No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Changing the incentive structure of social media may reduce online proxy failure and proliferation of negativity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 May 2024
Abstract
Social media takes advantage of people's predisposition to attend to threatening stimuli by promoting content in algorithms that capture attention. However, this content is often not what people expressly state they would like to see. We propose that social media companies should weigh users’ expressed preferences more heavily in algorithms. We propose modest changes to user interfaces that could reduce the abundance of threatening content in the online environment.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beknazar-Yuzbashev, G., Jiménez Durán, R., McCrosky, J., & Stalinski, M. (2022). Toxic content and user engagement on social media: Evidence from a field experiment. Available at SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4307346Google Scholar
Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 978–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brady, W. J., Gantman, A. P., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). Attentional capture helps explain why moral and emotional content go viral. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(4), 746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brady, W. J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T. N., & Crockett, M. J. (2021). How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Science Advances, 7(33), eabe5641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(28), 7313–7318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 769–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2003). On wildebeests and humans: The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychological Science, 14(1), 14–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, E., Lester, V., Russo, R., Bowles, R. J., Pichler, A., & Dutton, K. (2000). Facial expressions of emotion: Are angry faces detected more efficiently? Cognition & Emotion, 14(1), 61–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Globig, L. K., Holtz, N., & Sharot, T. (2023). Changing the incentive structure of social media platforms to halt the spread of misinformation. eLife, 12, e85767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutcherson, C. A., & Gross, J. J. (2011). The moral emotions: A social–functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, J. W., Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2021). The distorting prism of social media: How self-selection and exposure to incivility fuel online comment toxicity. Journal of Communication, 71(6), 922–946. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milli, S., Carroll, M., Pandey, S., Wang, Y., & Dragan, A. D. (2023) Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.16941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pretus, C., Servin-Barthet, C., Harris, E. A., Brady, W. J., Vilarroya, O., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2023). The role of political devotion in sharing partisan misinformation and resistance to fact-checking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(11), 3116–3134. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001436CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rathje, S., Robertson, C., Brady, W. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (in press). People think that social media platforms do (but should not) amplify divisive content. Perspectives on Psychological Science.Google Scholar
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & Van Der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(26), e2024292118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, C. E., Pröllochs, N., Schwarzenegger, K., Pärnamets, P., Van Bavel, J. J., & Feuerriegel, S. (2023). Negativity drives online news consumption. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(5), 812–822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roose, K., Isaac, M., & Frenkel, S. (2020). Facebook struggles to balance civility and growth. The New York Times, 24.Google Scholar
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suhay, E., Bello-Pardo, E., & Maurer, B. (2018). The polarizing effects of online partisan criticism: Evidence from two experiments. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217740697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Dead rats, dopamine, performance metrics, and peacock tails: Proxy failure is an inherent risk in goal-oriented systems
Related commentaries (20)
An updated perspective on teleonomy
Animal welfare science, performance metrics, and proxy failure
Behavioral proxies compete by the time courses of their rewards, including endogenous rewards
Changing the incentive structure of social media may reduce online proxy failure and proliferation of negativity
Dynamic diversity is the answer to proxy failure
Genies, lawyers, and smart-asses: Extending proxy failures to intentional misunderstandings
It's the biology, stupid! Proxy failures in economic decision making
Navigating proxy failures in education: Learning from human and animal play
On abstract goals’ perverse effects on proxies: The dynamics of unattainability
Proxies, heuristics, and goal alignment
Proxy failure and poor measurement practices in psychological science
Proxy failure as a feature of adaptive control systems
Proxy failure in academia: More than just another example
Proxy failure in social policies as one of the main causes of persistent sexism and racism
Proxy failures in practice: Examples from the sociology of science
Reductionism and proxy failure: From neuroscience to target-based drug discovery
Regulator and agent sophistication as an explanation-generating engine for proxy failure dynamics
Subjective and objective corruption of intuition and rational choice
The cost of success or failure for proxy signals in ecological problems
The determinants of proxy treadmilling in evolutionary models of reliable signals
Author response
Teleonomy, legibility, and diversity: Do we need more “proxynomics”?