4/6 We also provide a causal test of the “out-group animosity” hypothesis: Our estimates suggest that negativity about out-groups (e.g., political opponents) boosts engagement by 14.1%, while negativity about in-groups has a much smaller effect (1.6%).

3/6 Headlines that include both negativity & identity language increase clicks by ~9.9% — significantly more than effect of negativity (4.3%) or identity language alone (5.9%).

🚨 New WP on online news consumption (osf.io/h3cn5_v1) 🚨

KEY FINDING: Negativity + identity language is particularly effective at generating engagement—and even more when targeting out-groups

With @steverathje.bsky.social, @crobertson500.bsky.social , @jayvanbavel.bsky.social
🧵👇

Meta’s new content moderation policy might align with public opinion more than you'd think. 🗯️

I show that *who* hate targets has limited effects on support for hate speech laws. People simply just want to restrict “high-severity violations" (e.g. threats) no matter who’s targeted (osf.io/j4nuc)

🚨 Investing in citizens' competences through actionable communication from health authorities decreases misinformation sharing during a pandemic. Coauthored with @lindekilde.bsky.social & @m-b-petersen.bsky.social in @jepsjournal.bsky.social

PAPER: bit.ly/3UuKZJb

Great discussion and sorry for jumping in. In my reading these examples (by @brendannyhan.bsky.social @aecoppock.bsky.social & Andy Guess) illustrate @hugoreasoning.bsky.social point. I think I've also seen similar evidence by @ethanvporter.bsky.social @thomasjwood.bsky.social (maybe I am mistaken)