Why Rage Baiting Works (And Why We Keep Falling for It) 😡

In this article, Jun Hong discusses the trend of rage baiting and how we might be perpetuating it by "engaging" with certain content.

I recently came across a news article about an influencer who gave a homeless man a packet of rice with chicken bones, presenting it as a “kind deed”. The video quickly went viral. Comments flooded in criticising his behaviour, other creators responded with reaction videos, and the original post was eventually taken down. He was later fined for posting an extremely offensive video with the intent to cause annoyance.

Although I did not watch the video firsthand, coming across the news filled me with some frustration. I was annoyed that a homeless person was being exploited for the influencer’s fame. Yet, that was all part of the influencer’s plan.

This incident is an obvious example of rage baiting. The Oxford Dictionary Word of the Year 2025 is defined as online content curated to cause anger or frustration to its audience. But what exactly is rage baiting, and how is it related to engagement baiting?

The Truth about Engagement Bait will Shock You 😱

Engagement baiting refers to tactics used by content creators to prompt engagements such as likes, comments, or shares. Rage baiting, therefore, is a subset of engagement baiting, which focuses on manipulating our emotions to generate engagements. Understanding how these tactics work is essential if we want to stay in control of what and how we consume online.

As discussed in Malcolm’s explainer article You Must Be This Old To Scroll: Lessons from Adolescence, social media platforms use AI-powered algorithms to decide what shows up on our feeds. Other than identifying our interests, these systems are also designed to keep us hooked and leave us scrolling for as long as possible. One of the main ways they do this is by prioritising posts that get lots of engagements, such as views, likes, comments, and shares. This creates a strong incentive for creators to design posts that spark reactions.

Here are some quick examples:

• “Double tap the screen (like) to lock in your answer”

• “Instagram blocks anyone who tries to comment ‘INSTAGRAM’ letter by letter”

• “The third person that appears when you click share is your soulmate”

  
  

These posts are designed to prompt quick reactions to artificially boost engagement, leading platforms to push the content to more people. However, the examples above are fairly obvious to most social media users. Overusing common tricks may cause people to eventually disengage once they feel that they are being manipulated. 

I once came across a post that said, “We all know that one friend whose name starts with the letter ‘S’ who is really funny.” It felt relatable so I shared it with a few people. After a while, I realised the creator was using the exact same format over and over again, swapping out the letter so that almost anyone could relate to it. That’s when I realised that the post was just designed to be universally shareable to increase the amount of engagement. I eventually chose to disengage by marking the content as “not interested,” which helped reduce how often similar posts appeared on my feed.

As such, some creators have pivoted to using more subtle techniques, for example:

1. Using titles, thumbnails, or video hooks that are technically true but sound absurd, encouraging viewers to watch until the end.

2. Intentionally mispronouncing words so viewers feel compelled to correct them in the comments.

3. Adding long captions while a short clip loops in the background to increase overall watch time.

4. Staging videos that appear authentic in order to spark reactions or discussion. 

   
   

These strategies are harder to detect, so people may not notice them right away. Even when they do, they likely mind less because the content feels entertaining or useful, so it doesn’t feel as manipulative.

Do You Know Why You Clicked? 🤔

Psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan proposed that people are motivated by three basic needs, namely, feeling in control (autonomy), feeling capable (competence), and feeling connected to others (relatedness). Engagement bait leverages these needs, offering quick and easy ways to express opinions, demonstrate knowledge, and engage with others. For instance, when we notice a very glaring mispronunciation by an influencer, we might feel a need to correct them to affirm our own sense of competence.

Rage baiting similarly taps into our underlying psychological needs. Returning to the earlier news example, when we see an influencer presenting a clearly cruel act as a kind deed, we may feel compelled to speak out to raise awareness, allowing us to express our values and sense of autonomy. We may also want to show that we understand why the behaviour is harmful, reinforcing our sense of competence. At the same time, seeing others share our reactions can create a sense of connection and validation, fulfilling our need for relatedness.

How Essay Writing Taught Me To Categorise Engagement Baiting (NOT CLICKBAIT) ✍️

I remember back in primary school, my teacher would often caution us against adding random “bombastic” words to our essays. It wasn’t because sophisticated writing is frowned upon. On the contrary, an overly plain essay would be uninteresting to read. Rather, she wanted to ensure we did not use words we didn’t fully understand. When words are misused, they disrupt meaning and make writing harder to follow.

Content on social media is designed to pique our interest. Just like how we are rewarded for writing interesting essays, content creators are rewarded based on how interesting their content is. 

However, just like how careless use of “bombastic” words can make an essay harder to understand, content that is overly exaggerated or provocative can distort the actual message. Over time, this can quietly shape how we see issues. Selective framing makes it easier for misunderstandings to spread, especially when people react before they fully process what they are seeing. It can also make conversations feel more polarised, because extreme presentations invite extreme responses. In trying to make content more striking, the content may also be more confusing and divisive.

For illustration, social media and its impact on mental health is often a topic discussed on both extremes. On one end, we hear stories of people using social media as an escape from the harsh reality, and eventually finding their community of supportive friends, some even finding their partners. On the other, we hear narratives that social media is full of toxicity, and every corner of the internet is filled with misogynistic fascists who will harass you and make your online experience a living nightmare. The reality is probably somewhere in between. While online creeps exist, you can still make meaningful connections online. Yet, this more balanced perspective, although being closer to reality, rarely provokes the same level of attention or reaction.

However, content containing engagement bait is not inherently bad. Content designed for entertainment or education might employ methods for drawing viewers in or encouraging participation, simply because that’s what they need to do to get their message out. What matters more is how and why these techniques are used. I propose that engagement bait can be better understood along two dimensions: the creator’s purpose and the tactic employed.

Purpose asks why the content is created. At one end, creators may genuinely want to educate or raise awareness about certain issues. At the other, content may be designed primarily to provoke or stir strong emotions for visibility. Tactic, on the other hand, looks at how attention is captured. Some methods are relatively harmless, such as using curiosity-driven hooks or engaging prompts. Others are more questionable, like exaggeration, misleading framing, or outright misinformation.

When we place engagement bait along these two axes, it becomes easier to see that not all attention-grabbing content is equal. As an example, a catchy hook used to explain a useful concept sits very differently from a misleading clip designed to spark outrage, even if both generate high engagement.

Rage bait does not sit neatly in a single category, because its purpose and tactics can vary widely. For example, a video designed to raise awareness about a social issue would be very different from a misleading video created to spread derogatory remarks. Rage bait isn’t always wrong because anger itself isn’t wrong. However, when anger is engineered purely to seek reactions rather than to foster understanding, the content becomes dangerous.

How to Doomscroll without the Doom 💀

As generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) becomes more prevalent, it will make it easier for creators to produce content en masse, making the online digital space noisier. As Ghernie discussed in his reflection Developing a Resilient “Digital Reflex” for the AI Generation, we must continuously exercise our critical thinking abilities to discern fact from fiction.

What can you do to continue enjoying social media while minimising the impact of engagement and rage bait? Bryan discussed what steps we can take to take control of the social media algorithm in his article Perfectly Curated FYP/Feed? That Might Be the Problem.

We might not be able to stop rage bait from existing, but we can prevent it from deciding how we feel and what we pay attention to. Beyond what we can do individually, there is also a bigger question about the kind of online spaces we want to build. Although essays are marked on style, they are also graded for content, among other things. If algorithms purely reward whatever keeps us reacting the longest, how can platforms be redesigned to prioritise content that genuinely informs or connects rather than simply maximising engagement?