In many online discussions, a very active minority dominates the debate while the majority reads along in silence. But who actually comments on social media and why? How can the influence of power users be limited and how can more people be motivated to take part in the discussion? Researchers examined these questions in a large field experiment with 520 volunteers on the Reddit platform. A toxic conversation atmosphere has a deterrent effect on silent readers – but it motivates power users of all people to make even more comments.
In comment columns and social media forums, the discussion is usually dominated by a few but particularly active users – often those who represent particularly extreme positions. The majority, on the other hand, is holding back. “This inequality in visibility can distort the perception of public opinion and increase polarization,” explains a research team led by Lisa Oswald from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin.
Focus on online discussions
To find out what factors contribute to some users participating in online discussions and others not, Oswald and her colleagues recruited 520 US volunteers on the Reddit platform and randomly assigned them to one of six private subreddits created specifically for this purpose. Over four weeks, the participants exchanged ideas on a total of 20 different political topics. The researchers initiated daily discussions and sometimes took part in moderation. “It was a complex field experiment, but small groups in the laboratory do not capture the public nature of social media,” says Oswald.
The researchers analyzed 5,819 comments within the subreddits as well as almost 63,000 additional comments that the participants posted in other areas of the platform during the period surrounding the study. They also asked the test subjects before, during and after the study about, among other things, their perception of the discussion atmosphere, their trust in politics, media and science and how informed they felt about certain political topics.
Deterring for some, motivating for others
It became clear that who viewed the discussion as toxic, disrespectful, polarized or not very constructive
perceived, generally felt little motivated to contribute a comment themselves. But for those who still decided to actively participate in the discussion, the heated atmosphere had exactly the opposite effect: it motivated more comments. Men, those with a strong political interest and people who regularly comment online were particularly active.
The most heated discussions were about how the US should behave in the Israel-Gaza conflict, followed by topics such as gender-neutral language and prostitution. Economic and climate issues, on the other hand, evoked less emotion. According to the researchers, moderating requests such as “Please remain respectful” had little effect. However, they point out that the debates were generally fairly objective, leaving little room for improvement.
Framework conditions for participation
Oswald and her colleagues also tested various measures to motivate silent readers to contribute to the discussion. Financial incentives of $2 per day for at least one constructive comment actually increased participation, but only slightly reduced the dominance of individual heavy writers. “This suggests that roles in discussions are surprisingly stable,” says Oswald. Social recognition proved to be effective and easier to implement in practice: those who received positive feedback within the community, for example in the form of so-called upvotes, with which others can express their support for a post, were more likely to decide to write a comment the following day.
To make discussions more balanced, the researchers suggest that platforms create positive incentives for broader participation, such as increased visibility for contributions from first-time commenters and high-quality contributions. It is also important to consistently enforce rules to reduce visible toxicity. Comment caps for particularly active people could also make the perception of public opinion more realistic. “You can’t just turn a dial to increase participation,” says Oswald. “But you can create frameworks that make speaking easier – especially for those who have so far only read along.”
Source: Lisa Oswald (Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin) et al., Science Advances, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ady8022