Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, where we break down cutting-edge research and ask questions that leave you thinking long after the episode ends. Today, we delve into an intriguing article titled “The Confrontation Effect: When Users Engage More with Ideology-Inconsistent Content Online,” authored by Daniel Mochon and Janet Schwartz. Published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes—one of the prestigious FT50 journals—this research brings a fresh perspective to the psychology of online behavior.
You might expect people to avoid content that challenges their beliefs. But what if that wasn’t always the case? This paper explores the “confrontation effect,” revealing that users, driven by outrage, sometimes engage more with content that contradicts their ideology. Drawing on field experiments from Twitter and Facebook and online lab studies, the authors paint a complex picture: outrage can compel users to confront, debate, and even spread messages they fundamentally disagree with. The research also finds that topic relevance and the framing of threat play pivotal roles in determining the intensity of engagement.
Daniel Mochon, a behavioral economist, is known for his work on decision-making and consumer behavior, while Janet Schwartz, a professor of marketing, focuses on how emotions influence choices. Together, they offer a nuanced view of online polarization that is both timely and relevant.
But here’s the real question: Is outrage just a byproduct of modern digital platforms, or is it the new driver of meaningful public discourse?
Thank you to the authors and to Elsevier ScienceDirect for making this insightful research open access. Let's dive into it!
Reference
Mochon, D., & Schwartz, J. (2024). The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 185, 104366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104366

Ver todos los episodios