🔎 The Claim Under Test

The mismatch hypothesis argues that human psychology evolved for face-to-face interaction and that novel features of online environments create three problems that make political discussion more hostile: they (a) change people’s behavior, (b) create adverse selection effects, and (c) bias people’s perceptions.

🧭 How This Was Tested Across Eight Studies

• A comprehensive, cross-national research program combining surveys and behavioral experiments.
• Sources include cross-national surveys and controlled online behavioral experiments.
• Total sample across studies: N = 8,434.

📊 What the Evidence Shows

• Limited support for the mismatch hypothesis overall: mismatch-driven changes to behavior and perception were not the primary drivers of online hostility.
• Only modest adverse selection effects were detected.
• Stronger and more consistent evidence indicates that hostility in political discussion stems from status-driven individuals who are drawn to politics.
• These status-driven actors are equally hostile in offline and online settings.
• Initial evidence suggests online discussions feel more hostile partly because the behavior of these individuals is more visible online than offline.

💡 Why It Matters

• The results challenge the simple notion that the internet’s impersonal design alone produces hostile political talk.
• Visibility and the concentration of status-seeking actors better explain why online spaces often seem harsher, which has implications for designing interventions and moderating platforms.