Norms are principles of “right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior’ (Merriam Webster). In our catalog, norms refer to both perceived descriptive norms (what most people do) as well as injunctive norms (what one ought to do) outside of the force of law [5].

Thus, this tag includes reminders of social value ascribed to accuracy as well as “nudges” — a non-coercive device that leads people to certain decisions — towards being respectful and open in communication. Some approaches from conflict resolution may also be tagged under this tag.

‍Related concepts. When it comes to encouraging norms in online spaces, public shaming can be a problematic method [9]. A key issue is the desire to maintain relationships between the people engaging in discussion.

Some methods associated with ‘encouraging norms’ are:

This method relies on nudging towards standards of behavior accepted by a community or group of people. ‘Most responsible people think twice before sharing articles’ is an example of a judge [2]. This method enforces descriptive norms.

This is an act of persuasion that relies on appeals to morality. An example might be a message about what one “shouldn’t” do. The morals invoked could vary by group. For example, in the US appeals to values of ‘Care’ versus ‘Authority’ may differ across party lines [25].

This reminds the person of the consequences for sharing inaccurate/abusive content. These consequences could be direct such as possible electoral loss [26] or indirect such as a reminder that family and acquaintances can also observe their messages [17].

This reminds the person of the consequences for sharing inaccurate/abusive content. These consequences could be direct such as possible electoral loss [26] or indirect such as a reminder that family and acquaintances can also observe their messages [17].

One definition of listen is “to hear something with thoughtful attention: give consideration” (Merriam Webster). While listening may not seem like much of a response, it is a critical part of a trust-building exchange, especially in situations where one is thinking about the possibilities for longer term dialogue or engagement outside the immediate message being discussed [8].By listening silently, participants can understand more about whether to respond or how to respond. For example, it may be that the person you want to engage with isn’t really willing or ready to discuss differences of opinion [36]. It can also be that responding to a query only with factual answers misses cues that the message writer is sending about problems they are having.

Listening can depend on the goals of the conversation. Several types have been defined by scholars. For example, listening actively, where participants can use techniques to solicit more information from the speaker [31], can be a form of focused attention on another person that is helpful in democratic exchange [6] [13]. These are different from cataphatic listening, which focuses on how to respond in order to debate, defend, or critique [11].Related concepts. One issue that has been noted related to active listening is that it may not be effective in all contexts. For example, marital researcher John Gottman and colleagues were surprised to see that this technique seemed, at times, to create more conflict; however, the subsequent debate related to two-person/dyadic and marital conversations revealed that the precise meaning of “active listening” itself can be understood differently.

Examples of listening techniques include:

As discussed above, though you might want to respond to those who are most negative about vaccination, it can be more effective to address those who are open to the information that you have to share [4].

Conflicts can be driven by issues of identity. Thus, from a conflict resolution or transformation perspective, it can help to pay attention to language, metaphors, and expressions that signal concerns around self-identity. Sometimes the connection to identity can be direct. But it may also be implied indirectly. Listening for identity requires looking beyond the content of what is being said [22].

Sharing is an action that seems synonymous to social media. But in the ARTT catalog, it is currently used in a specific way to imply a deeper engagement in a conversation. This response category is still under active development.

Sharing one’s own story is one way that people explain their reasoning through their own personal experience of navigating a difficult decision. Even in digital spaces, telling stories about one’s own “health journey” can be an effective way to share information while also encouraging reflection [16]. Sharing information with shared values in mind can be a way to build trust, which is why we’re reviewing literature around knowledge sharing. In addition, when sharing complicated information, methods around communicating uncertainty may also fall under the Share response mode.

Also phrased as “perspective taking”, this mode is the “act of viewing a situation from the point of view of others” [21]. By doing this, people can identify another person’s intentions and needs even though they may not agree with them, which may reduce impasses and decrease discrimination. While empathizing involves sharing of others’ emotions, perspective taking is to help identify other’s intentions, needs, reactions, and behaviors.

The methods for taking perspective may be common with empathizing, since both emerge from dialogue. Some methods include:

A dyad is a group of two people. Dyadic communication occurs when two people, possibly from opposite sides of a conflict, have a direct interaction. Dyadic communication is not unique to perspective taking, but it is one kind of interaction that allows for the participants to take perspective [21].

One unique method encourages perspective by allowing users to experience Twitter as if they held the opposite political beliefs [33]. This method can be extended to other social media platforms with personalized feeds.