二手压力：在线研究生招生社区中他人压力倾诉对心理社会健康的影响

# Secondhand Stress: How Stressful Disclosures Affect Psychosocial Wellbeing in Online Graduate Admissions Communities
Source: [https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657)
Agam GoyalSabelle HuangAyush Umashankar PrasadMingquan YiAffiliation:Koustuv SahaAffiliation:Siebel School of Computing and Data ScienceAffiliation:University of Illinois Urbana\-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USAAffiliation:\{vduddu2, agamg2, sabelle2, aup2, myi22, ksaha2\}@illinois\.edu

###### Abstract

Online communities provide spaces for individuals navigating stressful life transitions to disclose difficulties and seek peer support\. Yet encountering others’ distress may also have psychosocial implications for community members\. Drawing on stress crossover theory, we examine how engagement with peer distress during graduate admissions is associated with subsequent psychosocial expression and participation, and whether similar associations extend through downstream interactions\. We analyze 171,981 posts and 1,130,413 comments from two Reddit communities across three admissions cycles, using propensity\-score stratification and baseline\-adjusted comparisons\. Users who engaged with distress disclosures during application preparation subsequently exhibited higher classifier\-estimated anxiety, depression, and stress expression, alongside greater commenting activity and lexical redundancy\. These associations recurred across admissions cycles, while no significant psychosocial associations were detected among downstream respondents interacting with previously exposed users\. Our findings highlight how greater distress\-related expression can coexist with continued community participation, while distinguishing direct engagement with distress disclosures from subsequent social contact\. We discuss implications for designing online communities that preserve opportunities for self\-disclosure and peer support while remaining attentive to the experiences of those encountering distress\-related content\.

## 1Introduction

Graduate admissions represent a consequential life transition, as applicants navigate uncertainty surrounding their educational and professional futures\. Life transitions involve changes in roles, responsibilities, and expectations[Schlossberg \(1981\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib5), while educational, employment, and relocation transitions can disrupt familiar sources of support[Wendlandt and Rochlen \(2008\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib4);[Mikal et al\. \(2013\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib10)\. Graduate admissions are distinctive in their broadly shared timelines, with applicants navigating overlapping deadlines and admissions decisions\. During such transitions, individuals often turn to online communities for information, advice, and support[Gong et al\. \(2021\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib15);[DeAndrea et al\. \(2012\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib1)\. In communities such asr/gradadmissionsandr/MBA, applicants encounter not only practical guidance but also peers’ experiences of uncertainty, setbacks, and distress\.

Online communities also facilitate self\-disclosure, allowing individuals to express emotions, make sense of their experiences, and seek validation[De Choudhury and De \(2014\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib17);[Andalibi et al\. \(2016\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib6);[Bazarova and Choi \(2014\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib39)\. Prior research has examined how supportive responses relate to recipients’ subsequent mental\-health risk[De Choudhury and Kiciman \(2017\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib35), while engagement with supportive content, such as coping stories, has been associated with lower subsequent stress and depression[Yuan et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib12)\. However, the psychosocial implications of distress disclosures may extend beyond those sharing their experiences or receiving support[Kim et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib7)\. Stress crossover theory suggests that stress\-related experiences can extend between individuals through direct empathic responses or indirect interpersonal processes, while shared external stressors may also produce similar outcomes[Westman \(2001\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib22)\. This perspective highlights the importance of considering not only those who disclose distress but also others who encounter it\.

In graduate\-admissions communities, disclosures of rejection, academic qualifications, and financial uncertainty occur within a competitive application process\. Encountering such disclosures may elicit empathic responses or unfavorable social comparisons, potentially heightening distress[Vogel et al\. \(2014\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib3);[Kramer et al\. \(2014\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib19)\. These possibilities are particularly relevant during application preparation, when applicants can actively shape their applications before entering stages increasingly dependent on external evaluations\. Thus, engagement with peers’ distress during preparation may be associated with psychosocial expression and participation during later admissions stages\.

Understanding these associations is challenging because shared admissions deadlines and decisions may independently influence applicants’ distress\-related expression\. Individuals experiencing similar concerns may also be more likely to interact, making interpersonal influence difficult to distinguish from pre\-existing similarities and shared circumstances[Shalizi and Thomas \(2011\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib8)\. This raises a further question:whether psychosocial associations surrounding peer distress remain confined to directly exposed applicants or are also observable among others who subsequently interact with them\.

To address this gap, our work asks the following research questions \(RQs\):

RQ1:How is engagement with peers’ distress during application preparation associated with users’ psychosocial outcomes during the subsequent admissions stages?

RQ2:Are similar psychosocial associations observable among users who subsequently interact with previously exposed individuals, relative to those interacting with comparison users?

To answer our RQs, we conduct a large quasi\-experimental study drawing on the potential outcomes framework[Rubin \(2005\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib36)\. We focus on online communities supporting individuals through graduate admissions, a consequential transition marked by recurring application cycles and uncertainty about future plans\. We analyze 171,981 posts and 1,130,413 comments fromr/gradadmissionsandr/MBAacross three admissions cycles, spanning September 2022 through May 2025\. Focusing on 32,301 posts published during the September–November application period, we identify exposure to admissions\-related distress\. We use stratified propensity\-score matching on pre\-exposure language, activity, and classifier\-based distress signals to construct comparable groups of exposed and unexposed users\. We then examine subsequent changes in behaviors and language\.

We find that users who engaged with peers’ distress during application preparation subsequently exhibited higher classifier\-estimated anxiety, depression, and stress expression, alongside greater commenting activity and lexical redundancy in both communities\. Increased participation was concentrated in commenting rather than original post creation, indicating that greater distress\-related expression can coexist with continued community engagement\. These associations recurred across admissions cycles, while no significant cycle heterogeneity was detected after correction\. In contrast, we found no statistically significant associations among downstream users who subsequently interacted with previously exposed individuals\.

Our work makes three contributions\. First, we provide longitudinal empirical evidence of associations between engagement with peer distress and subsequent psychosocial expression and participation during a high\-stakes life transition, informed by stress crossover theory\. Second, we examine the extent to which these associations are observable beyond direct engagement, distinguishing exposure to distress disclosures from subsequent interactions with previously exposed users\. Third, we offer design implications for online support communities, highlighting the need to preserve opportunities for distress\-related self\-disclosure and peer support while considering the psychosocial experiences of those encountering such content\.

## 2Related Work

### 2\.1Distress Across Life Transitions and Temporally Structured Online Communities

Online communities provide spaces for individuals to disclose psychological distress and seek peer support\. Prior research has examined mental\-health self\-disclosure in dedicated support communities[De Choudhury and De \(2014\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib17)and changes in anxiety\-related concerns across phases of crises[Chen et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib20), establishing the value of social\-media language for understanding distress\-related experiences and their temporal dynamics\.

Beyond periods of crisis, prior work has examined psychosocial experiences during educational and life transitions\.[Gong et al\. \(2021\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib15)investigated stress and support needs during the transition out of college, while[Saha et al\. \(2025\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib9)examined changes in mental\-health expression across stages of the COVID\-19 pandemic in college communities\. The timing of participation matters as well: users differ in how long they remain active[Yang et al\. \(2010\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib29), and cohorts entering during major external events show distinct patterns of engagement and retention[Veselovsky and Anderson \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib13)\.

The intersection of psychosocial expression, temporal context, and participation dynamics remains understudied in communities organized around recurring, high\-stakes institutional transitions\. Graduate admissions communities offer such a setting, where successive applicant cohorts navigate synchronized preparation, submission, and decision periods while individual participation may be concentrated within a single cycle\.

### 2\.2Stress Crossover in Online Interactions

Stress crossover theory proposes that stress\-related experiences may extend between individuals through direct empathic responses or indirect interpersonal processes, while shared stressors may also produce similar outcomes[Westman \(2001\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib22)\. Empirical work demonstrates stress responses to observing others’ distress[Engert et al\. \(2014\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib23), while studies of online emotional contagion show associations between exposure to emotional content and subsequent expression[Kramer et al\. \(2014\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib19);[Ferrara and Yang \(2015\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib21)\. Research on online conversations and mental\-health communities further highlights how emotional exchanges and the characteristics of peer support relate to psychosocial outcomes[Kim et al\. \(2012\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib24);[Saha and Sharma \(2020\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib18)\.

However, interpersonal influence remains difficult to distinguish from homophily and shared circumstances in observational networks[Shalizi and Thomas \(2011\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib8)\. Moreover, interacting with someone who has encountered distress does not necessarily entail encountering distress\-related content\. While prior work examines emotional exposure and interpersonal exchanges, less is understood about how associated psychosocial outcomes extend beyond direct engagement through subsequent community interactions, particularly during shared periods of institutional uncertainty\.

## 3Data

##### Communities\.

We study two Reddit communities centered on graduate\-school admissions:r/gradadmissionsandr/MBA\. Whiler/gradadmissionshosts discussions of graduate applications across academic disciplines,r/MBAfocuses on business\-school admissions, including applicants transitioning from professional careers\. Both communities provide settings in which prospective applicants discuss admissions uncertainty, academic qualifications, financial considerations, and application outcomes\.

##### Data Source and Collection\.

We collected posts and comments from both communities using Arctic Shift[Heitmann \(2026\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib31)\. The corpus spans August 1, 2022 to July 30, 2025, covering three admissions cycles \(2022–23, 2023–24, and 2024–25\)\.

##### Cleaning and Filtering\.

After format standardization, we excluded deleted or removed records, known bots, comments containing fewer than five words, and content flagged as stylistically agent\-like by a modified register classifier[Goyal et al\. \(2026b\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib2)\. The five\-word threshold was applied to exclude contributions with minimal linguistic content, which can destabilize psycholinguistic measures and subsequent analyses, which can lead to instabilities[Franklin \(2015\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib40)\. The resulting corpus contains 1,302,394 contributions \(171,981 posts and 1,130,413 comments\) from 183,342 unique accounts \(see[Table 1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S3.T1)\)\.

Table 1:Ordered filtration results\.Each removed record is attributed to the first rule that excluded it\.Anchor Posts\.Following prior work that identifies specific categories of social media content to examine psychosocial outcomes associated with exposure[Saha et al\. \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib34);[Yuan et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib12);[Pal et al\. \(2026b\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib41), we define an*anchor post*as an original post concerning a current, recent, or prospective graduate applicant or student that explicitly communicates a meaningful negative graduate\-education signal\. We identify seven qualifying categories: realized adverse outcomes; substantive negative affect; anticipated application threats; threatening social comparisons or vicarious threats; financial or affordability threats; career or degree\-outcome threats; and serious life burdens, withdrawal, or abandonment\. These signals may concern the author, other applicants, or broader admissions conditions, and do not require explicit personal distress\. Routine profile evaluations, procedural questions, and neutral uncertainty alone do not qualify; however, posts containing such content are classified as anchors when they independently communicate at least one qualifying negative signal\.

##### Anchor\-Post Classification\.

We constructed a keyword\-enriched, human\-annotated benchmark of 400 original posts sampled across community–cycle groups from the September–November windows, with keywords used only to ensure balanced sampling, not to assign labels\. The first author annotated each post against our operational definition, yielding 139 anchors and 261 non\-anchors\.

Anchor labels were produced by an LLM using a structured prompt that assessed applicant\-timing scope, the seven qualifying negative\-signal categories, and whether a post expressed only routine uncertainty; a post was labeled an anchor when it was in scope, met at least one category, and was not limited to routine uncertainty \(prompt in Appendix[B](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#A2)\)\. We evaluated four LLMs under stratified five\-fold cross\-validation \(Table[2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S3.T2)\) and selected Gemini 3\.1 Flash\-Lite, which achieved the highest recall \(81\.29%\) at competitive accuracy \(83\.00%\) and lower cost\. We prioritized recall to capture a broader range of qualifying disclosures, accepting the precision trade\-off\.

Applying this classifier to 32,301 original posts \(20,798 unique accounts\) from the September–November windows identified 6,150 anchor posts \(19\.04%\)\.

Table 2:Five\-fold few\-shot anchor\-post classification on the 400\-post benchmark\. All values except counts are percentages; Bal\. Acc\. is balanced accuracy and Spec\. is specificity\.

## 4Methods

To examine psychosocial outcomes associated with engagement with distress\-related disclosures, we adopt a quasi\-experimental design grounded in the potential outcomes framework[Rubin \(2005\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib36)\. We operationalize engagement as commenting on an anchor post during the September–November application period, using observable interaction as a proxy for encountering the post\. Randomized assignment is infeasible in naturally occurring online communities, where controlling users’ exposure to content would alter their usual interactions and raise ethical concerns[Small \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib25);[Moreno et al\. \(2013\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib26)\. Under the potential outcomes framework, each user has two potential outcomes, one under engagement \(Yi​\(1\)Y\_\{i\}\(1\)\) and one under non\-engagement \(Yi​\(0\)Y\_\{i\}\(0\)\)\. Because both cannot be observed for the same user, we compare Treated and Control users with similar pre\-engagement characteristics using propensity\-score stratification[Saha et al\. \(2019\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib27);[Kiciman et al\. \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib33);[Goyal et al\. \(2026a\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib42), additionally adjusting for each user’s baseline outcome\.

### 4\.1Operationalizing Psychosocial Outcomes

Following prior computational social science research[Saha et al\. \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib34);[Saha et al\. \(2020\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib14);[Pal et al\. \(2026a\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib43);[Yuan et al\. \(2026\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib11), we operationalize psychosocial outcomes across three dimensions—affective, behavioral, and cognitive—comprising 17 primary outcomes \(eight affective, five behavioral, four structural\-linguistic\)\. Each outcome is computed separately for a user’s baseline and subsequent observation period, enabling comparisons that account for pre\-existing differences in psychosocial expression and platform activity\.

##### Affective Outcomes\.

We measure anxiety, depression, and stress\-related linguistic expression using support\-vector machine \(SVM\) classifiers following prior work[Saha et al\. \(2019\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib27)\. For each user, we chronologically concatenate contributions separately within the baseline and outcome periods and apply each classifier to the resulting documents\. We retain the continuous SVM decision margins rather than binary predictions, with higher scores indicating stronger alignment with the corresponding distress\-related class\. These scores are neither probabilities nor clinical assessments and are not comparable across classifiers\. We additionally measure five LIWC\-2015 categories[Pennebaker et al\. \(2019\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib32): positive emotion, negative emotion, anxiety, anger, and sadness, each as the percentage of matching words\.

##### Behavioral Outcomes\.

We characterize participation through five measures of posting and commenting activity[Guntuku et al\. \(2019\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib38);[Saha et al\. \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib34): contribution, posting, and commenting frequency \(counts per calendar day in the observation window\); activity regularity \(proportion of days with at least one contribution\); and participation composition \(proportion of contributions that are comments\)\. Together these capture the frequency, regularity, and form of observable participation\.

##### Cognitive Outcomes\.

Drawing on psycholinguistic research linking language use to psychological processes[Tausczik and Pennebaker \(2010\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib37);[Ernala et al\. \(2017\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib16), we examine four structural\-linguistic measures: readability using Coleman–Liau index[Coleman and Liau \(1975\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib28), verbosity \(words per sentence\), repeatability \(lexical redundancy,1−U/W1\-U/W\), and lexical complexity \(letters per word\), whereUUandWWare unique lowercase word types and total word tokens\. These characterize linguistic structure rather than directly assessing cognitive functioning\. For each user and period, we concatenate all qualifying contributions before computing them\.

### 4\.2RQ1: Effect of Engagement

#### 4\.2\.1Engagement and Study Design

We identify direct engagement by linking user comments to the 32,301 classified posts during September–November, the principal application\-preparation period\. Treated users are those who commented on an anchor post; Control users are those who commented on non\-anchor posts without engaging with any anchor post in either study community during the same admissions cycle\. Both groups required at least one prior contribution in their respective community, and we excluded users who authored anchor posts in either community\. Each account contributes at most one observation per admissions cycle\. These criteria, together with outcome availability and feasible placebo\-date assignment, yielded 6,607 Treated and 3,826 Control user\-cycle observations before matching\.

Each admissions cycle spans August 1 through May 31 of the following year\. The first qualifying anchor\-post comment defines the index date for Treated users\. Because Controls lack a natural engagement date, we assign placebo index dates within each community–cycle group to approximate the distribution of Treated users’ index dates, minimizing differences in calendar timing while requiring eligible baseline activity and December–May outcomes\. Baseline outcomes are measured from August 1 up to, but excluding, the index date\. Contributions between the index date and December 1 are excluded as a post\-engagement buffer\. Outcomes are measured from December 1 through May 31, encompassing submissions, interviews, admission decisions, and waitlist outcomes; June–July activity is excluded\.

#### 4\.2\.2Analysis

Users who engage with distress\-related disclosures may differ systematically from those who do not in prior activity, linguistic expression, and discussion topics\. To improve comparability, we construct, for each user\-cycle, 518 baseline covariates from contributions across both study communities strictly before the index or placebo timestamp, spanning four families: activity and history measures, SVM\-based anxiety/depression/stress scores, LIWC\-2015 categories, and the 500 most frequent bigrams and trigrams[Saha et al\. \(2019\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib27);[Pennebaker et al\. \(2019\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib32)\. We require at least one pre\-index contribution rather than a fixed minimum history length, retaining users with limited observed participation\.

We use propensity\-score stratification to identify Treated and Control users with similar observed pre\-engagement characteristics\. Following prior work[Saha et al\. \(2019\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib27);[Kiciman et al\. \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib33), we estimate each user’s propensity from the 518 covariates using separate AdaBoost classifiers[Hastie et al\. \(2009\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib30)per community–cycle group \(200 depth\-two trees, learning rate 0\.05, fixed seed\)\. We partition propensity scores into ten equal\-width intervals, retaining strata with at least ten Treated and ten Control user\-cycles\. To target the average treatment effect on the treated \(ATT\), we assign unit weights to Treated users and within\-stratum Treated\-to\-Control ratio weights to Controls\. Of 33 populated strata, 23 met the retention criterion, yielding 8,903 user\-cycle observations \(5,100 Treated; 3,803 Control\)\.

To assess balance, we compute standardized mean differences \(SMDs\) for all 518 covariates before and after stratification and weighting\. The mean absolute SMD decreased from 0\.0256 to 0\.0224 and the maximum from 0\.4129 to 0\.1284; under a conservative 0\.15 threshold, covariates exceeding it fell from seven to zero\. These diagnostics indicate improved balance on measured characteristics, though they do not establish balance on unobserved factors\.

For each of the 17 primary outcomes, we estimate an ATT\-weighted, baseline\-adjusted regression:

Ypost=α\+τ​T\+β​Ybaseline\+γstratum\+ε,Y\_\{\\mathrm\{post\}\}=\\alpha\+\\tau T\+\\beta Y\_\{\\mathrm\{baseline\}\}\+\\gamma\_\{\\mathrm\{stratum\}\}\+\\varepsilon,\(1\)whereYpostY\_\{\\mathrm\{post\}\}is the December–May outcome,TTdistinguishes Treated from Control users,YbaselineY\_\{\\mathrm\{baseline\}\}is the pre\-engagement value of the same outcome, andγstratum\\gamma\_\{\\mathrm\{stratum\}\}are propensity\-stratum fixed effects\. Together with ATT weighting, these adjustments compare subsequent outcomes among users with similar observed pre\-engagement characteristics; the coefficientτ\\tauis the adjusted difference in December–May outcomes associated with earlier anchor\-post engagement\.

We estimate associations for the pooled sample and separately per community, clustering standard errors at the Reddit\-account level to account for repeated observations across cycles\. To compare across outcomes on different scales, we standardize each adjusted coefficient by the ATT\-weighted standard deviation of the corresponding post\-period outcome\. We report nominal 95% confidence intervals from clustered standard errors and assess significance using two\-sided Wald tests, applying Benjamini–Hochberg false\-discovery\-rate correction separately within each outcome family, analysis scope, and model specification\. We additionally test whether associations differ across cycles using engagement\-by\-cycle interactions and an omnibus Wald test\.

### 4\.3RQ2: Two\-Hop Downstream Interaction

#### 4\.3\.1Engagement and Study Design

To examine whether associations observed among directly engaged users extend through subsequent community interactions, we follow users from the RQ1 analysis\. We identify contributions made by previously engaged users after their anchor\-post interaction, and by comparison users after their assigned placebo dates, then identify downstream respondents who directly reply to these contributions\. Respondents replying to previously engaged users form the Treated\-chain group; those replying to comparison users form the Control\-chain group\.

We retain each downstream respondent’s first qualifying interaction per admissions cycle and exclude respondents who themselves authored or commented on anchor posts during that cycle\. We measure baseline outcomes from contributions strictly before this interaction and subsequent outcomes strictly afterward through May 31, requiring activity in both periods\. Unlike RQ1, which measures outcomes during a fixed subsequent stage, RQ2 uses contact\-relative observation windows\.

#### 4\.3\.2Analysis

Although previously engaged and comparison users were balanced on observed baseline characteristics in RQ1, their downstream respondents may differ in prior activity, linguistic expression, and discussion topics, which may influence both whom they reply to and their subsequent outcomes\. We therefore construct the same 518 pre\-contact covariates and perform a second propensity\-score analysis\. Within each community–cycle group, AdaBoost classifiers estimate the propensity for a respondent’s first eligible interaction to involve a previously engaged user rather than a comparison user—the likelihood of belonging to a Treated versus Control chain among users who have already made an eligible reply, not the likelihood of replying at all\.

Following the RQ1 procedure, we divide propensity scores into ten equal\-width strata, retaining those with at least ten downstream respondents per group, and weight Control\-chain respondents to match the weighted Treated\-chain mass within each stratum while incorporating the ATT weights inherited from RQ1\. Of 33,191 identified downstream user\-cycles, 19,105 had eligible pre\- and post\-contact activity, and 18,923 were retained after stratification \(13,592 Treated\-chain; 5,331 Control\-chain\)\. The mean absolute SMD decreased from 0\.022 to 0\.016 and the maximum from 0\.209 to 0\.059, with no covariates exceeding 0\.15 after matching\.

For each of the 17 primary outcomes, we estimate a weighted, baseline\-adjusted regression comparing downstream respondents who replied to previously engaged users against those who replied to comparison users:

Ypost=α\+τ​Z\+β​Ybaseline\+γcontact\+ε,Y\_\{\\mathrm\{post\}\}=\\alpha\+\\tau Z\+\\beta Y\_\{\\mathrm\{baseline\}\}\+\\gamma\_\{\\mathrm\{contact\}\}\+\\varepsilon,\(2\)whereZZindicates whether the respondent’s first qualifying reply was directed to a previously engaged user,YbaselineY\_\{\\mathrm\{baseline\}\}is the pre\-contact outcome, andγcontact\\gamma\_\{\\mathrm\{contact\}\}are community\-by\-contact\-date fixed effects\. The coefficientτ\\tauestimates the adjusted difference in subsequent outcomes between Treated\-chain and Control\-chain respondents\. Contact\-date adjustment accounts for shared calendar events, while clustering standard errors by the RQ1 user\-cycle being replied to accounts for multiple respondents interacting with the same person\. We estimate pooled, community\-specific, and cycle\-specific associations, reporting standardized adjusted effects and nominal 95% confidence intervals, with significance assessed via two\-sided Wald tests and Benjamini–Hochberg correction within each outcome family, analysis scope, and model specification\.

## 5Results

### 5\.1RQ1: Psychosocial Outcomes Following Anchor\-Post Engagement

[Table 3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S5.T3)presents standardized, baseline\-adjusted associations between anchor\-post engagement during application preparation and subsequent psychosocial outcomes\. Positive coefficients indicate higher adjusted values among Treated users; negative, lower\. Asterisks denote associations statistically significant after Benjamini–Hochberg correction \(pBH<\.05p\_\{\\mathrm\{BH\}\}<\.05\)\. Across both communities, we observe significant associations in distress\-related expression, participation, and structural\-linguistic patterns, examined by dimension below\.

Table 3:Adjusted psychosocial outcomes following anchor\-post exposure across three admissions cycles \(∗indicates Benjamini–Hochberg\-adjustedp<\.05p<\.05\.\)\.Affective Outcomes\.Treated users exhibited significantly higher classifier\-estimated anxiety, depression, and stress expression in both communities\. In r/MBA, associations were strongest for depression \(τ^std=0\.269\\hat\{\\tau\}\_\{\\mathrm\{std\}\}=0\.269\), then stress \(0\.2560\.256\) and anxiety \(0\.2440\.244\); r/gradadmissions showed the same ordering at smaller magnitudes \(depression:0\.1410\.141; stress:0\.1390\.139; anxiety:0\.1280\.128\)\. All six remained significant after correction, indicating that users who engaged with distress\-related disclosures during preparation subsequently expressed more distress\-related language than users with comparable pre\-engagement characteristics\. On the other hand, none of the five LIWC affective categories showed significant associations\. Thus, the observed differences were concentrated in classifier\-estimated distress expression rather than emotion\-word frequencies\.

Behavioral Outcomes\.Treated users exhibited significantly greater subsequent participation in both communities, particularly through commenting\. In r/MBA, commenting frequency \(τ^std=0\.331\\hat\{\\tau\}\_\{\\mathrm\{std\}\}=0\.331\), contribution frequency \(0\.3250\.325\), and active\-day share \(0\.4320\.432\) were higher, with corresponding associations in r/gradadmissions \(0\.2340\.234,0\.2300\.230,0\.3250\.325\)\. Comment share was also higher in both communities \(r/MBA:0\.1450\.145; r/gradadmissions:0\.2010\.201\), while posting frequency showed no significant association\. Greater participation was therefore concentrated in ongoing conversations rather than new posts, with increased commenting accompanying higher distress\-related classifier scores\.

Cognitive Outcomes\.Treated users exhibited significantly greater lexical repeatability in both r/MBA \(τ^std=0\.336\\hat\{\\tau\}\_\{\\mathrm\{std\}\}=0\.336\) and r/gradadmissions \(0\.2620\.262\), indicating greater lexical redundancy relative to comparable Controls\. In r/gradadmissions, Treated users additionally showed higher verbosity \(0\.1040\.104\) and Coleman–Liau reading\-grade estimates \(0\.0920\.092\), reflecting longer sentences and greater estimated textual difficulty; neither association was significant in r/MBA\.

Across individual admissions cycles, estimates varied but no primary outcome showed statistically significant cycle variation after correction \(Appendix[E](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#A5)\)\.

### 5\.2RQ2: Downstream Psychosocial Outcomes

Table 4:Adjusted associations between downstream contact with previously exposed users and subsequent psychosocial outcomes, pooled across admissions cycles\.Across both communities, we found no statistically significant associations among downstream respondents for any of the 17 primary outcomes after Benjamini–Hochberg correction\. This includes classifier\-estimated distress expression, participation, and structural\-linguistic measures, contrasting with the associations observed among directly exposed users in RQ1\. These findings indicate that the psychosocial associations observed following direct engagement with distress disclosures were not similarly detectable among users who subsequently interacted with previously exposed individuals\.

## 6Discussion

### 6\.1Peer Distress, Stress Crossover, and Continued Participation

Viewed through stress crossover theory[Westman \(2001\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib22), engagement with peer distress during application preparation was associated with greater subsequent distress\-related expression, potentially reflecting empathic responses or unfavorable social comparisons[Vogel et al\. \(2014\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib3)\. Yet these users also commented more frequently and participated across more days\. This raises the possibility that applicants continue seeking connection even while expressing greater distress\. Thus, community participation may offer opportunities for support without necessarily indicating relief from admissions\-related concerns\.

This tension has implications for platform design\. While online communities should preserve opportunities for self\-disclosure and peer support, they must also consider the experiences of those encountering distress\-related content\. User\-controlled exposure preferences, contextual framing of sensitive discussions, and stage\-specific support resources offer possible ways to accommodate both needs without discouraging disclosure\.

### 6\.2The Extent of Observable Stress Crossover

Although stress crossover theory proposes indirect interpersonal pathways[Westman \(2001\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib22), we found no significant psychosocial associations among downstream respondents\. Unlike direct engagement with distress disclosures, subsequent contact with previously exposed users does not necessarily involve encountering distress\-related content\. Moreover, shared admissions pressures may independently shape users’ distress\-related expression[Shalizi and Thomas \(2011\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#bib.bib8)\. Together, these findings suggest that understanding how far stress\-related associations extend through online communities requires examining the content and context of interactions, rather than social connections alone\.

## 7Conclusion

Across three admissions cycles in r/MBA and r/gradadmissions, engagement with peer distress during application preparation was associated with greater subsequent distress\-related linguistic expression, commenting activity, and lexical redundancy\. These findings demonstrate that distress\-related expression can coexist with continued participation during high\-stakes life transitions\. However, no significant associations were detected among downstream respondents, highlighting the distinction between direct exposure to distress disclosures and contact with previously exposed individuals\. Together, our findings emphasize the importance of interaction content and shared contextual pressures when interpreting psychosocial experiences and social influence in online communities\.

## Limitations

Our study has several limitations\. First, although propensity\-score stratification and baseline adjustments account for observed differences, the observational design cannot eliminate unmeasured confounding, self\-selection, or shared admissions\-related pressures\. Second, anchor\-post identification relies on an LLM classifier evaluated against a single\-researcher\-annotated, keyword\-enriched benchmark of 400 posts\. The absence of independent annotations, potential differences between the benchmark and broader corpus, and recall\-oriented classifier selection introduce uncertainty and possible exposure misclassification\. Third, commenting serves as a proxy for exposure but does not capture passive reading or users’ interpretations of distress\-related content\. Our linguistic measures also capture distress\-related expression rather than clinical mental\-health states, while differences in text volume may influence SVM classifier scores and lexical repeatability\. Furthermore, downstream contact does not guarantee exposure to distress\-related content, and nonsignificant RQ2 findings do not rule out transmission\. Finally, fixed admissions\-stage windows simplify individual timelines, and findings from two Reddit communities may not generalize to other applicant populations or life transitions\.

Finally, graduate and MBA admissions involve multiple application deadlines and rounds throughout the year\. Our fixed analytical windows approximate a broader admissions cycle rather than individual applicants’ timelines, potentially obscuring variation in when applicants experience preparation, submission, and decision\-making\. Findings from two Reddit communities may also not generalize to other applicant populations or life transitions\.

## Ethical Considerations

This study examines publicly accessible Reddit discussions about graduate admissions, including potentially sensitive disclosures of distress, uncertainty, and personal setbacks\. Although these discussions are publicly available, we recognize the importance of protecting users’ privacy and minimizing risks of identification or unwanted scrutiny\. Our analysis focuses on aggregate patterns of linguistic expression and community participation rather than evaluating individual users\.

The use of automated distress classification also introduces risks of misclassification and misinterpretation\. Our linguistic measures reflect distress\-related expression rather than clinical mental\-health states, and observed associations should not be interpreted as evidence that encountering peer distress causes psychological harm, nor as establishing stress transmission\. We also recognize that these findings may not generalize equally across different applicant populations or linguistic backgrounds\.

Finally, our findings should not be used to justify suppressing distress disclosures, identifying vulnerable individuals without their consent, or implementing automated mental\-health surveillance\. While our work offers insights for designing online communities that are sensitive to users encountering distress\-related content, such efforts must preserve opportunities for self\-disclosure and peer support\. Potential interventions, including personalized content ranking or exposure controls, would require careful consideration of privacy, user autonomy, fairness, and unintended harms\.

## AI Involvement Disclosure

The research we presented was conducted without the use of generative artificial intelligence tools for study design, data collection, analysis, implementation or the development of scientific contributions\. Our use of language\-editing tools \(e\.g\., Grammarly, ChatGPT\) was limited to improving the grammar and readability of certain sections\. All scientific content, interpretations, and decisions reflect the original work, judgment and intellectual contributions of the research team\.

## Acknowledgment

This work was supported in part by the Google Cloud Research Credits Program and the OpenAI Researcher Access Program\.

## References

- Andalibiet al\.\(2016\)N\. Andalibi, O\. L\. Haimson, M\. De Choudhury, and A\. ForteUnderstanding social media disclosures of sexual abuse through the lenses of support seeking and anonymity\.InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems,pp\. 3906–3918\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p2.1)\.
- Bazarova and Choi \(2014\)N\. N\. Bazarova and Y\. H\. ChoiSelf\-disclosure in social media: extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites\.Journal of Communication64\(4\),pp\. 635–657\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p2.1)\.
- Chenet al\.\(2023\)L\. L\. Chen, S\. R\. Wilson, S\. Lohmann, and D\. V\. NegraiaWhat are you anxious about? examining subjects of anxiety during the covid\-19 pandemic\.InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media,Vol\.17,pp\. 137–148\.Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Coleman and Liau \(1975\)M\. Coleman and T\. L\. LiauA computer readability formula designed for machine scoring\.Journal of Applied Psychology60\(2\),pp\. 283–284\.External Links:[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076540)Cited by:[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.SSS0.Px3.p1.1)\.
- De Choudhury and De \(2014\)M\. De Choudhury and S\. DeMental health discourse on reddit: self\-disclosure, social support, and anonymity\.InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media,Vol\.8,pp\. 71–80\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p2.1),[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS1.p1.1)\.
- De Choudhury and Kiciman \(2017\)M\. De Choudhury and E\. KicimanThe language of social support in social media and its effect on suicidal ideation risk\.InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media,Vol\.11,pp\. 32–41\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p2.1)\.
- DeAndreaet al\.\(2012\)D\. C\. DeAndrea, N\. B\. Ellison, R\. LaRose, C\. Steinfield, and A\. FioreSerious social media: on the use of social media for improving students’ adjustment to college\.The Internet and higher education15\(1\),pp\. 15–23\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p1.1)\.
- Engertet al\.\(2014\)V\. Engert, F\. Plessow, R\. Miller, C\. Kirschbaum, and T\. SingerCortisol increase in empathic stress is modulated by emotional closeness and observation modality\.Psychoneuroendocrinology45,pp\. 192–201\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Ernalaet al\.\(2017\)S\. K\. Ernala, A\. F\. Rizvi, M\. L\. Birnbaum, J\. M\. Kane, and M\. De ChoudhuryLinguistic markers indicating therapeutic outcomes of social media disclosures of schizophrenia\.Proceedings of the ACM on Human\-Computer Interaction1\(CSCW\),pp\. 1–27\.Cited by:[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.SSS0.Px3.p1.1)\.
- Ferrara and Yang \(2015\)E\. Ferrara and Z\. YangMeasuring emotional contagion in social media\.PloS one10\(11\),pp\. e0142390\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Franklin \(2015\)E\. FranklinSome theoretical considerations in off\-the\-shelf text analysis software\.InProceedings of the Student Research Workshop,I\. Temnikova, I\. Nikolova, and A\. Popov \(Eds\.\),Hissar, Bulgaria,pp\. 8–15\.External Links:[Link](https://aclanthology.org/R15-2002/)Cited by:[§3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S3.SS0.SSS0.Px3.p1.1)\.
- Gonget al\.\(2021\)C\. Gong, K\. Saha, and S\. Chancellor“The smartest decision for my future”: social media reveals challenges and stress during post\-college life transition\.Proceedings of the ACM on Human\-Computer Interaction5\(CSCW2\),pp\. 1–29\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p1.1),[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS1.p2.1)\.
- Goyalet al\.\(2026a\)A\. Goyal, C\. Lambert, and E\. ChandrasekharanThe language of approval: identifying the drivers of positive feedback online\.InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,CHI ’26,New York, NY, USA\.External Links:ISBN 9798400722783,[Link](https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790476),[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790476)Cited by:[§4](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.p1.1)\.
- Goyalet al\.\(2026b\)A\. Goyal, O\. Pal, H\. Sundaram, E\. Chandrasekharan, and K\. SahaSocial simulacra in the wild: ai agent communities on moltbook\.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603\.16128\.Cited by:[§3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S3.SS0.SSS0.Px3.p1.1)\.
- Guntukuet al\.\(2019\)S\. C\. Guntuku, J\. R\. Ramsay, R\. M\. Merchant, and L\. H\. UngarLanguage of adhd in adults on social media\.Journal of attention disorders\.Cited by:[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.SSS0.Px2.p1.1)\.
- Hastieet al\.\(2009\)T\. Hastie, S\. Rosset, J\. Zhu, and H\. ZouMulti\-class adaboost\.Statistics and its Interface2\(3\),pp\. 349–360\.Cited by:[§4\.2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS2.SSS2.p2.1)\.
- Heitmann \(2026\)A\. HeitmannArctic Shift: making reddit data accessible to researchers, moderators and everyone else\.GitHub\.Note:[https://github\.com/ArthurHeitmann/arctic\_shift](https://github.com/ArthurHeitmann/arctic_shift)Web interface hosted at[https://arctic\-shift\.photon\-reddit\.com/](https://arctic-shift.photon-reddit.com/)Cited by:[§3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S3.SS0.SSS0.Px2.p1.1)\.
- Kicimanet al\.\(2018\)E\. Kiciman, S\. Counts, and M\. GasserUsing longitudinal social media analysis to understand the effects of early college alcohol use\.InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media,Vol\.12\.Cited by:[§4\.2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS2.SSS2.p2.1),[§4](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.p1.1)\.
- Kimet al\.\(2023\)M\. Kim, K\. Saha, M\. De Choudhury, and D\. ChoiSupporters first: understanding online social support on mental health from a supporter perspective\.Proceedings of the ACM on Human\-Computer Interaction7\(CSCW1\),pp\. 1–28\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p2.1)\.
- Kimet al\.\(2012\)S\. Kim, J\. Bak, and A\. OhDo you feel what i feel? social aspects of emotions in twitter conversations\.InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media,Vol\.6,pp\. 495–498\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Krameret al\.\(2014\)A\. D\. Kramer, J\. E\. Guillory, and J\. T\. HancockExperimental evidence of massive\-scale emotional contagion through social networks\.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111\(24\),pp\. 8788–8790\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p3.1),[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Mikalet al\.\(2013\)J\. P\. Mikal, R\. E\. Rice, A\. Abeyta, and J\. DeVilbissTransition, stress and computer\-mediated social support\.Computers in Human Behavior29\(5\),pp\. A40–A53\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p1.1)\.
- Morenoet al\.\(2013\)M\. A\. Moreno, N\. Goniu, P\. S\. Moreno, and D\. DiekemaEthics of social media research: common concerns and practical considerations\.Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking16\(9\),pp\. 708–713\.Cited by:[§4](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.p1.1)\.
- Palet al\.\(2026a\)O\. Pal, A\. Goyal, E\. Chandrasekharan, and K\. SahaAlgorithmic cultivation: how social media feeds shape user language\.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605\.17010\.Cited by:[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Palet al\.\(2026b\)O\. Pal, A\. Goyal, E\. Chandrasekharan, and K\. SahaThe hidden toll of social media news on psychosocial wellbeing\.InProceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing \(EMNLP\), Main Conference,Cited by:[§3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S3.SS0.SSS0.Px3.p2.1)\.
- Pennebakeret al\.\(2019\)J\. W\. Pennebaker, R\. Boyd, K\. Jordan, and K\. BlackburnThe development and psychometric properties of liwc2015\.University of Texas at Austin\.External Links:[Link](https://research.lancaster-university.uk/en/publications/the-development-and-psychometric-properties-of-liwc2015/)Cited by:[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.SSS0.Px1.p1.1),[§4\.2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS2.SSS2.p1.1)\.
- Rubin \(2005\)D\. B\. RubinCausal inference using potential outcomes: design, modeling, decisions\.Journal of the American Statistical Association100\(469\),pp\. 322–331\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p8.1),[§4](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.p1.1)\.
- Saha and Sharma \(2020\)K\. Saha and A\. SharmaCausal factors of effective psychosocial outcomes in online mental health communities\.InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media,Vol\.14,pp\. 590–601\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Sahaet al\.\(2019\)K\. Saha, B\. Sugar, J\. Torous, B\. Abrahao, E\. Kıcıman, and M\. De ChoudhuryA social media study on the effects of psychiatric medication use\.InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media,Vol\.13,pp\. 440–451\.Cited by:[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.SSS0.Px1.p1.1),[§4\.2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS2.SSS2.p1.1),[§4\.2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS2.SSS2.p2.1),[§4](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.p1.1)\.
- Sahaet al\.\(2020\)K\. Saha, J\. Torous, E\. D\. Caine, and M\. De ChoudhuryPsychosocial effects of the covid\-19 pandemic: large\-scale quasi\-experimental study on social media\.Journal of medical internet research22\(11\),pp\. e22600\.Cited by:[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Sahaet al\.\(2018\)K\. Saha, I\. Weber, and M\. De ChoudhuryA social media based examination of the effects of counseling recommendations after student deaths on college campuses\.InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media,Vol\.12\.Cited by:[§3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S3.SS0.SSS0.Px3.p2.1),[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.SSS0.Px2.p1.1),[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Sahaet al\.\(2025\)K\. Saha, D\. W\. Yoo, V\. Das Swain, and M\. De ChoudhuryMental wellbeing effects of disclosing life events on social media\.Scientific reports15\(1\),pp\. 23519\.Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS1.p2.1)\.
- Schlossberg \(1981\)N\. K\. SchlossbergA model for analyzing human adaptation to transition\.The counseling psychologist9\(2\),pp\. 2–18\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p1.1)\.
- Shalizi and Thomas \(2011\)C\. R\. Shalizi and A\. C\. ThomasHomophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies\.Sociological methods & research40\(2\),pp\. 211–239\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p4.1),[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS2.p2.1),[§6\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S6.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Small \(2024\)D\. S\. SmallProtocols for observational studies: methods and open problems\.Statistical Science39\(4\),pp\. 519–554\.Cited by:[§4](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.p1.1)\.
- Tausczik and Pennebaker \(2010\)Y\. R\. Tausczik and J\. W\. PennebakerThe psychological meaning of words: liwc and computerized text analysis methods\.Journal of language and social psychology29\(1\),pp\. 24–54\.Cited by:[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.SSS0.Px3.p1.1)\.
- Veselovsky and Anderson \(2023\)V\. Veselovsky and A\. AndersonReddit in the time of covid\.InICWSM,Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS1.p2.1)\.
- Vogelet al\.\(2014\)E\. A\. Vogel, J\. P\. Rose, L\. R\. Roberts, and K\. EcklesSocial comparison, social media, and self\-esteem\.\.Psychology of popular media culture3\(4\),pp\. 206\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p3.1),[§6\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S6.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Wendlandt and Rochlen \(2008\)N\. M\. Wendlandt and A\. B\. RochlenAddressing the college\-to\-work transition: implications for university career counselors\.Journal of Career Development35\(2\),pp\. 151–165\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p1.1)\.
- Westman \(2001\)M\. WestmanStress and strain crossover\.Human relations54\(6\),pp\. 717–751\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p2.1),[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS2.p1.1),[§6\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S6.SS1.p1.1),[§6\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S6.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Yanget al\.\(2010\)J\. Yang, X\. Wei, M\. Ackerman, and L\. AdamicActivity lifespan: an analysis of user survival patterns in online knowledge sharing communities\.InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media,Vol\.4,pp\. 186–193\.Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S2.SS1.p2.1)\.
- Yuanet al\.\(2023\)Y\. Yuan, K\. Saha, B\. Keller, E\. T\. Isometsä, and T\. AledavoodMental health coping stories on social media: a causal\-inference study of papageno effect\.InProceedings of the ACM web conference 2023,pp\. 2677–2685\.Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S1.p2.1),[§3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S3.SS0.SSS0.Px3.p2.1)\.
- Yuanet al\.\(2026\)Y\. Yuan, J\. Zhang, T\. Aledavood, R\. Zhang, and K\. SahaMental health impacts of ai companions: triangulating social media quasi\-experiments, user perspectives, and relational lens\.InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,pp\. 1–22\.Cited by:[§4\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#S4.SS1.p1.1)\.

## Appendix AAppendix

### A\.1Data Collection

We collected original posts and comments fromr/MBAandr/gradadmissions\. Ther/MBAdata span August 1, 2022 through May 31, 2025, while ther/gradadmissionsdata span August 1, 2022 through July 30, 2025\. We organized the records into three admissions cycles: 2022–23, 2023–24, and 2024–25, each beginning in August and ending the following July\.

The full combined corpus contained 1,587,512 records: 201,138 original posts and 1,386,374 comments\. Of these, 745,269 records came fromr/MBAand 842,243 came fromr/gradadmissions\. Table[5](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#A1.T5)reports the corpus composition before content filtration\.

Table 5:Corpus composition before content filtration\.
### A\.2Schema Standardization

We mapped the original exports into a common post\-and\-comment schema\. The standardized fields included the community and record type; Reddit record, post, and parent identifiers; author; Unix and ISO\-8601 timestamps; post title and body or comment body; Reddit score; admissions cycle; and source\-file provenance\. Post titles and bodies were joined using two newline characters, whereas comment bodies were used directly\.

Standardization did not lowercase text, remove punctuation or emoji, normalize whitespace, or otherwise alter the original language\. Standardization changed the representation of the records but did not remove any observations\.

### A\.3Content Filtration

We applied four exclusion rules sequentially\. First, we removed records whose author or text was marked as deleted or removed by Reddit\. Second, we removed records produced by known automated accounts or containing an explicit bot self\-identification phrase\. Third, we removed records containing fewer than five whitespace\-delimited words\. Finally, we applied the modified register Moltbook\-style classifier and removed records with an agent\-style probability of at least 0\.75\.

The filtration stages were applied in a fixed order, and each excluded record was assigned to the first rule that removed it\. Text normalization used by the agent\-style classifier was temporary and did not alter the text retained for analysis\.

Table 6:Sequential content\-filtration results\. Percentages use the standardized corpus as the denominator\.The final cleaned corpus contained 1,302,394 records: 171,981 original posts and 1,130,413 comments\. This included 631,497 records fromr/MBAand 670,897 records fromr/gradadmissions\.

Table 7:Retained records by community and record type\.
### A\.4Study Windows

We used different portions of each admissions cycle for exposure identification and outcome measurement\. Anchor\-post classification and exposure identification used posts and comments made from September 1 through November 30\. Baseline activity consisted of all observed same\-cycle contributions strictly before a user’s treatment or placebo index timestamp\. All primary RQ1 behavioral, affective, and structural\-linguistic outcomes were measured using activity from December 1 through May 31\.

For RQ2, a downstream user’s baseline consisted of all observed same\-cycle activity strictly before their first eligible contact with a focal user\. Post\-contact outcomes consisted of activity strictly after that contact through May 31 of the same admissions cycle\.

### A\.5September–November Post Corpus

The anchor\-post classification corpus contained 32,301 cleaned original posts published during September–November across the three admissions cycles\. It included 13,399 posts fromr/MBAand 18,902 posts fromr/gradadmissions\. The final labels identified 6,150 anchor posts \(19\.04%\) and 26,151 non\-anchor posts \(80\.96%\)\.

Table 8:Final September–November post labels by community\.Table 9:Final September–November post labels by admissions cycle\.

## Appendix BGraduate\-Admissions Anchor Classification Prompt

The following reproduces the complete instruction prompt used to classify original posts from graduate\-admissions communities asanchorornon\_anchor\. The prompt includes the scope definition, qualifying signals, decision safeguards, evidence\-extraction rules, and required output schema\.

Graduate\-admissions anchor classification: full promptYou are classifying original Reddit posts from graduate\-admissions communities\. Choose exactly one final label: \- anchor \- non\_anchor PURPOSEIdentify negative graduate\-education discourse: observable adversity, negative affect, threatening comparison, consequential uncertainty, or plausible negative outcomes connected to applying to, financing, attending, completing, or obtaining the expected outcome from graduate education\. The construct includes personal disclosures, social comparison, vicarious threat, collective threats, and negative information environments\. Do not infer a clinical diagnosis, psychological deterioration, or the actual effect on a reader\. Classify only what the post itself communicates\. Do not decide whether the author’s concern is objectively justified or easily solved\. APPLICANT\-TIMING SCOPEThe post must concern a current applicant, reapplicant, recent or past applicant, current graduate student, admitted student, or a person making an immediate graduate\-education application, enrollment, financing, completion, or degree\-outcome decision\. Classify as non\_anchor when the author explicitly identifies themselves as an early\-stage undergraduate or otherwise states that they are not yet applying and discusses only a distant future application\. A junior asking how a present choice might affect an MBA application years later is outside scope\. BINARY DECISION RULEClassify a post as anchor when both conditions are satisfied: 1\. The post is within the graduate\-education and applicant\-timing scope\. 2\. The post directly communicates at least one qualifying negative signal described below\. The qualifying categories are alternatives\. Evidence satisfying any one category can qualify\. Substantive negative affect does not also require a realized adverse outcome, and a realized or collective adverse outcome does not require explicit emotional language\. QUALIFYING NEGATIVE SIGNALSA\. REALIZED OR SALIENT ADVERSE OUTCOMEExamples include: \- rejection or an unsuccessful application cycle; \- consequential waitlisting or adverse deferral; \- an application withdrawn, closed, or not processed in a consequential way; \- funding loss or inability to attend; \- failure to obtain an expected educational or career outcome; \- admissions difficulty that causes reapplication, delay, remediation, or a compensatory work or research year; \- reports or questions about adverse outcomes experienced by other applicants\. A post may qualify when it reports, compares, solicits, or interprets rejection or other adverse outcomes experienced by others\. The author does not need to have personally experienced the outcome\. A bare historical reference to rejection does not qualify when it is merely background for an otherwise neutral procedural question\. A temporary administrative hold or routine request for a missing document does not qualify by itself when processing can resume after the requirement is satisfied and the author neutrally asks how to comply\. It may qualify when the requirement cannot be satisfied, a deadline has passed, the application has been closed, or the author frames it as likely to cause disqualification or another consequential loss\. B\. EXPLICIT NEGATIVE AFFECTExamples include: \- fear, anxiety, hopelessness, devastation, discouragement, or emotional strain; \- feeling lost, overwhelmed, defeated, terrified, or unable to cope; \- explicit distress about an admissions, educational, financial, immigration, or career consequence; \- sustained burden, repeated or intensified emotion, difficulty disengaging, or a sense that continued effort will never be enough\. Substantive negative affect may independently qualify a post as anchor\. It does not also require rejection, likely failure, financial harm, or another concrete adverse outcome\. Evaluate affect cumulatively\. Several connected phrases may establish substantive affect through duration, repetition, intensity, inability to disengage, or the author’s description of the burden\. However, mild expressions such as "worried," "concerned," "nervous," "confused," or "stressed" do not qualify by themselves when they merely introduce an ordinary, actionable question\. Do not infer qualifying affect solely from someone requesting advice, reassurance, or an evaluation\. Conversely, do not dismiss substantive affect merely because the post also requests strategic or procedural advice\. C\. EXPECTED FAILURE OR APPLICATION THREATExamples include: \- belief or clearly expressed fear that rejection, disqualification, or failure is likely; \- belief that a fixed profile weakness or exhausted opportunity to improve may lead to rejection or serious application harm; \- belief that further effort will still be insufficient; \- a specific application mechanism explicitly connected to a consequential negative outcome such as rejection, disqualification, loss of consideration, or inability to enroll; \- belief that an application may not receive meaningful consideration; \- concern that every available choice carries meaningful application harm\. An anticipated or hypothetical threat may qualify when the post identifies a specific mechanism and explicitly connects it to a consequential negative outcome\. The threat does not need to have already occurred, be objectively verified, or be statistically likely\. A generic question about whether an ordinary choice, profile feature, or application component might help or hurt does not qualify by itself\. A routine profile weakness does not qualify merely because the author asks how to compensate for it\. A concrete eligibility rule, restriction, missing item, or procedural barrier does not qualify by itself when it is neutrally presented as a factual or compliance question\. It qualifies when the post frames it as a consequential setback, continuing jeopardy, feared rejection, inability to proceed, or another meaningful threat\. D\. THREATENING COMPARISON OR VICARIOUS THREATExamples include: \- competition portrayed as fierce or admission as nearly impossible; \- the author describing themselves as substantially disadvantaged compared with other applicants; \- strong applicants being rejected in a way that communicates threat to comparable applicants; \- widespread rejection, a "bloodbath," worsening competition, or normally successful applicants failing in a potentially recurring admissions cycle; \- reports that applicants or graduates like the author cannot obtain expected funding, admission, employment, or career outcomes; \- a strong applicant treating a comparatively minor weakness as potentially making the otherwise strong profile inadequate for competitive admission\. Personal distress is not required for a collective or vicarious threat\. Do not classify a neutral profile as anchor merely because a reader could compare themselves with it\. A strong profile, high score, low score, or past mistake is not sufficient by itself\. The post must itself frame the comparison or overall profile through insecurity, feared inadequacy, rejection, group failure, or another observable negative signal\. Use evidence inside the post whenever possible, including the author’s own positive description of an otherwise strong result followed by concern that a minor weakness may negate it\. Do not invent external admissions benchmarks\. E\. FUNDING, AFFORDABILITY, OR ROI THREATExamples include: \- inability to attend without funding; \- unaffordable tuition or living costs; \- inadequate or lost funding; \- burdensome debt or significant opportunity cost; \- family or employment obligations that threaten financial feasibility; \- credible concern that the degree will not produce enough benefit to justify its cost; \- fear that pursuing the degree could create financial harm\. Financial information and ROI evaluation are not automatically threats\. Classify as non\_anchor when tuition, assistantships, living expenses, salary targets, brand recognition, or ROI are used primarily as neutral criteria for comparing viable programs or deciding whether a degree may be useful\. Classify as anchor when the post connects those considerations to inability to attend, serious financial strain, burdensome debt, significant sacrifice, feared financial harm, or belief that the degree will fail to provide a necessary expected benefit\. F\. CAREER OR DEGREE\-OUTCOME THREATExamples include: \- poor recruiting, placement difficulty, unemployment, or lack of jobs; \- career stagnation, insecurity, or failed career transition; \- degree regret; \- concern that graduates cannot obtain expected opportunities; \- fear that a program could harm rather than advance a career; \- belief that attending a particular program will foreclose the author’s intended career; \- questioning whether graduate education remains worthwhile under an adverse job market\. Career content qualifies only when the adverse condition is connected to applying to, financing, attending, completing, or expecting an outcome from graduate education\. Neutral questions about career goals, salary, employment statistics, regional brand value, whether a master’s might help, or whether experience might be preferable are non\_anchor without an adverse career condition or feared degree failure\. G\. LIFE BURDEN, WITHDRAWAL, OR ABANDONMENTExamples include: \- serious conflict involving graduate education and caregiving, family, employment, health, relocation, or immigration; \- concern that major obligations threaten the ability to attend or complete the degree; \- stopping applications; \- withdrawing an application; \- declining attendance because the path is untenable; \- leaving a program or giving up on graduate education\. Ordinary scheduling questions and neutral selection between opportunities do not qualify\. CONTROLLABILITY, CONSEQUENCE, AND FORMATConsider whether the author presents the concern as reasonably addressable or as a threat they may be unable to avert\. A fixed circumstance, exhausted opportunity to improve, or belief that further effort will still be insufficient may qualify when connected to rejection, failure, or another negative graduate\-education outcome\. A request for an actionable strategy remains non\_anchor when the author does not express expected failure, futility, substantive negative affect, or a consequential negative outcome\. A qualifying signal does not need to dominate the entire post\. One clear clause may qualify when it independently communicates substantive adversity, negative affect, threatening comparison, expected failure, or another consequential threat\. A clause does not qualify when its negativity consists only of mild concern, ordinary uncertainty, a routine tradeoff, a bare weakness, or asking whether an ordinary choice might help or hurt\. The post’s format does not determine the label\. Advice\-seeking, procedural, profile\-oriented, or strategic posts may be anchors when they contain an independently qualifying signal\. Those formats also do not become anchors merely because they mention rejection, weakness, cost, competition, or jobs\. ROUTINE\-QUESTION SAFEGUARDWhen a post is primarily a routine profile, chances, test, recommender, document, deadline, school\-selection, program\-comparison, career\-strategy, or application\-strategy question, classify it as non\_anchor if its only negative content is: \- a mild expression of worry or concern; \- a generic question about whether an ordinary choice could help or hurt; \- uncertainty about whether a profile component is sufficient; \- a request for reassurance about chances; \- a past weakness followed by recovery and a question about how to explain or compensate for it; \- a resolved procedural mistake or temporary administrative hold; \- neutral consideration of cost, ROI, brand, salary, or career tradeoffs\. Do not combine a mild concern phrase with a neutral advice request to create a qualifying threat\. Phrases such as "what should I do," "best course of action," "how did you get in," and "any advice" are neutral requests and cannot serve as evidence of threat\. Classify such a post as anchor when it additionally communicates substantive negative affect, a specific consequential threat, inability to avert harm, threatening comparison, serious financial or career harm, realized adversity, or another independently qualifying signal\. IMPORTANT BOUNDARIESNever classify from an isolated keyword\. Interpret each expression within the complete phrase and post\. Words such as "rejected," "worried," "concerned," "chance," "competitive," "low," "weak," "risk," "worth," "afford," "debt," "bad," "appalling," and "long shot" do not determine the label by themselves\. Resolve who might reject what\. Fear that a professor may decline a request for a recommendation is not automatically fear of graduate\-admission rejection\. Humorous or softened discomfort such as "fear of rejection LOL" does not qualify without another consequential signal\. Do not resolve the author’s perceived threat for them\. A reassuring fact, such as a score being optional, does not erase directly expressed substantive affect, perceived irreversibility, or feared application harm\. Do not treat a concern as factually substantiated only when it is objectively correct\. Classify the negative discourse communicated by the post\. "Deferred MBA" usually describes a program type and is not an adverse deferral\. Technical phrases such as "stress testing" do not indicate distress\. Positive uses such as "overwhelmed by the quality of the feedback" do not indicate negative affect\. Negative language appearing only in quoted or copied material does not qualify unless the author adopts the concern\. General discussion of a poor job market does not qualify unless a graduate degree, application, enrollment decision, or expected degree outcome is implicated\. Conversely, a collective admissions or degree\-outcome threat does not require personal self\-disclosure\. EVIDENCE EXTRACTIONCopy the shortest exact phrases supporting an anchor classification into evidence\_phrases\. Each evidence phrase must independently support the category for which it is cited\. Do not combine an unrelated mild concern with a neutral request to manufacture a qualifying signal\. For expected failure or application threat, the evidence must state or clearly imply a consequential negative outcome\. A neutral request such as "best course of action" is not threat evidence\. Copy exact phrases supporting a neutral interpretation into counterevidence\_phrases\. Do not place negative\-affect or threat evidence in counterevidence merely because the post also asks a procedural question\. Do not extract isolated keywords when a longer phrase is necessary to preserve meaning\. Every extracted phrase must appear verbatim in the target post\. Do not invent, paraphrase, correct, or add text\. If a proposed phrase cannot be found exactly in the target post, do not use it\. Use an empty list when no relevant phrase exists\. DECISION PROCESSBefore assigning the label: 1\. Confirm graduate\-education relevance and applicant\-timing scope\. 2\. Identify the strongest exact phrase supporting each potentially applicable qualifying category\. 3\. Determine whether the phrase establishes substantive affect, adversity, a specific consequential threat, threatening comparison, or another qualifying signal rather than a neutral fact, routine tradeoff, generic possibility, or ordinary request\. 4\. Apply the routine\-question safeguard\. Do not allow mild concern, a bare weakness, a neutral comparison, or a solvable procedural question to create a qualifying category\. 5\. If an independently qualifying signal remains, do not override it merely because the post is also strategic, procedural, profile\-oriented, or advice\-seeking\. 6\. Check that every evidence phrase is copied verbatim and actually supports the selected category\. 7\. If no qualifying signal can be supported with an exact phrase, choose non\_anchor\. FINAL CONSISTENCY RULEIf graduate\-education relevance and applicant\-timing scope are satisfied and at least one qualifying negative category is true, final\_label must be anchor\. If final\_label is non\_anchor, every qualifying negative category must be false\. The neutral\-information or routine\-uncertainty field may be true even when a post also contains negative words\. Return exactly one valid JSON object using this schema: \{ "in\_scope": true, "realized\_adverse\_outcome": false, "substantive\_negative\_affect": false, "consequential\_anticipated\_threat": false, "threatening\_comparison\_vicarious\_threat\_or\_negative\_information\_environment": false, "funding\_affordability\_or\_roi\_threat": false, "career\_or\_degree\_outcome\_threat": false, "life\_burden\_withdrawal\_or\_abandonment": false, "only\_routine\_uncertainty": true, "evidence\_phrases": \[\], "decision\_basis": "Brief explanation grounded only in the post\.", "final\_label": "non\_anchor", "confidence": 0\.90 \} Map the substantive categories defined above to the corresponding fields in this schema\. Set ‘in\_scope‘ to true only when both graduate\-education relevance and applicant\-timing scope are satisfied\. Set ‘only\_routine\_uncertainty‘ to true only when no independently qualifying negative category remains after applying the routine\-question safeguard\. The final label must be ‘anchor‘ if and only if ‘in\_scope‘ is true, at least one of the seven qualifying\-category fields is true, and ‘only\_routine\_uncertainty‘ is false\. Otherwise it must be ‘non\_anchor‘\. For ‘anchor‘, ‘evidence\_phrases‘ must contain exact supporting text\. For ‘non\_anchor‘, ‘evidence\_phrases‘ must be an empty list\. Return JSON only\. Do not include Markdown or additional commentary\.

## Appendix CMatching Implementation

### C\.1Pre\-Index Covariates

For each eligible user\-cycle, we aggregated all nonempty posts and comments observed in the two study communities during the corresponding admissions cycle, strictly before the treatment or placebo index timestamp\. The baseline extended from the user’s first observed same\-cycle contribution to immediately before the index event\. Eligibility required at least one pre\-index contribution\.

We computed 518 baseline covariates per user\-cycle: six activity and observation\-history measures, three mental\-health language scores, nine LIWC\-2015 proportions, and 500 lexical\-content features \(Table[10](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#A3.T10)\)\.

Table 10:Baseline covariates used for propensity\-score estimation\.Contribution rate was the number of baseline posts and comments divided by the number of days from the user’s first observed baseline contribution through the index date\. Post share was the proportion of baseline contributions that were posts, and active\-day share was the proportion of observed baseline days with at least one contribution\. Mean words per contribution was calculated across baseline records\. Focal\-community contribution share measured the proportion of contributions in the community defining the index interaction, while observed\-history duration measured the number of calendar days between the first baseline contribution and index\.

For language\-based covariates, all baseline contributions belonging to a user\-cycle were concatenated into one document\. Anxiety, depression, and stress classifiers were applied to this document, producing native, uncalibrated SVM decision\-function scores\. LIWC covariates represented the proportion of word tokens matching each selected dictionary category: positive emotion, negative emotion, anxiety, anger, sadness, risk, comparison, cognitive processes, and first\-person singular language\.

Lexical\-content features comprised the 500 most frequent bigrams and trigrams occurring in at least five baseline user\-cycle documents\. Feature vectors were normalized to unit L1 frequency within each document\. No post\-index activity or outcome variable entered propensity\-score estimation\.

### C\.2RQ1 Propensity\-Score Estimation

We estimated the probability of anchor\-post engagement separately within each community and admissions cycle, producing six propensity\-score models\. Each model used all 518 pre\-index covariates and AdaBoost with 200 depth\-two decision\-tree base learners, a learning rate of 0\.05\. A community\-cycle stratum was retained only if it contained at least ten treated and ten control user\-cycles, excluding regions with insufficient treated\-control overlap\.

Within each retained stratum, treated observations received weight one\. Control observations received an average\-treatment\-on\-the\-treated \(ATT\) weight of

w0​s=N1​sN0​s,w\_\{0s\}=\\frac\{N\_\{1s\}\}\{N\_\{0s\}\},\(3\)
whereN1​sN\_\{1s\}andN0​sN\_\{0s\}denote the treated and control counts in retained stratumss\. Thus, weighted control mass equaled treated mass within each stratum\.

Propensity estimation began with 10,433 eligible user\-cycles, including 6,607 treated observations and 3,826 controls\. Across the six community\-cycle models, 33 propensity\-score strata contained observations, of which 23 satisfied the minimum group\-size requirement\. The final RQ1 analytic cohort comprised 8,903 user\-cycles: 5,100 treated observations and 3,803 controls \(Table[11](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#A3.T11)\)\.

Table 11:RQ1 propensity\-score stratification and retention\.
### C\.3RQ1 Covariate Balance

We assessed covariate balance using the absolute standardized mean difference \(SMD\) for each of the 518 baseline covariates:

SMD⁡\(X\)=X¯1−X¯0\(S12\+S02\)/2\.\\operatorname\{SMD\}\(X\)=\\frac\{\\bar\{X\}\_\{1\}\-\\bar\{X\}\_\{0\}\}\{\\sqrt\{\(S\_\{1\}^\{2\}\+S\_\{0\}^\{2\}\)/2\}\}\.\(4\)
Group means and variances were calculated without weights before matching and using final ATT weights afterward\. Diagnostics were computed for the combined analytic cohort and separately within each community\-cycle model\.

Across all 518 covariates, mean absolute SMD decreased from 0\.0256 before stratification to 0\.0224 afterward\. Maximum absolute SMD decreased from 0\.4129 to 0\.1284\. Seven covariates exceeded an absolute SMD of 0\.15 before matching, compared with none afterward\. Table[12](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#A3.T12)reports balance diagnostics for both RQ1 and RQ2\.

Table 12:Absolute standardized mean differences before and after matching\.In Table[12](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#A3.T12), mean and maximum values refer to absolute SMDs, while the final column counts covariates exceeding the 0\.15 threshold\.

### C\.4RQ2 Downstream\-Contact Cohort

RQ2 examined users located one interaction farther downstream from the focal RQ1 users\. For each matched focal user\-cycle, we identified posts and comments produced after its treatment or placebo index date\. A downstream user entered the candidate cohort upon directly replying to one of these contributions, with the first eligible direct reply establishing the contact timestamp\.

Each downstream account contributed at most one observation per admissions cycle\. We excluded downstream users who authored or directly commented on an anchor post during the same cycle\. Eligibility required at least one same\-cycle contribution strictly before first contact and at least one contribution strictly afterward and before June 1\.

The chain\-construction stage began with 8,903 matched focal user\-cycles and 209,767 eligible post\-index focal\-user contributions\. It identified 73,413 direct\-contact events and 33,191 unique downstream user\-cycles\. Of these, 23,756 first contacted an exposed focal user and 9,435 first contacted a control focal user\. Requiring pre\-contact and post\-contact activity yielded 19,105 user\-cycles eligible for second\-stage matching\.

### C\.5RQ2 Propensity\-Score Estimation

For each eligible downstream user\-cycle, we constructed the same 518 covariates using activity strictly before first contact\. Separate AdaBoost models within each community and admissions cycle estimated the probability of contacting an exposed rather than a control focal user\. Each model used 200 depth\-two decision trees, a learning rate of 0\.05, and ten equal\-width propensity\-score strata\.

The RQ2 propensity models incorporated focal\-user ATT weights inherited from RQ1\. A stratum was retained only when it contained at least ten downstream users from each chain group\. Treated\-chain observations retained their inherited focal\-user weights\. For control\-chain observations, inherited weights were multiplied by the ratio of treated\-chain to control\-chain focal\-weight mass within the corresponding community\-cycle propensity stratum\.

The second\-stage design retained 18,923 of the 19,105 eligible downstream user\-cycles across 20 propensity\-score strata, comprising 13,592 treated\-chain and 5,331 control\-chain observations \(Table[13](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.22657#A3.T13)\)\. Maximum absolute SMD decreased from 0\.2094 before matching to 0\.0594 afterward\.

Table 13:RQ2 downstream cohort construction and matching\.

## Appendix DOutcome Operationalization

### D\.1Aggregation and Observation Windows

All linguistic outcomes were calculated at the user\-cycle\-period level\. For each observation period, eligible posts and comments were ordered chronologically and concatenated using newline separators\. Each resulting document was scored once per SVM and LIWC outcome, yielding one baseline and one outcome score per user\-cycle, irrespective of contribution count\.

For RQ1, baseline documents included all observed same\-cycle activity strictly before the treatment or placebo index\. Outcome documents included activity from December 1 through May 31\. For RQ2, baseline documents included activity strictly before the downstream user’s first eligible contact, while outcome documents included activity strictly after contact through May 31\.

Word tokens were extracted as alphabetic strings permitting internal apostrophes, while letter counts included A–Z characters irrespective of case\. Sentence units were identified by terminal periods, question marks, or exclamation marks\. Contributions without terminal punctuation were assigned one sentence unit\.

### D\.2Affective Outcomes

Anxiety, depression, and stress were measured using previously trained support\-vector\-machine classifiers\. Each concatenated period\-level document was transformed using the corresponding stored n\-gram vectorizer and passed to its classifier\. We retained the native decision\-function score\. These scores are signed, uncalibrated margins rather than probabilities or clinical assessments\. Higher values indicate greater alignment with the classifier’s positive class\.

### D\.3Behavioral Outcomes

We measured five dimensions of observable participation\. LetCuC\_\{u\}denote contributions,PuP\_\{u\}original posts,RuR\_\{u\}comments,AuA\_\{u\}calendar days with activity, andTuT\_\{u\}calendar days in the observation window\. Outcomes were defined as

Contributions/dayu\\displaystyle\\text\{Contributions/day\}\_\{u\}=CuTu,\\displaystyle=\\frac\{C\_\{u\}\}\{T\_\{u\}\},\(5\)Posts/dayu\\displaystyle\\text\{Posts/day\}\_\{u\}=PuTu,\\displaystyle=\\frac\{P\_\{u\}\}\{T\_\{u\}\},\(6\)Comments/dayu\\displaystyle\\text\{Comments/day\}\_\{u\}=RuTu,\\displaystyle=\\frac\{R\_\{u\}\}\{T\_\{u\}\},\(7\)Active\-day shareu\\displaystyle\\text\{Active\-day share\}\_\{u\}=AuTu,\\displaystyle=\\frac\{A\_\{u\}\}\{T\_\{u\}\},\(8\)Comment shareu\\displaystyle\\text\{Comment share\}\_\{u\}=RuCu\.\\displaystyle=\\frac\{R\_\{u\}\}\{C\_\{u\}\}\.\(9\)
For RQ1, the baseline denominator extended from the first observed baseline contribution through the index date, while the outcome denominator covered the full December–May observation window\. For RQ2, baseline duration extended from the first observed contribution through contact, and outcome duration extended from contact through May 31\.

These measures capture observable contributions within the study communities, not passive reading or browsing\.

### D\.4Structural\-Linguistic Outcomes

LetWuW\_\{u\}denote word tokens,LuL\_\{u\}alphabetic characters,SuS\_\{u\}detected sentence units, andVuV\_\{u\}unique case\-normalized word tokens in the period\-level document\. We defined four structural\-linguistic outcomes\.

##### Readability\.

We used the Coleman–Liau grade\-level index:

CLIu=0\.0588​\(100​LuWu\)−0\.296​\(100​SuWu\)−15\.8\.\\operatorname\{CLI\}\_\{u\}=0\.0588\\left\(100\\frac\{L\_\{u\}\}\{W\_\{u\}\}\\right\)\-0\.296\\left\(100\\frac\{S\_\{u\}\}\{W\_\{u\}\}\\right\)\-15\.8\.\(10\)
Higher scores indicate a higher estimated reading grade level, not necessarily better writing\.

##### Verbosity\.

Mean words per sentence was calculated as

Verbosityu=WuSu\.\\operatorname\{Verbosity\}\_\{u\}=\\frac\{W\_\{u\}\}\{S\_\{u\}\}\.\(11\)

##### Repeatability\.

Lexical repeatability was defined as

Repeatabilityu=1−VuWu\.\\operatorname\{Repeatability\}\_\{u\}=1\-\\frac\{V\_\{u\}\}\{W\_\{u\}\}\.\(12\)
Higher scores indicate greater lexical reuse within the concatenated document\.

##### Lexical Complexity\.

Mean letters per word was calculated as

Complexityu=LuWu\.\\operatorname\{Complexity\}\_\{u\}=\\frac\{L\_\{u\}\}\{W\_\{u\}\}\.\(13\)
Higher values represent longer words on average, rather than greater cognitive complexity or functioning\.

### D\.5Implications of Period\-Level Concatenation

Period\-level concatenation ensured that each user\-cycle contributed one observation per outcome, regardless of contribution frequency\. However, linguistic measures may remain sensitive to text volume\. Longer documents provide more evidence to SVM vectorizers, while repeatability is mechanically related to document length through additional opportunities for lexical reuse\.

Accordingly, SVM margins should not be interpreted as clinical severity measures, nor repeatability as direct evidence of cognitive functioning\. Propensity\-score estimation incorporated baseline activity volume, active\-day share, mean words per contribution, and observed\-history duration\. Outcome models also adjusted for the corresponding pre\-index outcome\. These adjustments account for observed baseline differences but do not eliminate sensitivity to subsequent contribution volume\.

## Appendix ERQ1 Exposure\-Effect Heterogeneity Across Admissions Cycles

Table 14:RQ1 cycle heterogeneity in r/MBA\.Omnibus Wald tests of equality of baseline\-adjusted exposure coefficients across the three admissions cycles\. Benjamini–Hochberg correction was applied within outcome family\. Two outcomes were nominally significant atp<\.05p<\.05, but none remained significant atqB​H<\.05q\_\{BH\}<\.05\.Table 15:RQ1 cycle heterogeneity in r/gradadmissions\.Omnibus Wald tests of equality of baseline\-adjusted exposure coefficients across the three admissions cycles\. Benjamini–Hochberg correction was applied within outcome family\. No test was significant atqB​H<\.05q\_\{BH\}<\.05\.