Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Digital Natives, Digital Activists: Youth, Social Media and the Rise of Environmental Sustainability Movements

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that young environmental activists are tactical digital organizers, not slacktivists, and that effective movements connect online visibility to offline change.

desk verdict A promising taxonomy of youth digital activism, undermined by selection on engagement, an unsupported quantitative claim, and a citation list full of irrelevant padding. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10158 v1 pith:6QZH5DGG submitted 2025-05-15 cs.SE cs.CY

Manya Pandit , Triveni Magadum , Harshit Mittal , Omkar Kushwaha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.CY
keywords youthactivismenvironmentalsustainabilitymovementssocialmediaadvocacydigitalclimateactioncitizenshipmobilizationstrategiesplatformaffordances
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that young environmental activists' social media activity is tactical civic engagement, not slacktivism. By tracking 150 activist handles, interviewing 35 activists, and coding 500 high-engagement posts, it finds that activists match content to each platform's affordances, combine five recurring online action repertoires, and deliberately connect online visibility with offline organizing. The stakes are practical: if this picture is right, digital-native youth are not distracted from real activism by their phones but are building new hybrid forms of it, and platform design and regulation become genuine levers for environmental participation.

What carries the argument

The analytical engine is a three-part mixed-method design: a six-month digital ethnography on five platforms with 150 activist handles, 75 campaign hashtags, and 1,200 content items; 35 in-depth photo-elicitation interviews with activists aged 16 to 25; and content analysis of 500 high-engagement posts coded on 42 variables. The organizing framework is the paper's five digital action repertoires, which give a single vocabulary for comparing movement tactics, alongside what the paper calls Formative Visual Storytelling: building shareable visual narratives that teach and emotionally frame environmental issues. Platform-affordance analysis, covering content formats, algorithmic visibility, moderation, monetization, data policies, and cross-platform integration, plus hashtag network analysis, supplies the technical context that lets the authors read activist choices as strategic rather than passive.

What would settle it

Gather a random sample of youth environmental posts stratified by engagement, including viral hits and near-zero-view posts, and interview low-following activists who never broke through; if those activists show no platform-specific strategy and no online-offline connection, the paper's general conclusion about youth digital activists fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that youth green activism online is a strategic, multi-platform craft. Activists choose platforms by audience and goal: Instagram for community-building through visual narrative, Twitter for public accountability pressure on companies and politicians, TikTok for reach through humor and trends. The most effective campaigns build unified cross-platform ecosystems, with one fast-fashion campaign using TikTok for viral challenges, Instagram for educational carousels, Twitter for corporate callouts, and Discord for organizing. The paper identifies five digital action repertoires, information sharing, alternative representation, networked mobilization, corporate and political pressure, and lifestyle advocacy, and finds that campaigns combining several repertoires outperform single-tactic efforts. It also finds that young activists report real psychological costs, including digital exhaustion and climate grief, and develop coping strategies such as strategic disconnection and in-group support spaces.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes its purposive sample of 35 activists and 500 high-engagement posts stands for youth environmental activism as a whole, so a sample skewed toward visible, successful campaigns would undercut the general claims about tactics and motives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Youth environmental campaigns should be assessed as hybrid movements: online visibility and offline organizing are complements, so separating them misses the main mechanism.
  • Platform companies' algorithmic moderation choices are not neutral infrastructure; they shape whether environmental movements can reach people, so governance decisions become civic-participation decisions.
  • Movement durability depends on emotional sustainability: activists who build disconnection routines and in-group support spaces are more likely to stay engaged, suggesting support structures matter as much as message reach.
  • Cross-platform campaigns that assign each platform a role in a unified narrative will outperform single-platform campaigns, because they exploit each platform's strengths while reducing dependence on any one algorithm.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that the five-repertoire framework should transfer to other youth-led causes, such as housing, digital rights, or local politics, wherever platform affordances resemble the ones studied here.
  • I infer a testable prediction from the algorithmic-moderation finding: if platforms tighten climate content rules, youth campaigns will shift toward coded visual symbols and indirect language, and engagement will track that shift.
  • I infer that the paper's psychological results could ground a design intervention: platform features that limit crisis-content exposure or encourage strategic disconnection could be tested as mental-health supports for activists.
  • I infer that the cross-platform ecosystem pattern implies platforms are complements rather than substitutes, so single-platform studies will systematically underestimate the sophistication of youth movements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods study of how young people aged 16–25 use social media for environmental sustainability activism. It combines a six-month digital ethnography across five platforms (tracking 150 activist handles and 75 hashtags, gathering 1,200 pieces of content), in-depth interviews with 35 purposively sampled young activists, content analysis of 500 high-engagement posts using a 42-variable coding framework, and a platform-affordance analysis. The findings are organized into four themes: platform-specific engagement tactics, five digital repertoires of contention, psychological factors of online activism, and cross-platform movement building. The paper concludes that young green activists are tactically sophisticated platform users who integrate online and offline action, rather than being naive techno-optimists or mere 'slacktivists.' The central qualitative themes are plausible and the mixed-methods design is ambitious, but the manuscript contains unsupported quantitative claims and overgeneralizes from a sample selected on the outcome.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to the literature on youth civic engagement by characterizing youth environmental activism as a strategic, platform-aware, hybrid form of participation, countering both techno-optimist and slacktivist framings. The manuscript also demonstrates strengths: a multi-source design with triangulation, explicit attention to ethical protocols for minors, member checking, and a clear account of the coding process. However, the evidence base currently does not support the breadth of the claims made. The paper's load-bearing quantitative result — the 3.7× TikTok engagement ratio — is presented without the calculation, confidence intervals, or significance testing; inter-coder reliability is asserted but not quantified; and the sampling strategy selects on the dependent variable, so the universal conclusions in Section 4 exceed what the design can establish. These issues are fixable through reframing and additional reporting, which is why I recommend major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The claim that 'TikTok videos employing humor and popular formats gained 3.7 times higher engagement than plain informative content' is presented as a quantitative finding, but no details are given about the calculation: the definition of engagement (likes, shares, comments, or a composite), the sample sizes in each content category, the comparison method, confidence intervals, or any significance test. Without these, the 3.7× figure is not verifiable and could result from confounding factors such as posting time, account size, or algorithmic promotion. Because this single number is used in Section 3.1 to support the broader argument that activists deliberately tailor content to platform affordances, it needs to be either fully documented with a statistical test or explicitly labeled as a descriptive observation from the sampled posts.
  2. [Section 2.3] The manuscript states that 'two researchers trained independently coded an exemplary 20% representation of the sample and cross-validated the data to ascertain high interpretive reliability levels,' but no inter-coder reliability statistic is reported. For content analysis with 42 coding variables, standard practice is to report Cohen's kappa, Krippendorff's alpha, or per-variable agreement percentages. Without such figures, readers cannot assess whether the coding framework was applied consistently, which is a prerequisite for trusting the frequency comparisons and engagement correlations reported in the results. The assertion of 'high interpretive reliability' is not a substitute for a measured and reported reliability index.
  3. [Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 4] The research design selects on the dependent variable: the 500 content-analyzed posts are all 'high-engagement' posts (Section 2.3), and the 35 interviewees are purposively sampled activists with 'active digital presences tied to sustainability campaigning' (Section 2.2). The conclusion in Section 4, however, generalizes without qualification: 'The results prove that young green activists are neither naive techno-optimists nor simply engaging in slacktivism.' This design cannot support claims about the broader population of youth environmental activists, including those whose posts receive little engagement, those who participate intermittently, or those whose activism takes place primarily offline. Relatedly, 'successful' and 'effective' movements are identified through engagement metrics rather than measured offline outcomes such as policy change, protest turnout, or behavioral shifts, so the claim that the most effective movements integrate online and offline action conflates popularity with effectiveness. I recommend softening the universal quantifiers and explicitly framing the findings as characteristic of highly visible, digitally active segments of youth environmental movements, while noting that offline outcomes were not independently measured.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'these long-term autistic participants' appears to be a typo; it should likely read 'these long-term activist participants' or 'these long-term participants.' This should be corrected.
  2. [Tables and Figures] Table 1 and Figures 1–3 are referenced in the text but are not included in the manuscript. The paper should either include these artifacts or remove the references, since a cross-platform comparison table is promised but never delivered.
  3. [Sections 2.1 and 2.3] The relationship between the 1,200 pieces of content gathered in the digital ethnography (Section 2.1) and the 500 posts selected for content analysis (Section 2.3) is unclear. Please describe how the 500-post sample was drawn from the larger corpus, including any stratification or selection criteria beyond 'high-engagement.'
  4. [Abstract and Section 3] The paper uses both 'clicktivism' and 'slacktivism' to refer to the same concept. Pick one term and use it consistently throughout.
  5. [References] The reference list contains several apparent errors: entries for Çöteli (2019a) and Çöteli (2019b) are identical; several entries repeat author names (e.g., 'Daniell, H., & Daniell, H.' and 'Garcia, D. A., Garcia, D. A.'); and numerous citations are to unrelated fields such as hydrogen fuel supply, air compressors, and chloroplast genetic engineering. Please review and clean the reference list to ensure all entries are correctly formatted and substantively relevant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the paper's qualitative findings are independent of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative mixed-methods study of youth digital environmental activism. Its central claims (e.g., that young green activists use platforms tactically and integrate online and offline action) are inductive themes drawn from interviews, ethnographic observation, and content analysis. There is no quantitative derivation, no fitted parameter that is later renamed a prediction, and no equation whose output reduces to its input by construction. The only self-citation, Mittal and Kushwaha (2024), appears in a list of background references in the introduction and supplies no load-bearing premise for the study's argument. The sampling design—purposively selecting activists with active digital presences and analyzing high-engagement posts—raises a legitimate generalizability concern, but that is a question of external validity rather than circularity, because the interview and content-analysis evidence is not defined into existence by the sampling criteria; the tactical repertoires and psychological experiences reported are independent empirical content. The paper also validates interpretations through member checking and triangulation, further separating the findings from the research design assumptions. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary standard of quoting a specific reduction of a claimed result to its inputs, and the paper warrants a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit a formal model or invent new physical entities. It introduces a qualitative taxonomy (five digital repertoires) and reports one quantitative ratio (3.7x), which I have listed as a free parameter because its derivation is opaque. The two domain assumptions are the key unstated premises that, if incorrect, would undermine the generalizability of the findings.

free parameters (1)
  • TikTok humorous content engagement multiplier = 3.7x (no confidence interval or calculation shown)
    The paper states that TikTok videos using humor and popular formats gained 3.7 times higher engagement than plain informative content (Section 3.1). The calculation is not described, so it acts as a hand-picked or computed value that the paper uses to support its platform-strategy claims.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Participant self-reports about the link between online advocacy and offline effects are treated as valid evidence of actual offline influence.
    In Section 2.2, the interviews ask about 'perceived connections between digital advocacy and offline effects,' and in Section 3.3, the paper interprets these perceptions as evidence about the psychological and practical outcomes of activism. There is no independent verification of offline impact.
  • domain assumption The six-month digital ethnography and the content analysis sample are assumed to capture typical, stable dynamics of youth environmental activism rather than temporary trends.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.3 describe a six-month observation period and a sample of 500 high-engagement posts. The paper then generalizes about 'effective digital environmental movements' from this time-bounded sample without testing for temporal variation or platform algorithm changes during the period.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Digital Natives, Digital Activists: Youth, Social Media and the Rise of Environmental Sustainability Movements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QZH5DGG

@misc{pith2026250510158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Digital Natives, Digital Activists: Youth, Social Media and the Rise of Environmental Sustainability Movements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QZH5DGG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10158}
}
read the original abstract

The research examines the challenges revolving around young people's social movements, activism regarding sustainability, as well as the accompanying social media aspect, and how social media impacts environmental action. This study focuses on the environmental craze on social media platforms and its impact on young activists aged 16-25. With the advancement of social media, new avenues have opened for participation in sustainability issues, especially for the marginalized, as information moved through transnational networks at lightning speed. Along with specific Formative Visual Storytelling methods, the young leaders of the movement deploy hashtags and other online tools to capture the attention of their peers and decision makers. Challenges persist with "clicktivism" fatigue from the internet, and site limitations. This article contributes to insights on emerging forms of civic activism by explaining how digital natives adapt technology to reframe green activism. The research suggests that effective digital environmental movements integrate online and offline action, make it simple for individuals to get involved, and promote tolerance to algorithmic modifications and climate care among participants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10158 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Classification of Social Media platforms. Although increasing academic attention has been directed toward digital activism in general, comparatively few studies have directly explored how youth environmental sustainability movements function within and between social media environments. Such an omission matters especially because young people's views of environmental matters tend to differ from those of previous gen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mixed methods research process flowchart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Research use case diagram. Network analysis was used to follow and analyze relationships between different youth environmental campaigns and networks using hashtag data. NodeXL software was used to map and analyze patterns of relationships between institutional targets, participant accounts, and campaign hashtags to examine the structure of digital environmental movement networks. Through this, we found both central… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Friedlingstein, P., Girardin, C

    Allen, M. R., Friedlingstein, P., Girardin, C. A. J., Jenkins, S., Malhi , Y., Mitchell - Larson, E., Peters, G. P., & Rajamani, L. (2022). Annual Review of Environment and Resources Net Zero: Science, Origins, and Implications . https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-112320 2022

  2. [2]

    I., & Smoliar, S

    Badler, N. I., & Smoliar, S. W. (1979). Digital Representations of Human Movement. ACM Computing Surveys, 11(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/356757.356760

    work page arXiv 1979

  3. [3]

    Burkhardt, J., Patyk, A., Tang uy, P., & Retzke, C. (2016). Hydrogen mobility from wind energy – A life cycle assessment focusing on the fuel supply. Applied Energy, 181, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.104

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.104 2016

  4. [4]

    Carlsson, B., & Jacobsson, S. (1997). In Search of Useful Public Policies — Key Lessons and Issues for Policy Makers. Null. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6133- 0_11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-6133- 1997

  5. [5]

    A., Landa -Blanco, M., Poleo Gutiérrez, F

    Cortés-Ramos, A., Torrecilla García, J. A., Landa -Blanco, M., Poleo Gutiérrez, F. J., & Castilla Mesa, M. T. (2021). Activism and Social Media: Youth Participation and Communication. Sustainability, 13(18), 10485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810485

    work page doi:10.3390/su131810485 2021

  6. [7]

    Çöteli, S. (2019b). The Impact of New Media on The Forms of Culture: Digital Identity and Digital Culture. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/5765

    work page doi:10.29333/ojcmt/5765 2019

  7. [8]

    Daniell, H., & Daniell, H. (1999). ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY APPROACHES TO GENETIC ENGINEERING. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-999-0049-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11627-999-0049-2 1999

  8. [9]

    S., Khan, M

    Daniell, H., Daniell, H., Khan, M. S., Khan, M. S., Khan, M. S., Allison, L. A., & Allison, L. A. (2002). Milestones in chloroplast genetic engineering: an environmentally fr iendly era in biotechnology. Trends in Plant Science . https://doi.org/10.1016/s1360-1385(01)02193-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s1360-1385(01)02193-8 2002

Show all 33 references
  1. [10]

    Dirzo, R., & Raven, P. H. (2003). Global State of Biodiversity and Loss. Annual Review of E nvironment and Resources , 28(1), 137 –167. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105532

    2003

  2. [11]

    V., & Elliott, T

    Earl, J., Maher, T. V., & Elliott, T. (2017). Youth, activism, and social movements . Sociology Compass, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12465

    2017 doi

  3. [12]

    C., Antill, E

    Ellis, E. C., Antill, E. C., & Kreft, H. (2012). All Is Not Loss: Plant Biodiversity in the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e30535. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030535

    2012 doi

  4. [13]

    Fabbri, K., & Tronchin, L. (2015). Indoor Environmental Quality in Low Energy Buildings. Energy Procedia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.625

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    Foos, F., Kostadinov, L., Marinov, N., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2021). Does Social Media Promote Civic Activism? A Field Experiment with a Civic Campaign. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(3), 500–518. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.13

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    J., & Machlist, G

    Forester, D. J., & Machlist, G. E. (1996). Modeling Human Factors That Affect the Loss of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology , 10(4), 1253 –1263. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041253.x

    1996

  7. [16]

    A., Garcia, D

    Garcia, D. A., Garcia, D. A., Cumo, F., Pennacchia, E., Pennucci, V. S., Piras, G., Notti, V. De, & Roversi, R. (2017). Assessment Of A Urban Sustainability And Life Quality Index For Elderly. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning . https://doi.org/10.2...

    2017 doi

  8. [17]

    Gibbs, J. P. (2000). Wetland Loss and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology, 14(1), 314–317. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98608.x

    2000

  9. [18]

    Halog, A., Halog, A., Ma nik, Y., & Manik, Y. (2011). Advancing Integrated Systems Modelling Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3020469

    2011 doi

  10. [19]

    L., & Snowden, M

    Harper, C. L., & Snowden, M. (201 7). Environment and Society . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315463254

    doi

  11. [20]

    T., & Rojas, F

    Heaney, M. T., & Rojas, F. (2014). Hybrid Activism: Social Movement Mobilization in a Multimovement Environment. American Journal of Sociology, 119(4), 1047–1103. https://doi.org/10.1086/674897

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    Hruska, J., & Maresova, P. (2020). Use of Social Media Platforms among Adults in the United States —Behavior on Social Media. Societies, 10(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10010027

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    Jacqmarcq, M. (2021). Environmental Activism in the Digital Age. Flux: International Relations Review, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.26443/firr.v11i1.52

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    dos S., Chowdhury, H., Thirugnanasambandam, M., Chowdhury, T., & Saidur, R

    Mascarenhas, J. dos S., Chowdhury, H., Thirugnanasambandam, M., Chowdhury, T., & Saidur, R. (2019). Energy, exergy, sustainability, and emission analysis of industrial air compressors. Journal of Cleaner Production , 231, 183 –195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.158

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    Mei, E. (2021). Youth -Led Social Identity and Movements: A Case Study of Youth Activism in Hong Kong. Aleph, UC LA Undergraduate Research Journal for the Humanities and Social Sciences, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/L618154799

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    Milan, C. (2019). Social Mobilization Beyond Ethnicity . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351174244

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    Mittal, H., & Kushwaha, O. S. (2024). Policy Implementation Roadmap, Diverse Perspectives, Challenges, Solutions Towards Low-Carbon Hydrogen Economy. Green and Low-Carbon Economy. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewGLCE42021846

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    Murtagh, C. (2016). Civic Mobilization in Divided Societies and the Perils of Political Engagement: Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Protest and Plenum Mov ement. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 22(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537113.2016.1169060

    2016

  19. [28]

    E., Bord, R

    O’Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., Yarnal, B., & Wiefek, N. (2002). Who Wants to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Social Science Quarterly , 83(1), 1 –17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00067

    2002

  20. [29]

    M., & Sánchez Querubín, N

    Pearce, W., Niederer, S., Özkula, S. M., & Sánchez Querubín, N. (2019). The social media life of c limate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. WIREs Climate Change, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.569

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    Rose, A. (1990). Reducing conflict in global warming policy: The potential of equity as a unifying principle. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(90)90127-p

    1990 doi

  22. [31]

    Sarker, A., Ginn, R., Nikfarjam, A., O’Connor, K., Smith, K., Jayaraman, S., Upadhaya, T., & Gonzalez, G. (2015). Utilizing social media data for pharmacovigilance: A review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 54, 202 –212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2015.02.004

    2015 doi

  23. [32]

    L., Bahri, S., & Fauzi, A

    Tim, Y., Pan, S . L., Bahri, S., & Fauzi, A. (2018). Digitally enabled affordances for community‐driven environmental movement in rural Malaysia. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12140

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    Weller, K. (2016). Trying to understand social media users and usage. Online Information Review, 40(2), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2015-0299

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    W., & Poh, K

    Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Poh, K. -L. (2008). A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. European Journal of Operational Research . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.042

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.