Michael Bang Petersen Profile picture
Aug 26, 2019 9 tweets 4 min read Read on X
At #APSA2019, @szasulja and I are presenting our research on why online political discussions are perceived as more toxic than offline political discussions. We provide evidence against a common media narrative: The mismatch hypothesis. A thread on our key findings: (1/9)
We use representative surveys from the US and Denmark to document that people at large do indeed perceive online environments as more hostile than offline. In figure, higher values equals more perceived hostility and dark gray plots show distribution for "online debates". (2/9)
The mismatch hypothesis says this reflects a mismatch between (a) a human psychology adapted for face-to-face interaction and (b) the impersonal online environment. We test three versions of the mismatch hypothesis: Mismatched-induced change, selection and perception (3/9)
CHANGE: Do online environments induce hostility because nice people are less able to regulate their emotions online? No. People who report that they are hostile online also report that they are hostile offline. There are no differences across the two context. (4/9)
SELECTION: Are online environments hostile because the setting is attractive to those predisposed for hostility? No. Hostile people (e.g., status-obsessed individuals) talk about politics whenever they can. However, non-hostile individuals do opt out of online debates. (5/9)
PERCEPTION: Do people misinterpret benign intentions as hostile in online debates? No. When asked about own experiences, conflicts online and offline are perceived as equally severe. Using behavioural experiments, we also find no systematic bias in perceptions of SoMe posts (6/9)
What then explains 'the hostility gap'? Rather than psychological mismatches, the gap seems to reflect that the public nature of online discussions exposes people to way more hostile attacks directed against strangers. Offline, these are hidden to the public eye (7/9)
How to guard against online hostility? Online hostility is not an 'accident' but a deliberate strategy pursued by predisposed people. While many might not fall victim to their attacks, these are nonetheless public, shaping overall perceptions. We need to contain such people (8/9)
To hear more come to this panel on Friday, where we and our co-presenters focus on bad stuff happening on the Internet: convention2.allacademic.com/one/apsa/apsa1… (9/9)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Michael Bang Petersen

Michael Bang Petersen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @M_B_Petersen

Feb 8

Which societal conditions breed online hostility?

We surveyed experiences of victims in 30 countries across the world (N=15,202) to show that political & economic inequality drive global differences in abuse on online platforms:

🧵 1/12 osf.io/preprints/psya…
Our preregistered study show that experiences of being a victim to online hostility vary widely. West Europeans experience political hostility less than once a month but hostility is much higher in other parts of the world. 2/12 Image
These differences reflect basic societal conditions of inequality. Political equality (i.e., presence of democracy) is highly correlated with online abuse (corr = -.69) as is economic inequality (corr = .45). 3/12 Image
Read 12 tweets
Jan 17
“The unvaccinated, I really want to piss them off. And so, we’re going to continue doing so, until the end. That’s the strategy,” said Macron during the COVID-19 pandemic

In a new article, we show the risks of such moralized cost-imposition:

🧵 1/7 doi.org/10.1111/1475-6…
Similar, but less strong, rethoric was used by the Danish primeminister during a press conference on Nov 8, 2021.

During the time, we collected daily representative surveys of trust in the response etc. in the @HopeProject_dk. 2/7
@HopeProject_dk Our findings show that, as result of the press conference, unvaccinated lost 11 %-points of trust in the response. It also decreased their motivation to contribute to the collective action problem of reducing infections as well as their felt ability to cope with the pandemic. 3/7 Image
Read 7 tweets
Sep 7, 2023
I was asked by the board of the Danish National Research Foundation, @GrundforskFond, to give a talk at their annual meeting.

They asked me to talk under the theme: "Preprints"

Here is what I said 👇

🧵 1/18 Image
@GrundforskFond A key challenge facing the dissemination of knowledge is delays in publication ().

The social sciences are hard hit. 18 months from submission to publication in Economics & this is only *if* the paper is accepted in that journal. 2/18 sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
@GrundforskFond The evidence suggest that the delay is getting worse, not better, over time (). This is mostly due to increased time in review.

Today, there is widespread concerns about reviewer fatigue among journal editors () 3/18 sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Read 18 tweets
Aug 12, 2023
Klimaministeren bruger befolkningen som undskyldning for ikke at handle ift. klimaforandringer:

Det afspejler manglende viden om både befolkningen og om egen rolle som politiker.

🧵 1/8dr.dk/nyheder/politi…
Borgerne tager klimaforandringer dybt alvorligt. Seneste Klimabarometer fra @concitoinfo viser:

- 88 % mener at klimaforandringer er "meget" eller "i nogen grad" alvorlige
- 72 % af befolkningen mener, at partierne bør gør mere ift. klimaet

() 2/8concito.dk/files/media/do…
@concitoinfo Tal fra @ HopeProject_dk viser, at der ikke er helt aMMW konsensus om hårde instrumenter som skatter og afgifter, men selv er der kun ca. 30 %, der er uenige: 3/8 https://t.co/yV5W77QaHxgithub.com/Hopeproject202…
Read 8 tweets
May 28, 2023
The Danish government has appointed me to direct a 5-year audit of Danish democracy in the 21st century: ufm.dk/aktuelt/presse…

Political scientists can think of Dahl's classic, "Who Governs?", but for an entire country. It is a monumental research challenge.

🧵 1/5
Parliament-initiated studies of power & democracy constitute a Scandinavian tradition. The last Danish study ended in 2003. In the following year Facebook was launched & fundamental societal changes have happened since. 2/5
A core focus is thus how and whether "slow-speed" democracy is fundamentally threatened by current "high-speed" society -- characterised by rapid technological innovation, increasing problem complexity, fast-paced media reporting & rising inequality. 3/5
Read 5 tweets
May 28, 2023
Jeg er blevet udnævnt som leder af den nye magtudredning: ufm.dk/aktuelt/presse…

Det er en monumental opgave, som går igang nu.

I denne tråd skitserer jeg det, der ligger forude, og nogle af de udfordringer, som demokratiet står foran i det 21. århundrede.

🧵 1/14
Magtudredninger er en særlig skandinavisk tradition, hvor parlamentet beder uafhængige forskere om at vurdere om de - og andre magtaktører - lever op til demokratiets idealer og udstyrer forskerne med væsentlige ressourcer til den opgave. 2/14
Én gang tidligere har man gennemført en magtudredning i DK (magtudredningen.dk). Bl.a. under overskriften "et ganske levende demokrati" konkluderede man, at DKs demokrati var robust, og at forskydningerne af magt i høj grad var politisk bestemte & dermed under kontrol. 3/14
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!