Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Attention on social media depends more on how you express yourself than on who you are

Nature Human Behaviour volume 10, pages 288–302 (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Attention has become a vital form of capital in the digital age, yet the mechanisms underlying its allocation on social media remain poorly understood. Using a nationally representative, online and offline-integrated dataset of a Generation Z cohort in China, we provide large-scale evidence on the determinants of success in attracting attention. Our findings reveal that ‘how you express yourself’ (using various emojis and expressing multiple emotions) is more influential than ‘who you are’ (in terms of gender, education, family background and personality traits) in attracting attention on social media. Further analysis confirms a causal effect of the variety of emojis and types of emotions on attracted attention, while simulation processes using agent-based models suggest that empathy evocation is the primary underlying mechanism. We also show that the mode of expression is largely independent of individual characteristics and that the attention gained from highly appealing expressions is easier to acquire than to sustain, as it is highly sensitive to changes in expression modes over time. Overall, our research identifies three key features of attention capital allocation on social media: low alignment with traditional resources, considerable manipulability and ease of acquisition but difficulty sustaining it over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Explanatory power (marginal R2) of two sets of variables based on multilevel models.
Fig. 2: Estimated regression coefficients for each variable (with 95% confidence intervals) based on multilevel models predicting attracted attention, as measured by four centrality metrics of incoming edges.
Fig. 3: Comparison of degree distributions and network densities between the simulated and real networks.
Fig. 4: Associations between individual characteristics and modes of expression and the distribution and marginal effects of expression modes among different groups.
Fig. 5: Changes over time in modes of expression and their impact on attracted attention, as measured by incoming edges of received likes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data supporting the main findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request, subject to compliance with the laws of the People’s Republic of China and approval from the Office of Research at Renmin University of China. The data are not publicly available due to their sensitive nature and the potential for identification, which could compromise research participant privacy.

Code availability

The code used for data processing and analysis is available from the corresponding authors upon request and subject to the necessary data access approvals.

References

  1. Simon, H. A. in Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest 38–72 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1971).

  2. Goldhaber, M. The attention economy and the net. First Monday https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/519/440 (1997).

  3. Davenport, T. H. & Beck, J. C. The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business (Harvard Business School Press, 2001).

  4. Falkinger, J. Attention economies. J. Econ. Theory 133, 266–294 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brynjolfsson, E., Kim, S. T. & Oh, J. H. The attention economy: measuring the value of free goods on the internet. Inf. Syst. Res. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.0153 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Evans, D. S. Attention rivalry among online platforms. J. Compet. Law Econ. 9, 313–357 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Webster, J. G. The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age (MIT Press, 2014).

  8. Meyer, T., Kerkhof, A., Cennamo, C. & Kretschmer, T. Competing for attention on digital platforms: the case of news outlets. Strateg. Manag. J. 45, 1731–1790 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ritzer, G., Dean, P. & Jurgenson, N. The coming of age of the prosumer. Am. Behav. Sci. 56, 379–398 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bueno, C. C. The Attention Economy: Labour, Time and Power in Cognitive Capitalism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016).

  11. Eysenbach, G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J. Med. Internet Res. 13, e123 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Luc, J. G. et al. Does tweeting improve citations? One-year results from the TSSMN prospective randomized trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 111, 296–300 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan, H. F., Önder, A. S., Schweitzer, S. & Torgler, B. Twitter and citations. Econ. Lett. 231, 111270 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen, Y., Rui, H. & Whinston, A. Tweet to the top? Social media personal branding and career outcomes. MIS Q. 45, 499–534 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Qiu, J., Chen, Y., Cohn, A. & Roth, A. Social media and job market success: a field experiment on Twitter. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4778120 (2024).

  16. He, G., Leurs, K. & Li, Y. Researching motherhood in the age of short videos: stay-at-home mothers in China performing labor on Douyin. Media Commun. 10, 273–289 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, M. R. Inclusion and exclusion in the digital economy: disability and mental health as a live streamer on Twitch.tv. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22, 506–520 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Seo, M., Kim, J. & Yang, H. Frequent interaction and fast feedback predict perceived social support: using crawled and self-reported data of Facebook users. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 21, 282–297 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wohn, D. Y., Carr, C. T. & Hayes, R. A. How affective is a ‘like’? The effect of paralinguistic digital affordances on perceived social support. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 19, 562–566 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Marengo, D., Montag, C., Sindermann, C., Elhai, J. D. & Settanni, M. Examining the links between active Facebook use, received likes, self-esteem and happiness: a study using objective social media data. Telemat. Inform. 58, 101523 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Franck, G. The economy of attention. J. Sociol. 55, 8–19 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kowalczyk, C. M. & Pounders, K. R. Transforming celebrities through social media: the role of authenticity and emotional attachment. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 25, 345–356 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Piehler, R., Schade, M., Sinnig, J. & Burmann, C. Traditional or ‘instafamous’ celebrity? Role of origin of fame in social media influencer marketing. J. Strateg. Mark. 30, 408–420 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Conde, R. & Casais, B. Micro, macro and mega-influencers on instagram: the power of persuasion via the parasocial relationship. J. Bus. Res. 158, 113708 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marwick, A. E. Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age (Yale Univ. Press, 2013).

  26. Khamis, S., Ang, L. & Welling, R. Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers. Celeb. Stud. 8, 191–208 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Blyth, D. L., Jarrahi, M. H., Lutz, C. & Newlands, G. Self-branding strategies of online freelancers on Upwork. N. Media Soc. 26, 4008–4033 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gannon, V. & Prothero, A. Beauty blogger selfies as authenticating practices. Eur. J. Mark. 50, 1858–1878 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Audrezet, A., De Kerviler, G. & Moulard, J. G. Authenticity under threat: when social media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation. J. Bus. Res. 117, 557–569 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Brooks, G., Drenten, J. & Piskorski, M. J. Influencer celebrification: how social media influencers acquire celebrity capital. J. Advert. 50, 528–547 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Raun, T. Capitalizing intimacy: new subcultural forms of micro-celebrity strategies and affective labour on YouTube. Convergence 24, 99–113 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jun, S. & Yi, J. What makes followers loyal? The role of influencer interactivity in building influencer brand equity. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 29, 803–814 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hess, A. C., Dodds, S. & Rahman, N. The development of reputational capital—how social media influencers differ from traditional celebrities. J. Consum. Behav. 21, 1236–1252 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cotter, K. Playing the visibility game: how digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. N. Media Soc. 21, 895–913 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bishop, S. Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. N. Media Soc. 21, 2589–2606 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Djafarova, E. & Rushworth, C. Exploring the credibility of online celebrities’ Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 68, 1–7 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jin, S. V., Muqaddam, A. & Ryu, E. Instafamous and social media influencer marketing. Mark. Intell. Plan. 37, 567–579 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Most Popular Social Networks Worldwide as of April 2024, by Number of Monthly Users (Statista, accessed 3 August 2024); https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users

  39. How Many Influencers are There in 2023 (TrendHero, accessed 3 August 2024); https://trendhero.io/blog/how-many-influencers-are-there

  40. Turner, A. How many people use WeChat? User statistics & trends. bankmycell https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/number-of-wechat-users (accessed 3 August 2024).

  41. The 54th Statistical Report on China’s Internet Development (China Internet Network Information Center, 2024); https://www.cnnic.cn/n4/2024/0829/c88-11065.html

  42. Zhou, L., Jin, F., Wu, B., Chen, Z. & Wang, C. L. Do fake followers mitigate influencers’ perceived influencing power on social media platforms? The mere number effect and boundary conditions. J. Bus. Res. 158, 113589 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nevado-Catalán, D., Pastrana, S., Vallina-Rodriguez, N. & Tapiador, J. An analysis of fake social media engagement services. Comput. Secur. 124, 103013 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W. & Starnini, M. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023301118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Huszár, F. et al. Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2025334119 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Arnaboldi, V., Guazzini, A. & Passarella, A. Egocentric online social networks: analysis of key features and prediction of tie strength in Facebook. Comput. Commun. 36, 1130–1144 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dalski, A., Kular, H., Jorgensen, J. G., Grill-Spector, K. & Grotheer, M. Both mOTS-words and pOTS-words prefer emoji stimuli over text stimuli during a lexical judgment task. Cereb. Cortex 34, bhae339 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K. & Cacioppo, J. T. Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 887–900 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pagan, N., Mei, W., Li, C. & Dörfler, F. A meritocratic network formation model for the rise of social media influencers. Nat. Commun. 12, 6865 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Wellman, M. L. ‘A friend who knows what they’re talking about’: extending source credibility theory to analyze the wellness influencer industry on Instagram. N. Media Soc. 26, 7270–7036 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Iyer, G. & Katona, Z. Competing for attention in social communication markets. Manag. Sci. 62, 2304–2320 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J. & Van Der Linden, S. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2024292118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Bellovary, A. K., Young, N. A. & Goldenberg, A. Left-and right-leaning news organizations use negative emotional content and elicit user engagement similarly. Affect. Sci. 2, 391–396 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Robertson, C. E. et al. Negativity drives online news consumption. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 812–822 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Schöne, J. P., Garcia, D., Parkinson, B. & Goldenberg, A. Negative expressions are shared more on Twitter for public figures than for ordinary users. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA Nexus 2, pgad219 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Freeman, L. C. in Social Network: Critical Concepts in Sociology Vol. 1 (ed. Scott, J.) 238–263 (Routledge, 2002).

  58. Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R. & Winograd, T. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web (Stanford Infolab, 1999).

  59. Engsig, M., Tejedor, A., Moreno, Y., Foufoula-Georgiou, E. & Kasmi, C. DomiRank centrality reveals structural fragility of complex networks via node dominance. Nat. Commun. 15, 56 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Plutchik, R. in Theories of Emotion 3–33 (Academic, 1980).

  61. Plutchik, R. The nature of emotions: human emotions have deep evolutionary roots, a fact that may explain their complexity and provide tools for clinical practice. Am. Sci. 89, 344–350 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wang, M., Dai, X. & Yao, S. Development of the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory (CBF-PI) III: psychometric properties of CBF-PI brief version. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 19, 454–457 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Schneider, C. M., Moreira, A. A., Andrade, J. S. Jr, Havlin, S. & Herrmann, H. J. Mitigation of malicious attacks on networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3838–3841 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Newman, M. E. Spread of epidemic disease on networks. Phys. Rev. E 66, 016128 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Kitsak, M. et al. Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nat. Phys. 6, 888–893 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Golder, S. A. & Macy, M. W. Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures. Science 333, 1878–1881 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kolenikov, S. Calibrating survey data using iterative proportional fitting (raking). Stata J. 14, 22–59 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (grant no. 23CSH006; principal investigator: Y.Z.). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We also thank X. Zhou, T. Tam, W. Mu, Z. Sun, H. Li and X. Wang for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

    Yizhang Zhao, Yirao Chen, Meiying Kuang, Wei Bai, Yankun Yi, Xinxin Huang & Wen Li

  2. Department of Sociology, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Tianyu Qiao

  3. Department of Sociology, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

    Weidong Wang

  4. Social Science Research Center, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Weidong Wang

Authors
  1. Yizhang Zhao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tianyu Qiao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yirao Chen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Meiying Kuang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wei Bai
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yankun Yi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xinxin Huang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wen Li
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Weidong Wang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.Z. conceived the study and wrote the paper. Y.Z., T.Q. and W.W. jointly designed the analytical framework. W.W. was responsible for data collection and dataset construction. Y.Z., T.Q., Y.C., M.K., W.B., Y.Y., X.H. and W.L. performed the data analyses. All authors contributed to reviewing and approving the final version of the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yizhang Zhao, Tianyu Qiao or Weidong Wang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Y., Qiao, T., Chen, Y. et al. Attention on social media depends more on how you express yourself than on who you are. Nat Hum Behav 10, 288–302 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02323-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02323-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing