This study investigates the impact of YouTube’s 2021 policy, which hides dislike counts and limits a form of negative social feedback. It examines how this change affects social media herding behavior—the tendency of users to align with the majority opinion. We adopted a mixed-method approach, incorporating an online experiment that simulates the YouTube interface and an Interrupted Time Series analysis of real-world user reactions, to assess how the policy affects user engagement. Specifically, we looked at how the absence of one-sided digital cues, combined with content characteristics and individual user predispositions, influences user behavior. Our findings suggest that YouTube’s initiative to boost platform positivity had limited success: user responses were more influenced by their ideological leanings than by visible digital cues; Hiding dislikes reduced commenting frequencies and inadvertently increased negative expression. These results highlight the stronger role of ideological beliefs over social cues in shaping engagement, challenging the presumed impact of audience conformity and the negativity bias on social media dynamics.
AlhabashSBaekJCunninghamC, et al. (2015) To comment or not to comment? How virality, arousal level, and commenting behavior on YouTube videos affect civic behavioral intentions. Computers in Human Behavior51: 520–531.
AndersonNH (2013) Unified psychology based on three laws of information integration. Review of General Psychology17(2): 125–132.
4.
AschSE (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied70(9): 1–70.
5.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348: 6239.
6.
BaumeisterRFBratslavskyEFinkenauerC, et al. (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology5(4): 323–370.
7.
BoczkowskiPJMitchelsteinE (2011) How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on online news sites: clicking, E-Mailing, and commenting. Human Communication Research38(1): 1–22.
8.
BonabeauE (2009) Decisions 2.0: the power of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review50(2): 45.
9.
Box-SteffensmeierJM (2014) Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrightJMarchalNGaneshB, et al. (2022) How do individuals in a radical echo chamber react to opposing views? Evidence from a content analysis of Stormfront. Human Communication Research48(1): 116–145.
11.
ChenGMNgYMM (2017) Nasty online comments anger you more than me, but nice ones make me as happy as you. Computers in Human Behavior71: 181–188.
12.
ChengJBernsteinMDanescu-Niculescu-MizilC, et al. (2017) Anyone can become a troll: causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland, OR, 25 February–1 March, pp. 1217–1230.
13.
ChevalierJAMayzlinD (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research43(3): 345–354.
14.
CialdiniRBGoldsteinNJ (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology55(1): 591–621.
15.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
HayesRACarrCTWohnDY (2016) One click, many meanings: interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media60(1): 171–187.
18.
HayesRAWesselmannEDCarrCT (2018) When nobody “Likes” you: perceived ostracism through paralinguistic digital affordances within social media. Social Media + Society4(3): 205630511880030.
19.
JiYGLiCNorthM, et al. (2017) Staking reputation on stakeholders: how does stakeholders’ Facebook engagement help or ruin a company’s reputation?Public Relations Review43(1): 201–210.
20.
KappesAHarveyAHLohrenzT, et al. (2019) Confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinion strength. Nature Neuroscience23(1): 130–137.
21.
LandemoreH (2017) Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ: Oxford Princeton University Press.
22.
LeeSMThomerAKLampeC (2022) The use of negative interface cues to change perceptions of online retributive harassment. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 6(CSCW2):334.
23.
LeimeisterJM (2010) Collective intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering2: 245–248.
24.
LiangFZhuQLiGM (2022) The effects of flagging propaganda sources on news sharing: quasi-experimental evidence from Twitter. The International Journal of Press/Politics28(4): 909–928.
25.
MaheswaranDChaikenS (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology61(1): 13.
26.
Matamoros-FernándezA (2017) Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society20(6): 930–946.
27.
MatookSDennisARWangYM (2022) User comments in social media firestorms: a mixed-method study of purpose, tone, and motivation. Journal of Management Information Systems39(3): 673–705.
28.
MichaelLOtterbacherJ (2014) Write like I write: herding in the language of online reviews. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media8(1): 356–365.
29.
ModgilSSinghRKGuptaS, et al. (2021) A confirmation bias view on social media induced polarisation during Covid-19. Information Systems Frontiers26: 417–441.
30.
MuchnikLAralSTaylorSJ (2013) Social influence bias: a randomized experiment. Science341(6146): 647–651.
31.
NgYMM (2023) A cross-national study of fear appeal messages in YouTube trending videos about COVID-19. American Behavioral Scientist. Epub ahead of print Feb 21. DOI: ;10.1177/00027642231155363
32.
PeetersGCzapinskiJ (1990) Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: the distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology1(1): 33–60.
33.
RainieHWellmanB (2012) Networked: the New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
RamsayCRMatoweLGrilliR, et al. (2003) Interrupted time series designs in health technology assessment: lessons from two systematic reviews of behavior change strategies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care19: 613–623.
35.
RibeiroFHenriqueLBenevenutoF, et al. (2018) Media bias monitor: quantifying biases of social media news outlets at large-scale. In: Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Buffalo, NY, 3–6 June.
36.
RozinPRoyzmanEB (2001) Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review5(4): 296–320.
37.
ShadishWRCookTDCampbellDT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Wadsworth, OH: Cengage Learning.
38.
SunH (2013) A longitudinal study of herd behavior in the adoption and continued use of technology. MIS Quarterly37(4): 1013–1041.
39.
SundarSS (2008) The MAIN Model: A Heuristic Approach to Understanding Technology Effects on Credibility (pp. 73-100). Cambridge, MA: MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative.
40.
Textblob (2019) Textblob: Simplified Text Processing — Textblob 0.16.0 Documentation. Textblob.readthedocs.io. Available at: https://textblob.readthedocs.io/en/dev
41.
ToepflFPiwoniE (2018) Targeting dominant publics: how counterpublic commenters align their efforts with mainstream news. New Media & Society20: 5.
42.
WozniakKH (2016) Public opinion about gun control post–Sandy Hook. Criminal Justice Policy Review28(3): 255–278.
ZhangMMNgYMM (2023) #TrendingNow: How Twitter Trends impact social and personal agendas?International Journal of Communication17: 2048–2067.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
