Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42607202›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Value misalignments in X's feed algorithm is a reflection of value tensions in engagement.

Ziv Epstein, Farnaz Jahanbakhsh, Tiziano Piccardi, Axel Peytavin, Isabel Gallegos, Shardul Sapkota, Dora Zhao, Johan Ugander, Michael S Bernstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    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

9 authors.

Ziv EpsteinSchwarzman College of Computing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02143.ORCID 0000-0002-5831-5756
Farnaz JahanbakhshElectrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.ORCID 0000-0003-0492-3040
Tiziano PiccardiComputer Science Department Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218.
Axel PeytavinComputer Science Department Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.ORCID 0000-0001-6905-4099
Isabel GallegosComputer Science Department Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.ORCID 0000-0002-4872-6447
Shardul SapkotaComputer Science Department Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Dora ZhaoComputer Science Department Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Johan UganderDepartment of Statistics & Data Science Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511.
Michael S BernsteinComputer Science Department Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.ORCID 0000-0001-8020-9434

Funding

Hertz Foundation (HF) n/aNational Science Foundation (NSF) 2403433SU | Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Stanford University (HAI) n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media feed algorithms rank content that is purported to be preferred by users, but the engagement behaviors that drive these algorithms are (at best) indirect proxies for users' explicitly self-stated values. Are the resulting feeds value aligned, and if not, why? We investigate this question by annotating the basic human values expressed in participants' X (Twitter) feeds (N = 715 US users), analyzing the relationship between the posts' value expressions and the posts' amplification in the ranked "For You" Page feed, and then comparing the amplified values to users' own values. We observe that the inventory of posts from followed accounts reflects users' self-stated values-but that there is an overall negative correlation (misalignment) between users' explicit values and the value expressions the algorithm is more likely to amplify. We turn to engagement behavior to understand this misalignment and observe that users' engagement behaviors can be misaligned with their stated values-likely causing the algorithm to learn and reflect these misaligned values. We also detect partisan differences consistent with this theory: While the algorithm amplifies values negatively correlated with both Democrats' and Republicans' self-stated values, they are more misaligned for Democrats. And in fact replying, a heavily weighted form of engagement, is associated with values that are less aligned for both Democrats' and Republicans' self-stated values, and is even more misaligned for Democrats. Taken together, these findings offer a glimpse into the tensions between the values that people hold and those that provoke reactions, and how these value tensions can produce misaligned outcomes.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSocial MediaSocial ValuesHumansalgorithmic personalizationmedia amplificationsocial mediavalue alignment

Identifiers

PMID42607202
PMCPMC13506001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.