ArticleNature human behaviour2026
Saturation of moral language predicts lower content engagement on social media.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The (moral) language of hate.PNAS nexus · 2023Article
- The paucity of morality in everyday talk.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Moral language often travels widely online, but does more moral content always correspond to higher engagement? We analysed 1,621,147 observations across 13 socio-political topics on Twitter (n = 530,104), Reddit (n = 1,048,653) and 8chan (n = 42,390). Using Distributed Dictionary Representations-word embeddings scored against an expert-validated moral dictionary-we measured moral loading (that is, a post's overall moral relevance) and moral density (that is, concentration of moral content across words). Negative-binomial models showed that moral loading was positively associated with engagement (range 1.12 [0.96, 1.28] to 9.07 [8.21, 9.93], all P < 0.001). Conditional on moral loading, however, moral density was 'negatively' associated with engagement (range -4.71 [-5.41, -4.02] to -0.40 [-0.52, -0.27], all P < 0.001). Engagement peaked at density 0.30 [0.30048, 0.30070], P < 0.001, with lower engagement below (2.28-fold) and above (2.78-fold), consistent with an engagement advantage for moral language that is bounded by an overmoralization penalty pattern.
Identifiers
42686956What 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.