Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Impact of Generative AI on Social Media: An Experimental Study

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Some generative-AI tools on social media increase participation and content volume while lowering perceived quality and authenticity of discussion, a controlled experiment with 680 U.S. participants finds.

desk verdict A well-run experiment whose central trade-off is supported, but the abstract's 'negative spill-over' claim is not identifiable from the group-level design. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14295 v1 pith:XEOEAH7J submitted 2025-06-17 cs.HC

Anders Giovanni M{o}ller , Daniel M. Romero , David Jurgens , Luca Maria Aiello This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords GenerativeAISocialmediaControlledexperimentLargelanguagemodelsUserengagementContentqualityAuthenticityOnlinediscussions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish how generative AI assistance changes online discussion when it is actually embedded in a social media interface. Across five randomly assigned conditions—no AI, open-ended chat, conversation starters, draft feedback, and reply suggestions—the authors find a consistent split: AI tools increase willingness to participate, comment length, and participation equality, but they do not improve how readers judge the conversation. Consumers rate AI-assisted comments as less informative and lower in quality, give more Dislike reactions, and rate replies to their own comments lower in most conditions. The paper concludes that no single AI tool enhances both the producer and the consumer experience, and it draws design principles for ethical deployment.

What carries the argument

The central object is a controlled five-condition experiment on a custom-built discussion platform: 680 U.S. participants in 136 groups of five, each group randomly assigned to control or one of four GPT-4o-backed tools (open-ended chat, conversation starters, draft feedback, stance-based reply suggestions), discussing three topics—trivial, scientific, and political—for ten minutes each. The mechanism that carries the argument is the joint measurement of producer-side behavioral metrics (comment length, participation entropy, reply likelihood, self-reported willingness to participate) and consumer-side perception metrics (ratings of comment informativeness and quality, ratings of replies received, reaction distributions, perceived AI use), with bootstrapped confidence intervals and permutation or t-tests comparing each treatment to control.

What would settle it

A field experiment on a production social media platform that randomly enables a similar AI suggestion tool would falsify the central trade-off if engagement rises without a significant drop in users' ratings of comment quality and authenticity, or without a negative spillover onto non-AI threads.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that AI assistance in social media discussion produces a split outcome: on the producer side, tools like chat assistance and reply suggestions increase willingness to participate, comment length, and participation equality; on the consumer side, none of the four tools improved perceived quality—comments were rated less informative and lower in quality in the Chat and Conversation Starter conditions, replies to one's own comments were rated lower in all but the Suggestions condition, and Dislike reactions rose across all treatments. The authors summarize this as a trade-off: no single AI tool enhances both producer and consumer experience.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that four specific GPT-4o-powered tools, used by strangers in forced 10-minute discussions on three topics, represent the range of generative-AI assistance users actually encounter on real social media platforms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platforms adding AI assistance should expect more participation and longer comments but lower perceived quality, more Dislikes, and reduced authenticity ratings.
  • Because no tested tool improved both producer and consumer experiences, deployment choices involve a real trade-off rather than a straightforward win.
  • AI-assisted content can spill over negatively, degrading the quality of subsequent human conversation in the same thread even for users who did not use the AI.
  • Users selectively adopt AI suggestions and prefer agreement in higher-stakes topics, so tools may nudge discussion toward consensus rather than diverse viewpoints.
  • Transparent disclosure of directly copied AI content, alongside optional tools and personalization, is the paper's proposed route to preserving authenticity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not test longer-term exposure; if the quality decline persists or worsens over weeks, even tools that initially raise engagement could erode trust in platform discourse over time.
  • Because participants already guessed AI use at 38–44% across treatments, the paper's disclosure recommendation may need to cover not just copied text but any AI-assisted wording that readers can detect.
  • A direct extension would be to randomize the same four tools on an existing platform and track whether the negative spillover onto human-only threads observed here reproduces at scale.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a between-subjects controlled experiment on a custom social-media-like platform in which 680 U.S. participants in 136 five-person groups were randomly assigned to a control condition or one of four GPT-4o-based AI assistance tools (Chat, Conversation Starter, Feedback, Suggestions). Each group held three 10-minute discussions on topics differing in sensitivity. The paper measures producer-side outcomes (comment length, participation equality, self-reported willingness to participate) and consumer-side outcomes (perceived comment quality, ratings of replies, reaction types), together with detailed AI-usage analyses and post-study questionnaires. It concludes that some AI tools increase engagement and content volume while decreasing perceived quality and authenticity, and that they introduce a negative spillover effect on conversations; it then proposes four design principles for AI deployment on social media.

Significance. If the central trade-off claim is correct, this is a valuable and timely contribution: it provides direct experimental evidence on how generative AI writing assistance affects both producers and consumers in a realistic discussion environment, with transparent prompts, multiple distinct tool designs, and rich usage data. The study's strengths include the realistic platform, the comparison of four different AI-assistance paradigms, the inclusion of both behavioral and perceptual measures, and the unusually detailed supplementary documentation of prompts, questionnaires, and regression analyses. The main result—that AI can boost participation metrics while degrading perceived quality—is plausible and worth publishing, but the current manuscript states at least one central claim (negative spillover) that the design cannot identify, and the statistical inference ignores the group-level randomization structure. These issues need to be resolved before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; 'How to move forward' (p. 10)] The abstract's claim that AI tools 'introduce a negative spill-over effect on conversations' and the stronger statement in 'How to move forward' that AI lowers 'the quality of subsequent conversations within threads, even among users not using the AI themselves' are not identifiable from the experimental design. As stated in Methods ('Platform Design'), each group was randomly assigned to one condition and participants interacted only within their assigned group, so AI availability is constant within a group and there is no within-group control of non-AI users. The only non-users in treatment groups are participants who voluntarily chose not to click the tool, a self-selected subset. No analysis in the paper compares conversation quality before and after AI-assisted comments or isolates non-AI-user outcomes within treatments. This claim should be removed from the abstract or explicitly reframed as a hypothesis, unless the authors add a dedicated within-treatment analysis that defines non-users and compares their conversation quality in a way that is not confounded by self-selection.
  2. [Methods, 'Evaluation'; Supplementary Material, 'Statistical Tests and Bootstrapping'] The statistical inference appears to ignore the group-level randomization and the dependence among participants within a group. The treatment is assigned at the group level, and participants within a group interact with one another, so individual-level observations are not independent. The paper reports t-tests and permutation tests on individual-level metrics without stating the resampling unit of the bootstrap and without cluster-robust standard errors or group-level aggregation for most outcomes. This likely inflates significance levels, especially for outcomes such as reaction distributions and perceived-AI-use ratings in Fig. 12. In addition, the paper makes many comparisons across conditions and outcomes without any multiple-comparison correction, so some of the reported 'significant' effects may be chance findings. The authors should either reanalyze at the group level, use cluster-robust inference, or explicitly label the results as exploratory and unadjusted; this is consequential for the central claim that 'no single AI tool enhances both producer and consumer experiences,' which depends on several non-significant and marginal contrasts.
  3. [Abstract; Results (p. 3)] The abstract claims that AI tools increase 'volume of generated content,' but the only volume-related measure reported is average comment length in words (Fig. 2c). No result on the total number or rate of comments per participant is presented. If comment counts did not differ between treatment and control, the word 'volume' overstates the finding. The authors should report the comment-count outcome explicitly, or temper the claim to 'longer comments' rather than 'volume of generated content.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption lists two entries labeled 'e' ('Suggestions tool' and 'Chat assistant'); the second should be 'f'.
  2. [p. 11, 'How to move forward'] The sentence 'the proportion of participants believed by the other users to use AI tools ranged from from 13.8%...' contains a duplicated 'from'.
  3. [p. 13, 'An ethical deployment'] The phrase 'already designed optimized for sustained engagement' appears to be missing a word ('already designed and optimized' or 'already designed to be optimized').
  4. [p. 6, 'How are the AI tools used?'] The reference to 'Figs. 3a-d and 4h-i' is slightly confusing because Figs. 3a-d and 4h-i do not cover all usage analyses; consider referring to the full set of subfigures or specifying the relevant panels more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all reported effects are directly observed treatment-versus-control contrasts, and the only problematic claim (spill-over) is an inferential over-reach, not a derivation that reduces to the paper's inputs.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical measurement study, not a derivation. Every central finding—longer comments, more dislikes, lower perceived informativeness and quality, higher willingness to participate, and increased reply likelihood under Conversation Starter—is a directly observed contrast between randomly assigned treatment groups and the control condition, estimated with t-tests, permutation tests, and bootstrapping. The AI tools are implemented systems (GPT-4o with fixed prompts and settings), not parameters fitted to the outcome data, and the four design principles are recommendations inferred from those observed contrasts rather than quantities fitted to reproduce them. There are no self-citations: the references motivating the interventions (e.g., [7] Jakesch et al., [17] Argyle et al., [18] Di Fede et al., [19] Ziegenbein et al., [20] Do et al.) are all external prior works with no author overlap. The abstract's 'negative spill-over effect on conversations' and the 'How to move forward' claim that AI lowers 'the quality of subsequent conversations within threads, even among users not using the AI themselves' are not identifiable from the cluster-randomized design (whole groups receive one condition, so no within-group AI-vs-non-AI comparison exists), but this is an inferential-validity and over-claiming problem, not circularity: the claim is neither defined in terms of the outcomes nor embedded in the experimental design, and it cannot be reproduced by re-running the analysis. Per the rule that over-generalization and design-validity concerns belong to correctness risk rather than circularity, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical experiment, so the ledger captures design choices (model temperature, max tokens) and domain assumptions (representativeness of the model and setting) rather than fitted parameters or new theoretical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • GPT-4o sampling temperature = 1.0
    Hand-chosen to increase output variability; may affect the style and perceived quality of AI-generated text, and therefore the treatment effects.
  • max_tokens for AI responses = 1000
    Hand-chosen cap on response length, may influence comment length outcomes.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o at temperature 1.0 with the provided prompts is representative of generative AI tools used in social media.
    The study generalizes from this single model configuration to 'generative AI' tools; no evidence is provided that other models or prompts would behave similarly.
  • domain assumption The three discussion topics and 10-minute sessions elicit behaviors similar to natural social media interaction.
    External validity of the controlled setting; topics were chosen to span casual, scientific, and political content.
  • standard math Participants are statistically independent units for the reported t-tests and permutation tests.
    Randomization occurred at the group level (five-person groups), but the analysis appears to compare individual-level observations; if within-group correlation is substantial, significance tests may be anti-conservative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Generative AI on Social Media: An Experimental Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XEOEAH7J

@misc{pith2026250614295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Generative AI on Social Media: An Experimental Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XEOEAH7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14295}
}
read the original abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly deployed across social media platforms, yet their implications for user behavior and experience remain understudied, particularly regarding two critical dimensions: (1) how AI tools affect the behaviors of content producers in a social media context, and (2) how content generated with AI assistance is perceived by users. To fill this gap, we conduct a controlled experiment with a representative sample of 680 U.S. participants in a realistic social media environment. The participants are randomly assigned to small discussion groups, each consisting of five individuals in one of five distinct experimental conditions: a control group and four treatment groups, each employing a unique AI intervention-chat assistance, conversation starters, feedback on comment drafts, and reply suggestions. Our findings highlight a complex duality: some AI-tools increase user engagement and volume of generated content, but at the same time decrease the perceived quality and authenticity of discussion, and introduce a negative spill-over effect on conversations. Based on our findings, we propose four design principles and recommendations aimed at social media platforms, policymakers, and stakeholders: ensuring transparent disclosure of AI-generated content, designing tools with user-focused personalization, incorporating context-sensitivity to account for both topic and user intent, and prioritizing intuitive user interfaces. These principles aim to guide an ethical and effective integration of generative AI into social media.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Generative Exaggeration in LLM Social Agents: Consistency, Bias, and Toxicity

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    When LLMs are given more context about a real social media user, they become more ideologically consistent but also more extreme, toxic, and stereotyped than the user actually is.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ziems, C., Held, W., Shaikh, O., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., Yang, D.: Can large lan- guage models transform computational social science? Computational Linguistics 50(1), 237–291 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00502

    doi:10.1162/coli_a_00502 2024

  2. [2]

    Science China Information Sciences68(2), 121101 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-024-4222-0

    Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., Zheng, R., Fan, X., Wang, X., Xiong, L., Zhou, Y., Wang, W., Jiang, C., Zou, Y., Liu, X., Yin, Z., Dou, S., Weng, R., Qin, W., Zheng, Y., Qiu, X., Huang, X., Zhang, Q., Gui, T.: The rise and potential of large language model based agents: a survey. Science China...

    doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4222-0 2025

  3. [3]

    Artificial Intelligence Review55(1), 589–656 (2022) https://doi.org/10

    Anantrasirichai, N., Bull, D.: Artificial intelligence in the creative industries: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review55(1), 589–656 (2022) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10462-021-10039-7

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 78(1), 84–93 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10776958221149577 18

    Pavlik, J.V.: Collaborating with chatgpt: Considering the implications of gen- erative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 78(1), 84–93 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10776958221149577 18

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Nature Human Behaviour8(10), 1839– 1850 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5

    Yan, L., Greiff, S., Teuber, Z., Gasevic, D.: Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning. Nature Human Behaviour8(10), 1839– 1850 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5

    doi:10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5 2024

  6. [6]

    Jennings, V.P.S., Hubbard, A.: Social media and democracy: Fos- tering political deliberation and participation

    Freddie J. Jennings, V.P.S., Hubbard, A.: Social media and democracy: Fos- tering political deliberation and participation. Western Journal of Commu- nication 85(2), 147–167 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2020.1728369 https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2020.1728369

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Jakesch, M., Bhat, A., Buschek, D., Zalmanson, L., Naaman, M.: Co-writing with opinionated language models affects users’ views. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’23, pp. 1–15. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2023). https://doi. org/10.1145/3544548.3581196. https://dl.acm.org/doi...

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    2314021121

    Bail, C.A.: Can generative ai improve social science? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121(21), 2314021121 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 2314021121

    doi:10.1073/pnas 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Creativity Research Journal 36(2), 177–193 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2107850

    Wingstrom, R., Hautala, J., , Lundman, R.: Redefining creativity in the era of ai? perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity Research Journal 36(2), 177–193 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2107850

    2024

  2. [10]

    Humanities and Social Sciences Communications11(1), 1–9 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1057/ s41599-024-04245-1

    Rattanasevee, P., Akarapattananukul, Y., Chirawut, Y.: Direct democracy in the digital age: opportunities, challenges, and new approaches. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications11(1), 1–9 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1057/ s41599-024-04245-1

    2024

  3. [11]

    Philosophy & Technology 37(1), 3 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13347-023-00692-x

    Mikhaylovskaya, A.: Enhancing deliberation with digital democratic inno- vations. Philosophy & Technology 37(1), 3 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13347-023-00692-x

    2024

  4. [12]

    Science 386(6719), 2852 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/science

    Tessler, M.H., Bakker, M.A., Jarrett, D., Sheahan, H., Chadwick, M.J., Koster, R., Evans, G., Campbell-Gillingham, L., Collins, T., Parkes, D.C., Botvinick, M., Summerfield, C.: Ai can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation. Science 386(6719), 2852 (2024) ht...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Science Advances 10(28), 5290 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290

    Doshi, A.R., Hauser, O.P.: Generative ai enhances individual cre- ativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances 10(28), 5290 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    PNAS Nexus3(7), 217 (2024) https://doi.org/10

    Drolsbach, C.P., Solovev, K., Prollochs, N.: Community notes increase trust in fact-checking on social media. PNAS Nexus3(7), 217 (2024) https://doi.org/10. 1093/pnasnexus/pgae217 19

    2024

  7. [15]

    the machine? subjective evaluations of human- and ai-generated advice

    Osborne, M.R., Bailey, E.R.: Me vs. the machine? subjective evaluations of human- and ai-generated advice. Scientific Reports 15(1), 3980 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86623-6

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Journal of online trust and safety2(4) (2024) https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v2i4.197

    Yang, K., Singh, D., Menczer, F.: Characteristics and prevalence of fake social media profiles with ai-generated faces. Journal of online trust and safety2(4) (2024) https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v2i4.197

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(41), 2311627120 (2023) https://doi.org/10

    Argyle, L.P., Bail, C.A., Busby, E.C., Gubler, J.R., Howe, T., Rytting, C., Sorensen, T., Wingate, D.: Leveraging AI for democratic discourse: Chat inter- ventions can improve online political conversations at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(41), 2311...

    2023

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition

    Di Fede, G., Rocchesso, D., Dow, S.P., Andolina, S.: The idea machine: Llm- based expansion, rewriting, combination, and suggestion of ideas. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition. C&C ’22, pp. 623–627. Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2022

  11. [19]

    In: Ku, L.-W., Martins, A., Srikumar, V

    Ziegenbein, T., Skitalinskaya, G., Bayat Makou, A., Wachsmuth, H.: LLM-based Rewriting of Inappropriate Argumentation using Reinforcement Learning from Machine Feedback. In: Ku, L.-W., Martins, A., Srikumar, V. (eds.) Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association f...

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Do, H.J., Kong, H.-K., Lee, J., Bailey, B.P.: How should the agent communicate to the group? communication strategies of a conversational agent in group chat discussions. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6(CSCW2), 387–138723 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3555112

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Minds and Machines30, 681–694 (2020)

    Floridi, L., Chiriatti, M.: Gpt-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines30, 681–694 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Feuerriegel, S., DiResta, R., Goldstein, J.A., Kumar, S., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Tomz, M., Prollochs, N.: Research can help to tackle ai-generated disinforma- tion.NatureHumanBehaviour 7(11),1818–1821(2023)https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41562-023-01726-2

    2023

  15. [23]

    Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media4 (2024) https://doi.org/10

    Yang, K.-C., Menczer, F.: Anatomy of an ai-powered malicious social botnet. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media4 (2024) https://doi.org/10. 51685/jqd.2024.icwsm.7

    2024

  16. [24]

    MM ’24, pp

    Wei, Y., Tyson, G.: Understanding the impact of ai-generated content on social 20 media:The pixivcase.In: Proceedings ofthe 32ndACM InternationalConference on Multimedia. MM ’24, pp. 6813–6822. Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2024). https://doi.org/10...

    2024

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp

    Gamage, D., Sewwandi, D., Zhang, M., Bandara, A.: Labeling synthetic con- tent: User perceptions of warning label designs for ai-generated content on social media. In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–29 (2025). https://doi.or...

    2025

  18. [26]

    arXiv:2504.09865 [cs]

    Gallegos, I.O., Shani, C., Shi, W., Bianchi, F., Gainsburg, I., Jurafsky, D., Willer, R.: Labeling messages as ai-generated does not reduce their persuasive effects (arXiv:2504.09865) (2025) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.09865 . arXiv:2504.09865 [cs]

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Journal of Product & Brand Management32(7), 1108–1122 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-02-2022-3864

    Kirkby, A., Baumgarth, C., Henseler, J.: To disclose or not disclose, is no longer the question - effect of ai-disclosed brand voice on brand authenticity and atti- tude. Journal of Product & Brand Management32(7), 1108–1122 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-02-2022-3864

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Behavior Research Methods 53(5), 2158–2171 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13428-020-01535-9

    Almaatouq, A., Becker, J., Houghton, J.P., Paton, N., Watts, D.J., Whiting, M.E.: Empirica: a virtual lab for high-throughput macro-level experiments. Behavior Research Methods 53(5), 2158–2171 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13428-020-01535-9

    2021

  21. [29]

    https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/106ybxf/cmv_cats_are_ smarter_than_dogs_on_average/

    chrisdh79, Sufficient-Cover5956, Anticitizen-Zero: Discussion on cats and dogs. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/106ybxf/cmv_cats_are_ smarter_than_dogs_on_average/. Accessed: 2024-07-31 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1e9anm6/weightloss_ power_of_oats_naturally_mimics_popular/

    chrisdh79, Sufficient-Cover5956, Anticitizen-Zero: Discussion on health bene- fits of oats. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1e9anm6/weightloss_ power_of_oats_naturally_mimics_popular/. Accessed: 2024-07-31 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Comment" button to add a comment or the “React

    whatisgoingon123422, CutieHeartgoddess: Discussion on Universal Basic Income. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/tdmuae/cmv_universal_ basic_income_is_the_way_of_the/. Accessed: 2024-07-31 (2022) 21 Supplementary Information Contents • Supplementary Information Ove...

    2022

  24. [32]

    I agree" or anything like that, just reply in a way that agrees with the content. 2. A balanced or neutral reply. You don’t have to say

    A reply agreeing with the content. You don’t have to say "I agree" or anything like that, just reply in a way that agrees with the content. 2. A balanced or neutral reply. You don’t have to say "I think" or anything like that, just reply in a way that is neutral or balanced

  25. [33]

    I disagree

    A reply disagreeing or challenging the content. You don’t have to say "I disagree", just reply in a way that disagrees with the content. Instructions: - Write in a natural, conversational tone, as if you’re a real person engaging on social media. - Avoid overly formal language...

    2025

  26. [34]

    Comment Ratings: Average ratings of answers received to own comments

  27. [35]

    I feel comfortable with AI being used on social media platforms

    Change in questionnaire answers (∆): Difference between pre- and post-study questionnaire responses for the questions onAI Related to Social Mediaoutlined in Questionnaires. Each regression includes the same set of demographic-based independent variables (IVs). We process the ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.