According to US research, social media users tend to react more to political posts that challenge their opinions than to those that support their beliefs. This phenomenon, known as the “confrontation effect,” is fuelled by outrage and drives people to react to opposing viewpoints.
Social networks are often criticised for the way that their algorithms can trap users in bubbles of like-minded content, effectively creating echo chambers. These are environments where users are mainly exposed to content that aligns with their opinions and beliefs, thus limiting their exposure to divergent points of view. This creates a kind of implicit content moderation, where users are locked into their own opinions, which can reduce the diversity of perspectives and encourage polarisation.
Yet research conducted by Daniel Mochon, professor of marketing at Tulane University’s A. B. Freeman School of Business, and Janet Schwartz, executive director of Duke University’s Center for Advanced Hindsight, challenges these assumptions. If communities can form around shared values, this doesn’t prevent users from reacting to comments that run counter to their own, even going so far as to favor this kind of interaction. Indeed, social network users are more inclined to interact with posts that provoke them than with those that confirm their political convictions. This phenomenon, known as the “confrontation effect,” is fuelled by outrage, prompting individuals to react to opposing points of view, the researchers explain.
To better understand this phenomenon, Mochon and Schwartz conducted a series of studies combining real data from social networking platforms and controlled online experiments. Their aim was to understand why people, who might generally be expected to avoid conflicting information, engage with it more frequently online.
To carry out these studies, the researchers showed over 500,000 Americans political content posted on Facebook or X. These posts focused on three topics: gun control, Obamacare and former President Donald Trump. Each post supported either a liberal or conservative viewpoint. For example, one post might be in favor of gun control, while another would oppose it.
The results showed that users were more likely to click on and comment on posts that opposed their political views, rather than those that supported their beliefs.
“While previous studies show that people avoid content inconsistent with their beliefs, we found that counter-ideological content actually drives higher engagement,” explains Daniel Mochon in a news release. “We found situations where users were four times more likely to engage with content they disagreed with than content they agreed with,” the researcher told Psypost.
However, when it comes to engagement, “the study found that [this] isn’t always an accurate indicator of user preferences. While engagement in areas like sports or fashion reflects interest, political engagement often stems from anger, creating a vicious cycle” explains the release. Although people are attracted by confrontation with opposing viewpoints, they avoid prolonged exposure to such content.
“Outrage is a powerful driver of online engagement, often leading users to interact with content they would prefer to avoid,” Mochon told PsyPost. “Users should be more mindful of their reactions to online content and whether it is in their best interest to engage with it.” – AFP Relaxnews
