Restorative justice appeals trump retributive vigilance on social media.

Pengfei Zhao, Natalie N Bazarova, Inhwan Bae, Winice Hui, René F Kizilcec, Drew Margolin

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Pengfei ZhaoDepartment of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2275-8480

Natalie N BazarovaDepartment of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.

Inhwan BaeDepartment of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.

Winice HuiDepartment of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8108-300X

René F KizilcecDepartment of Information Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6283-5546

Drew MargolinDepartment of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0257-6217

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human beings have a powerful urge to confront wrongdoing and reestablish justice. In online spaces, this typically takes the form of vigilante-like actions that shame or threaten wrongdoers. Though morally motivated, these retributive actions can draw disapproval, and even reciprocal shaming and threats, from others in the community, creating a toxic environment. This study investigates a prosocial alternative to retribution-restorative vigilance-aimed at reestablishing community values through moral appeals and encouraging apologies from offenders. We conducted two randomized experiments (

Indexed as

behavioral approvalonline toxicityprosocial normsrestorative justicevigilante justice

Identifiers

PMID40978082

DOI10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf255

PMCPMC12445700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC

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.