Search for: All records

Individuals experiencing unexpected distressing events, shocks, often rely on their social network for support. While prior work has shown how social networks respond to shocks, these studies usually treat all ties equally, despite differences in the support provided by different social relationships. Here, we conduct a computational analysis on Twitter that examines how responses to online shocks differ by the relationship type of a user dyad. We introduce a new dataset of over 13K instances of individuals' self-reporting shock events on Twitter and construct networks of relationship-labeled dyadic interactions around these events. By examining behaviors across 110K replies to shocked users in a pseudo-causal analysis, we demonstrate relationship-specific patterns in response levels and topic shifts. We also show that while well-established social dimensions of closeness such as tie strength and structural embeddedness contribute to shock responsiveness, the degree of impact is highly dependent on relationship and shock types. Our findings indicate that social relationships contain highly distinctive characteristics in network interactions, and that relationship-specific behaviors in online shock responses are unique from those of offline settings. 

Retracted papers often circulate widely on social media, digital news, and other websites before their official retraction. The spread of potentially inaccurate or misleading results from retracted papers can harm the scientific community and the public. Here, we quantify the amount and type of attention 3,851 retracted papers received over time in different online platforms. Comparing with a set of nonretracted control papers from the same journals with similar publication year, number of coauthors, and author impact, we show that retracted papers receive more attention after publication not only on social media but also, on heavily curated platforms, such as news outlets and knowledge repositories, amplifying the negative impact on the public. At the same time, we find that posts on Twitter tend to express more criticism about retracted than about control papers, suggesting that criticism-expressing tweets could contain factual information about problematic papers. Most importantly, around the time they are retracted, papers generate discussions that are primarily about the retraction incident rather than about research findings, showing that by this point, papers have exhausted attention to their results and highlighting the limited effect of retractions. Our findings reveal the extent to which retracted papers are discussed on different online platforms and identify at scale audience criticism toward them. In this context, we show that retraction is not an effective tool to reduce online attention to problematic papers.