ArticlePNAS nexus2025
Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Baloxavir marboxil-related information on Douyin and Xiaohongshu: a cross-sectional analysis of content, misinformation, and user engagement.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Value misalignments in X's feed algorithm is a reflection of value tensions in engagement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Measuring narrative polarization in online discourse.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Review
- A Social Identity Theory of Digital Identity.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026Article
- Evaluating the content quality and trustworthiness of snakebite envenomation videos on social media platforms: insights from TikTok and Bilibili.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Ideology and free speech values predict content moderation preferences: cross-national evidence across targets of hate speech.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Dysbiosis and succession in the scientific infobiome.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- Global Sentiment Toward Health AI at the Dawn of the ChatGPT Era: Empirical Analysis of Twitter (X) Discourse.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos about Sjögren syndrome on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing the Quality of Consumer Health Information Within the Realm of Shoulder Injuries on TikTok.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of myelodysplastic syndromes-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a multi-platform cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The relationship between uploader identity and the quality and reliability of depression-related Chinese short videos on TikTok and Bilibili.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Popularity versus quality in TikTok educational videos on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- From environmental concerns to nationalist waves: Mapping the evolving Fukushima wastewater discourse on Weibo.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of cervical cancer related videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and Tiktok: a cross-sectional analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Brazilian adaptation and validation of the Multidimensional Measure of Parasocial Relationships (MMPR).Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Loneliness by Design: The Structural Logic of Isolation in Engagement-Driven Systems.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Limited effectiveness of psychological inoculation against misinformation in a social media feed.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- New Perspective on Digital Well-Being by Distinguishing Digital Competency From Dependency: Network Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
Social media ranking algorithms typically optimize for users' revealed preferences, i.e. user engagement such as clicks, shares, and likes. Many have hypothesized that by focusing on users' revealed preferences, these algorithms may exacerbate human behavioral biases. In a preregistered algorithmic audit, we found that, relative to a reverse-chronological baseline, Twitter's engagement-based ranking algorithm amplifies emotionally charged, out-group hostile content that users say makes them feel worse about their political out-group. Furthermore, we find that users do
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.