Us: Harnessing Our Shared Identities to Improve Performance, Increase Cooperation, and Promote Social Harmony New York: Little, Brown Spark:
  217. Van Bavel JJ, Packer DJ, Haas IJ, Cunningham WA. 2012. The importance of moral construal: Moral versus non-moral construal elicits faster, more extreme, universal evaluations of the same actions. PLOS ONE 7:11e48693
     [Google Scholar]
  218. Van Bavel JJ, Pretus C, Rathje S, Pärnamets P, Vlasceanu M, Knowles E. 2023. The costs of polarizing a pandemic: antecedents, consequences, and lessons. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231190395
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  219. Van Bavel JJ, Rathje S, Harris E, Robertson C, Sternisko A. 2021b. How social media shapes polarization. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25:11913–16
     [Google Scholar]
  220. Van de Vyver J, Abrams D. 2015. Testing the prosocial effectiveness of the prototypical moral emotions: Elevation increases benevolent behaviors and outrage increases justice behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 58:23–33
     [Google Scholar]
  221. van der Linden S, Roozenbeek J, Compton J. 2020. Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 11:566790
     [Google Scholar]
  222. van der Linden S, Roozenbeek J, Maertens R, Basol M, Kácha O et al. 2021. How can psychological science help counter the spread of fake news?. Span. J. Psychol. 24:E25
     [Google Scholar]
  223. Van Geel M, Goemans A, Toprak F, Vedder P. 2017. Which personality traits are related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying? A study with the Big Five, Dark Triad and sadism. Pers. Individ. Differ. 106:231–35
     [Google Scholar]
  224. van Zomeren M, Spears R, Fischer AH, Leach CW. 2004. Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87:5649–64
     [Google Scholar]
  225. Vogels EA, Perrin A, Anderson M. 2020. Most Americans think social media sites censor political viewpoints. Pew Research Center Aug. 19. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-political-viewpoints/
    [Google Scholar]
  226. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359:63801146–51
     [Google Scholar]
  227. Walter AS, Redlawsk DP. 2019. Voters’ partisan responses to politicians’ immoral behavior. Political Psychol. 40:51075–97
     [Google Scholar]
  228. Westfall J, Van Boven L, Chambers JR, Judd CM. 2015. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10:2145–58
     [Google Scholar]
  229. Williams JB, Singh L, Mezey N. 2019. #MeToo as catalyst: a glimpse into 21st century activism. Univ. Chicago Legal Forum 2019:22
     [Google Scholar]
  230. Wood T, Porter E. 2019. The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behav. 41:135–63
     [Google Scholar]
  231. Xiao E, Houser D. 2011. Punish in public. J. Public Econ. 95:7–81006–17
     [Google Scholar]
  232. Yang Y, Davis T, Hindman M. 2023. Visual information on Facebook. J. Commun. 2023:jqac051
     [Google Scholar]
  233. Yarchi M, Baden C, Kligler-Vilenchik N. 2021. Political polarization on the digital sphere: a cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Commun. 38:1–298–139
     [Google Scholar]
  234. Yildirim MM, Nagler J, Bonneau R, Tucker JA. 2021. Short of suspension: how suspension warnings can reduce hate speech on Twitter. Perspect. Politics 21:2651–63
     [Google Scholar]
  235. Zaki J, Bolger N, Ochsner K. 2009. Unpacking the informational bases of empathic accuracy. Emotion 9:4478–87
     [Google Scholar]
  236. Zhuravskaya E, Petrova M, Enikolopov R. 2020. Political effects of the Internet and social media. Annu. Rev. Econ. 12:415–38
     [Google Scholar]
  237. Zimmerman AG, Ybarra GJ. 2016. Online aggression: the influences of anonymity and social modeling. Psychol. Popul. Media Cult. 5:2181–93
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258
Loading
Social Media and Morality
Annual Review of Psychology 75, 311 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error