Throughout human history, the tendency to form groups and identify with a tribe has been essential for survival and social cohesion. Tribalism, in its traditional sense, fostered cooperation, facilitated collective action, and provided a sense of belonging and security in a challenging world . This inherent human tendency is deeply rooted in our evolutionary past, where collaboration and mutual support within a group increased the chances of survival and reproduction . These social bonds, even if sometimes dysfunctional, often operated beneath conscious awareness, much like in cults today where members may not fully recognise their situation. However, in the digital age, this innate human tendency has taken on new forms and manifested in ways that can be detrimental to individual well-being and societal cohesion. This article explores the phenomenon of digital tribalism, examining its key characteristics, its impact on online discourse and information sharing, and its implications for mental health. While acknowledging the potential for positive outcomes, the focus will be on the negative consequences of digital tribalism, such as the creation of echo chambers, the spread of misinformation, and the suppression of dissenting voices. No ‘balanced perspective’ is provided as it wouldn’t be provided with an article on ‘child sexual abuse’.
This article explores the phenomenon of digital tribalism by examining its key characteristics, dynamic relationship to misinformation, its impact on online and offline discourse.
The interconnected nature of online spaces has given rise to a web of phenomena that contribute to the proliferation of false, misleading, or inaccurate information. At the heart of this web lies a matrix of three key elements: information vacuums, echo chambers, and silos – perpetuated by digital tribalism. These components, when woven together, create a potent nexus that amplifies and perpetuates misinformation, shaping beliefs and perceptions in ways that can have far-reaching consequences. But there is the cancel culture and no-platforming as additional spin-offs – terms that represent what were previously well known as ‘marginalisation’ and ‘ostracisation’.
It is important to acknowledge that digital tribalism is not confined to strictly online spaces. It can spill over into workplaces and other social settings through all means of electronic communication. People in workplaces may well share the same ‘tribal spaces’ online. This can create a dysfunctional culture where cliques dominate, information is hoarded, dissenting voices are silenced, and even conspiracies devoid of evidential foundations of existence may arise. Hence workers may bring to workplaces attitudes, beliefs and groupthink formed in those tribal spaces. Digital tribalism is a diffuse phenomenon arising from several forms of digital exchange e.g. forums, messaging apps, text messages and even phone calls (which are now predominantly digital).
Information vacuums serve as one foundation stone in this misinformation matrix. These vacuums emerge when individuals or groups lack access to accurate, reliable information about a particular topic. In the absence of credible sources, people may be more susceptible to accepting and spreading misinformation that fills the void. Echo chambers and silos, in turn, provide the structure and reinforcement necessary for misinformation to thrive. Within these insular spaces, individuals are exposed primarily to information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs, while dissenting views are minimised or excluded. This selective exposure creates a feedback loop that strengthens the grip of misinformation, making it increasingly difficult for individuals to encounter or accept contradictory evidence.
The implications of this misinformation matrix are particularly significant in the field of psychiatry. Mental health professionals are not immune to the influence of information vacuums, echo chambers, silos, and digital tribalism. When psychiatrists and other mental health providers operate within these insular spaces, they may be exposed to outdated, inaccurate, or biased information about mental health conditions and their treatments. This can lead to the perpetuation of ineffective or even harmful practices, as well as the stigmatisation of individuals with mental health concerns. Moreover, when patients and their families seek information about mental health online, they may encounter a similar misinformation matrix that can shape their beliefs, expectations, and treatment decisions. Navigating this complex landscape requires a critical awareness of the ways in which information vacuums, echo chambers, silos, and digital tribalism can influence both professional and public understanding of mental health. By actively seeking out diverse perspectives, engaging with evidence-based knowledge, and fostering open dialogue across different communities, mental health professionals can work to counteract the spread of misinformation and promote accurate, compassionate, and effective approaches to mental health care.
Defining Digital Tribalism
Digital tribalism can be defined as the formation of online groups characterised by strong in-group identity, conformity, and intolerance of dissent. These online tribes often form around shared beliefs, values, or interests, creating a sense of “us vs. them” mentality that can lead to polarisation and conflict. While traditional tribalism served important functions in human evolution, digital tribalism can be particularly problematic due to the amplifying effects of technology and the ease with which individuals can connect with like-minded others online.
Historical Context: Tracing the Roots of Digital Tribalism
While the internet has undoubtedly amplified these phenomena, their roots can be traced back to earlier social and political movements.
Political Correctness: The term “political correctness” first emerged in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917, used to describe strict adherence to party ideology . In the 1970s and 1980s, it was adopted by leftist academics in the United States, often used self-critically to satirize those who were overly rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy . Interestingly, research suggests that politically incorrect language can be perceived as more authentic, even if it makes the speaker appear less warm . This perception can have significant implications for political discourse and online interactions, as it suggests that authenticity may be valued over politeness or social harmony.
Cancel Culture: Public shaming, a core element of cancel culture, has a long history. In medieval Europe and Colonial America, stocks were used to punish criminals and enforce social norms. Other forms of public shaming, such as tarring and feathering, were also used to maintain social order. This historical context highlights the enduring human tendency to use public condemnation as a means of social control.
No Platforming: The concept of “no-platforming” has its origins in the 1970s, when the UK National Union of Students adopted a policy to prevent fascist groups from speaking on university campuses. This tactic was later expanded to include individuals with a wider range of views deemed unacceptable, raising concerns about the potential for censorship and the suppression of dissenting voices.
Key Characteristics of Digital Tribalism
- Strong in-group identity: Digital tribalism involves a strong sense of belonging to a particular online group, often based on shared beliefs, values, or interests. This can lead to a sense of “us vs. them” mentality, where those outside the group are viewed with suspicion or hostility.
- Conformity and intolerance of dissent: Digital tribalism fosters a culture of conformity within the group, where members are expected to adhere to the group’s norms and values. Dissenting voices are often silenced or ostracized .
- Emotional investment and validation: Individuals can become emotionally invested in their online tribes, finding validation and a sense of belonging within the group. This can make it difficult to critically evaluate information or challenge the group’s beliefs.
- Susceptibility to manipulation: Digital tribalism can make individuals more susceptible to manipulation and misinformation, as they are more likely to trust information that comes from within their tribe, even if it is inaccurate or misleading.
- Erosion of critical thinking: Digital tribalism can contribute to the erosion of critical thinking skills, as individuals become less likely to question information that confirms their biases or to consider alternative perspectives.
- Polarisation and conflict: Digital tribalism can lead to increased polarisation and conflict between different online groups, as individuals become more entrenched in their own beliefs and less willing to engage in dialogue with those who hold different views.
Digital tribalism feeds on and contributes to misinformation at the same time. As people navigate the digital landscape, they often gravitate towards others who share similar beliefs, values, or interests. These online tribes can provide a sense of belonging and identity, but they can also foster an “us versus them” mentality that further entrenches echo chambers and silos. Within these tribal spaces, misinformation can be weaponised to reinforce group identity and vilify perceived outsiders. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle in which information vacuums, echo chambers and silos, work in tandem to create a powerful nexus of misinformation.
The Spread of Misinformation in Mental Health
The internet has become a primary source of information for many people seeking to understand and manage their mental health. While this can be empowering, it also presents risks, as online spaces are often rife with misinformation and pseudoscience. This can lead to individuals adopting harmful beliefs and practices, delaying or avoiding appropriate treatment, and experiencing increased distress and stigma.
The antipsychiatry movement and the Church of Scientology’s views on mental disorders have been influential in shaping public perceptions and attitudes towards mental health treatment. Both groups have been vocal in their criticism of psychiatry and have promoted alternative explanations and treatments for mental health conditions. The antipsychiatry movement emerged in the 1960s, led by psychiatrists such as R.D. Laing and Thomas Szasz, who questioned the validity of psychiatric diagnoses and the use of psychiatric medications. They argued that mental disorders were not medical conditions but rather social constructs or responses to societal pressures. The movement gained traction in the 1970s and 1980s, with the publication of books such as “The Myth of Mental Illness” by Szasz and the growth of patient advocacy groups. Antipsychiatry views continue to contaminate understanding of mental disorders.
The Church of Scientology, founded by L. Ron Hubbard in the 1950s, has been a prominent critic of psychiatry since its inception. Scientology teaches that mental disorders are not medical conditions but rather the result of negative experiences or “engrams” stored in the mind. The church has campaigned against the use of psychiatric medications and electroconvulsive therapy, which they view as harmful and ineffective. Instead, they promote their own form of therapy, called “auditing”, which involves the use of an “E-meter” to identify and remove these engrams.
Both the antipsychiatry movement and Scientology have been properly criticised for spreading misinformation about mental health and discouraging individuals from seeking evidence-based treatments. The claim that mental disorders are not medical conditions is not supported by scientific evidence, which has consistently shown that mental health conditions have biological, psychological, and social components. Similarly, the effectiveness of psychiatric medications and other evidence-based treatments has been well-established through rigorous clinical trials.
The influence of these groups on public attitudes towards mental health can be significant. A study by Reavley and Jorm (2011) found that individuals who held antipsychiatry views were less likely to seek professional help for mental health problems and more likely to endorse non-evidence-based treatments. Another study by Schomerus et al. (2012) found that exposure to antipsychiatry messages was associated with increased stigma towards individuals with mental health conditions.
Impact on Professionals
Digital tribalism can have a significant impact on various professional fields, including mental health services. Online echo chambers can reinforce negative thought patterns and contribute to the spread of misinformation about mental health issues. This can be particularly harmful for individuals seeking support and guidance online. It is not uncommon for patients and their relatives to refer to schizophrenia as a “split personality”. Nothing in schizophrenia is related to ‘splitting of personality’. However, the frequency of the words means that people are picking up information from places where there could well be an information vacuum. Online repetition of misinformation leads ordinary people to an idea that there may be ‘some truth’ to it. What this means is that mental health professionals have a more difficult time educating patients. The power of the nebulous ‘they’ out there ought never to be underestimated.
Furthermore, the dynamics within online professional communities can contribute to the formation of insular groups and the suppression of dissenting voices. These communities often develop through a process of selection and deselection, where the most active members shape the culture and less active or inactive members avoid participation for fear of a ‘certain group’. Moderators of such forums, especially if they are lone moderators, can be unknowingly influenced by these online behaviour patterns and become more susceptible to the “likes” and “dislikes” of the dominant members. This can lead to biased moderation and the inadvertent suppression of dissenting viewpoints, further reinforcing the echo chamber effect. An emergent cancel culture can create a climate of fear and distrust within mental health online forums and communities. New and different styles of communication may be restricted from development.
The Role of Big Data in Shaping Online Silos and Tribalism
The concept of “big data” has gained significant attention in recent years, particularly in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which exposed how personal data can be collected and used to influence individuals’ behaviour and beliefs. Big data refers to the vast amounts of information generated by online activity, including social media interactions, browsing history, and online purchases. This data can be analysed to identify patterns, trends, and preferences, which can then be used to target individuals with tailored content and advertising.
While big data has the potential to improve our lives in many ways, it can also be used to manipulate and control individuals. In the context of online tribalism, big data can be used to reinforce existing biases and create echo chambers. By analysing individuals’ online behaviour, algorithms can identify their interests and beliefs and then selectively expose them to content that confirms those biases. This can lead to the formation of online silos, where individuals are primarily exposed to information that reinforces their pre-existing views and limits their exposure to alternative perspectives.
Furthermore, big data can be used to target individuals with misinformation and propaganda. By identifying individuals who are susceptible to certain types of messages, bad actors can use big data to spread false or misleading information, further reinforcing online tribalism and polarisation.
The use of big data in shaping online silos and tribal forces raises ethical concerns about privacy, manipulation, and the potential for social engineering. It is essential that individuals are aware of how their data is being collected and used and that they have the ability to control their online information environment.
The Echo Chamber Effect
One of the key factors contributing to this trend is the rise of online “silos” or “echo chambers.” Social media algorithms, designed to maximise user engagement, often deliver content that aligns with an individual’s existing beliefs and preferences. This can create online environments where users primarily encounter information that confirms their biases, strengthening their existing views and limiting their exposure to alternative perspectives [Echo Chambers and Algorithmic Bias: The Homogenisation of Online Culture in a Smart Society (2024)]. This tendency is further amplified by the natural inclination of individuals to seek out and interact with like-minded people online, leading to the formation of online communities that reinforce shared beliefs and values [Online Knowledge Communities: Breaking or Sustaining Knowledge Silos? (2019].
These online silos can be psychologically appealing, providing a sense of belonging and validation. However, they can also lead to overconfidence and uncritical acceptance of information. As noted by one commentator, “Silos make us feel like we belong. They reinforce our core assumptions and give us easily-digestible talking points, obviating the necessity of difficult individual thought.” This can hinder the development of critical thinking skills, as individuals become less likely to question information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs.
While the concept of echo chambers and filter bubbles is widely discussed, it is important to acknowledge that empirical evidence on their impact is not definitive. Some studies suggest that social media algorithms and homophilic interactions can indeed limit exposure to diverse viewpoints and contribute to polarisation.
The Rise of Tribalism and No-Platforming
The internet has undeniably facilitated the formation of online communities based on shared interests, identities, and ideologies. While these communities can provide a sense of belonging and support, they can also contribute to a tribalistic mindset. Tribalism, in this context, refers to a strong identification with a particular group and a tendency to view those outside the group with suspicion or hostility [Nation v Tribe (2017)]. This can lead to increased intolerance, prejudice, and conflict between different online communities.
One manifestation of this tribalism is the trend of “no-platforming” individuals with controversial views. No-platforming involves preventing someone from speaking at an event or publishing their work because their views are deemed unacceptable or offensive. While historically, practices like ostracism and excommunication were used to exclude individuals seen as threats to the social order [A Brief History of Cancel Culture #HistoryMonth], no-platforming in the digital age often targets those who challenge prevailing narratives or express dissenting opinions.
Katie Hopkins, a controversial British media personality, has been vocal about this issue. In a debate at Oxford Union, she argued that institutions of higher learning were becoming increasingly intolerant of dissenting voices and that the trend of no-platforming posed a threat to free speech and open dialogue. She warned against the dangers of restricting access to diverse perspectives, stating, “Once someone starts to mandate what you can’t hear, how narrow, how small is this window going to get? How tiny your space, your world view—just how small do you want it to be?”
However, the issue of no-platforming is not without its nuances. Some argue that it can be justified on epistemic grounds, particularly when providing a platform might lend undue credibility to harmful or misleading views [No-Platforming and Higher-Order Evidence, or Anti-Anti-No-Platforming (2019)]. This perspective suggests that in certain cases, restricting access to a platform can be a responsible action to prevent the spread of misinformation or the normalisation of harmful ideologies.
Furthermore, the phenomenon of “quiet no-platforming” adds another layer to this discussion. Quiet no-platforming refers to the pre-emptive self-censorship that occurs when individuals or organisations choose not to invite certain speakers or address controversial topics for fear of potential backlash or controversy [Freeman 2022]. This can create a chilling effect on open discourse and limit the range of perspectives considered in public forums.
Political Correctness and Cancel Culture
The concepts of political correctness and cancel culture are closely intertwined with the rise of online tribalism. Political correctness, broadly defined, involves avoiding language or behaviour that may be considered offensive or discriminatory. However, the term has become increasingly politicised, with some arguing that it stifles free speech and creates an environment where people are afraid to express their true opinions for fear of social repercussions [Political Correctness Gone Viral – PhilArchive (Aly & Simpson 2019)]. Historically, the term “political correctness” has been associated with various social and political movements, often used to criticise perceived excesses or restrictions on language and behaviour [Cultural Tribalism – ECPS – European Center for Populism Studies].
Cancel culture, an extension of this phenomenon, refers to the practice of withdrawing support for public figures or organisations that have expressed views deemed unacceptable. This can manifest in various forms, including online shaming, boycotts, and calls for resignation or dismissal. While proponents of cancel culture argue that it is a necessary tool for holding people accountable for their actions, critics contend that it creates a culture of fear and intimidation, where individuals are afraid to express dissenting opinions or challenge prevailing narratives [#Cancelled! Exploring the Phenomenon of Cancel Culture (Cummings et al Oct 2023)].
It is important to acknowledge that cancel culture is a complex phenomenon with both potential benefits and drawbacks. While it can be a powerful tool for social justice and accountability, it can also be misused to silence dissenting voices or punish individuals for minor transgressions. Some argue that the term “cancel culture” itself is part of a moral panic, exaggerating the frequency and severity of online shaming and overlooking the positive aspects of holding powerful individuals accountable for their action [Cancel Culture: Nothing To See Here? – The Philosophers’ Magazine. Others point to the importance of cancel culture in amplifying marginalised voices and challenging systemic inequalities [Cancel culture can be collectively validating for groups experiencing harm – PMC (Traversa et al 2023)].
The rise of cancel culture has also been linked to increased collective action and empowerment among marginalised groups. Studies have shown that episodes of cancel culture can have an indirect positive effect on collective action intentions, mediated by feelings of collective validation and empowerment (Traversa et al 2023). This suggests that cancel culture can serve as a catalyst for social change, mobilising individuals to challenge injustice and advocate for greater equality.
The debate surrounding cancel culture highlights the tension between freedom of expression and the responsibility to create a more just and inclusive society. Navigating this tension requires careful consideration of the potential consequences of both silencing and amplifying different voices in the digital public sphere.
The Erosion of Critical Thinking
The combined effect of echo chambers, tribalism, and cancel culture is a decline in critical thinking skills. Critical thinking involves the ability to analyse information objectively, evaluate evidence, and form reasoned judgements. However, in an online environment where individuals are primarily exposed to information that confirms their biases and dissenting voices are suppressed, critical thinking is often replaced by confirmation bias and groupthink. This can be exacerbated by the tendency to accept information uncritically within online silos, as individuals become less likely to question or challenge ideas that align with their pre-existing beliefs [WHAT *SHOULD* WE BE WORRIED ABOUT? (2013).
This lack of critical thinking has real-world consequences. It can lead to the spread of misinformation, the polarisation of society, and the erosion of trust in institutions and experts. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, observed, “Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice.” [On Stupidity | By Dietrich Bonhoeffer – YouTube]. He argued that stupidity is often fuelled by a lack of independent thought and a willingness to blindly follow authority or popular opinion.
Experiences of Great Thinkers
Many intellectuals and public figures have expressed frustration with the rise of digital tribalism and its impact on public discourse. Some have lamented the lack of critical thinking and the tendency to dismiss dissenting voices as “emotional” or “uninformed.” Others have criticised the stifling of debate and the pressure to conform to online norms, arguing that it hinders intellectual exploration and the pursuit of truth .
These concerns are not limited to the internet age but have been recurring themes in philosophical and political discourse in world history.
For example, John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work “On Liberty,” argued that the free exchange of ideas is essential for intellectual and social progress. He warned against the dangers of silencing dissenting voices, stating that “he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” Mill’s ideas resonate with contemporary concerns about echo chambers and the suppression of diverse perspectives in the digital age.
Similarly, Erich Fromm, in his book “Escape from Freedom,” explored the psychological factors that contribute to conformity and authoritarianism. He argued that individuals often seek refuge in group identity and blind obedience to authority as a way to escape the anxieties and uncertainties of freedom. Fromm’s insights shed light on the psychological appeal of online tribalism and the tendency to conform to group norms in online communities.
Conclusion
The rise of digital tribalism presents a significant challenge to our modern internet-based society. While the internet has the potential to connect people and promote understanding, it can also exacerbate divisions and stifle critical thinking. By understanding the historical roots of these phenomena, analysing the psychological and sociological factors that contribute to their rise, and implementing strategies to promote media literacy and critical thinking, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and intellectually vibrant online environment. The internet has the potential to be a powerful tool for promoting knowledge, understanding, and connection. However, the rise of online tribalism, political correctness, and cancel culture poses a significant threat to these ideals. These interconnected phenomena contribute to the creation of echo chambers, the suppression of dissent, and the erosion of critical thinking.
While these trends are concerning, they are not entirely new. History provides numerous examples of societies grappling with the challenges of maintaining intellectual freedom and critical thinking in the face of social pressure and conformity. By learning from the past and implementing effective solutions, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and intellectually vibrant online environment. The challenges of digital tribalism are not easily overcome. The very nature of online platforms, with their algorithms and echo chambers, can make it difficult to break free from these patterns of behaviour. It requires a conscious effort on the part of individuals and institutions to foster a more critical and inclusive online environment.
The rise of digital tribalism, misinformation, and the erosion of critical thinking pose significant challenges to the practice of psychiatry. Information vacuums, echo chambers, and silos online contribute to both professional and public misunderstanding of mental health. Clinicians, influenced by these online dynamics, may encounter distorted information, hindering their ability to provide evidence-based care. Patients and families, navigating a similar misinformation matrix, may develop unrealistic expectations or embrace harmful practices. Combating these trends requires psychiatrists to actively engage in critical evaluation of online information, promote media literacy among patients, and foster open dialogue that bridges the divide between online tribes. Just as the field of psychiatry has evolved to address societal shifts throughout history, so too must it adapt to the unique challenges and opportunities presented by the digital age, ultimately striving to uphold its core mission of compassionate, effective mental healthcare.
The long-term consequences of digital tribalism for society and democracy are potentially profound. If left unchecked, these trends could lead to increased polarisation, erosion of trust in institutions, and a decline in civic engagement. It is therefore essential that these challenges be addressed proactively in working towards a digital world that promotes understanding, critical thinking, and respectful dialogue.
References
- Echo Chambers and Algorithmic Bias: The Homogenisation of Online Culture in a Smart Society – SHS Web of Conferences, https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2024/22/shsconf_icense2024_05001.pdf
- Online Knowledge Communities: Breaking or Sustaining Knowledge Silos? – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335388340_Online_Knowledge_Communities_Breaking_or_Sustaining_Knowledge_Silos
- Internet Silos – Edge.org, https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23777
- The echo chamber effect on social media – PNAS, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
- Understanding echo chambers and filter bubbles: the impact of social media on diversification and partisan shifts in news consumption, https://www.darden.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/05_16371_RA_KitchensJohnsonGray%20Final_0.pdf
- Nation V. Tribe – Hoover Institution, https://www.hoover.org/research/nation-v-tribe
- A Brief History of Cancel Culture #HistoryMonth – Creativepool, https://creativepool.com/magazine/features/a-brief-history-of-cancel-culture-historymonth.31186
- Katie Hopkins | We Should NOT Support No Platforming (6/8) | Oxford Union – YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkSBfdXNWWk
- We Should NOT Support No Platforming – Katie Hopkins at the oxford union – YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zuoOTAKnyQ
- No-Platforming and Higher-Order Evidence, or Anti-Anti-No-Platforming – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337046864_No-Platforming_and_Higher-Order_Evidence_or_Anti-Anti-No-Platforming
- New study finds ‘quiet’ no-platforming to be a bigger problem than actual no-platforming, https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/10/13/new-study-finds-quiet-no-platforming-to-be-a-bigger-problem-than-actual-no-platforming/
- Political Correctness Gone Viral – PhilArchive, https://philarchive.org/archive/ALYPCG
- Cultural Tribalism – ECPS – European Center for Populism Studies, https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/cultural-tribalism/
- (PDF) #Cancelled! Exploring the Phenomenon of Cancel Culture – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375520893_Cancelled_Exploring_the_Phenomenon_of_Cancel_Culture
- Cancel Culture: Nothing To See Here? – The Philosophers’ Magazine -, https://philosophersmag.com/cancel-culture-nothing-to-see-here/
- Cancel culture can be collectively validating for groups experiencing harm – PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10399695/
- Beyond Echo Chambers: Unraveling the Impact of Social Media Algorithms on Consumer Behavior and Exploring Pathways to a Diverse Digital Discourse – CARI Journals, https://carijournals.org/journals/index.php/JMS/article/view/1799
- On Stupidity | By Dietrich Bonhoeffer – YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKNNyDCwXv4
- Evolution of public attitudes about mental illness: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 125(6), 440-452.
- Social Media: The Ultimate Tribal Machine – Patrick Miller (Aug 2022).
- Tribalism in the Age of Social Media – Jessica Koehler (April 2023).
