ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating the effect of viral posts on social media engagement.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Theory-informed design and dissemination of multilingual menopause CoMICs: the Menopause MEET initiative.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Quantification and Evolution of Online Public Opinion Heat Considering Interactive Behavior and Emotional Conflict.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Online propagation of emotions: A study of resharing dynamics on social media following celebrity suicides.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As virality has become increasingly central in shaping information sources' strategies, it raises concerns about its consequences for society, particularly when referring to the impact of viral news on the public discourse. Nonetheless, there has been little consideration of whether these viral events genuinely boost the attention received by the source. To address this gap, we analyze content timelines from over 1000 European news outlets from 2018 to 2023 on Facebook and YouTube, employing a Bayesian structural time series model to evaluate the impact of viral posts. Our results show that most viral events do not significantly increase engagement and rarely lead to sustained growth. We identify two primary types of viral effects corresponding to different mechanisms of collective attention response. A 'loaded-type' virality manifests after a sustained growth phase, representing its final burst, followed by a decline in attention. A 'sudden-type' virality, with news emerging unexpectedly, reactivates the collective response process. Moreover, quick viral effects fade faster, while slower processes lead to more persistent growth. These findings highlight the transient nature of viral events and underscore the importance of consistent, steady attention-building strategies to establish a solid connection with the user base rather than relying on sudden visibility spikes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.