Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38102130›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Ideological asymmetries in online hostility, intimidation, obscenity, and prejudice.

Vivienne Badaan, Mark Hoffarth, Caroline Roper, Taurean Parker, John T Jost

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Vivienne BadaanDepartment of Psychology, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. vivienne.badaan@aub.edu.lb.
Mark HoffarthDepartment of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 5th Floor, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Caroline RoperCenter for Data Science, New York University, 726 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Taurean ParkerCenter for Data Science, New York University, 726 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
John T JostDepartment of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 5th Floor, New York, NY, 10003, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2844-4645

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To investigate ideological symmetries and asymmetries in the expression of online prejudice, we used machine-learning methods to estimate the prevalence of extreme hostility in a large dataset of Twitter messages harvested in 2016. We analyzed language contained in 730,000 tweets on the following dimensions of bias: (1) threat and intimidation, (2) obscenity and vulgarity, (3) name-calling and humiliation, (4) hatred and/or racial, ethnic, or religious slurs, (5) stereotypical generalizations, and (6) negative prejudice. Results revealed that conservative social media users were significantly more likely than liberals to use language that involved threat, intimidation, name-calling, humiliation, stereotyping, and negative prejudice. Conservatives were also slightly more likely than liberals to use hateful language, but liberals were slightly more likely than conservatives to use obscenities. These findings are broadly consistent with the view that liberal values of equality and democratic tolerance contribute to ideological asymmetries in the expression of online prejudice, and they are inconsistent with the view that liberals and conservatives are equally prejudiced.

Indexed as

HostilityPoliticsHumansLanguagePrejudiceStereotyping

Identifiers

PMID38102130
PMCPMC10724124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.