Explaining the emergence of echo chambers on social media: the role of ideology and extremism

The emergence of politically driven divisions in online discussion networks has attracted a wealth of literature, but also one which has thus far been largely limited to single country studies. Hence whilst there is good evidence that these networks do divide and fragment into what are often described as “echo chambers”, we know little about the factors which might explain this division or make networks more or less fragmented, as studies have been limited to a small number of political groupings with limited possibilities for systematic comparison. This study seeks to remedy this deficit, by providing a systematic large scale study of fragmentation on Twitter which considers discussion networks surrounding 59 different political parties in 11 different countries. It shows that political party groupings which are further apart in ideological terms interact less, and that individuals and parties which sit at the extreme ends of the ideological scale are particularly likely to form echo chambers. Indeed, exchanges between centrist parties who sit on different sides of the left-right divide are more likely than communication between centrist and extremist parties who are, notionally, from the same ideological wing. In light of the results, theory about exposure to different ideological viewpoints online is discussed and enhanced.

[1]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  Informal Networks and Organizational Crises: An Experimental Simulation , 1988 .

[2]  Karolin Kappler,et al.  Communication dynamics in twitter during political campaigns: The case of the 2011 Spanish national election , 2013 .

[3]  Itai Himelboim,et al.  Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter , 2013, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[4]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook , 2015, Science.

[5]  E. Hargittai,et al.  Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers , 2007 .

[6]  Holger Döring,et al.  The collective action of data collection: A data infrastructure on parties, elections and cabinets , 2013 .

[7]  R. Spears,et al.  De‐individuation and group polarization in computer‐mediated communication , 1990 .

[8]  M. Jacomy,et al.  ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software , 2014, PloS one.

[9]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  Global Village or Cyberbalkans: Modeling and Measuring the Integration of Electronic Communities , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[10]  Pablo Barberá Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data , 2015, Political Analysis.

[11]  R. Kelly Garrett,et al.  Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[12]  Magdalena Wojcieszak,et al.  “Carrying Online Participation Offline”-Mobilization by Radical Online Groups and Politically Dissimilar Offline Ties , 2009 .

[13]  LINCOLN DAHLBERG,et al.  Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: from consensus to contestation , 2007, New Media Soc..

[14]  D. Myers,et al.  The polarizing effect of group discussion. , 1975, American scientist.

[15]  Benjamin R. Warner Segmenting the Electorate: The Effects of Exposure to Political Extremism Online , 2010 .

[16]  K. A. Hill,et al.  Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the Internet , 1998 .

[17]  Arthur R. Edwards (How) do participants in online discussion forums create 'echo chambers'? The inclusion and exclusion of dissenting voices in an online discussion forum about climate change , 2015 .

[18]  K. Kim Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: the hostile media approach , 2011, Public understanding of science.

[19]  Nathan Rambukkana Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks , 2015 .

[20]  Shinichi Nakagawa,et al.  A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models , 2013 .

[21]  Ties ‘ Carrying Online Participation Offline ’ ’ — Mobilization by Radical Online Groups and Politically Dissimilar Offline Ties , 2009 .

[22]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement? , 2009 .

[23]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Partisan asymmetries in online political activity , 2012, EPJ Data Science.

[24]  C. Sunstein Republic.com 2.0 , 2007 .

[25]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Political Polarization on Twitter , 2011, ICWSM.

[26]  Patricia Moy,et al.  TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE: A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND EMPIRICAL OUTLOOK , 2000 .

[27]  Edward M. Reingold,et al.  Graph drawing by force‐directed placement , 1991, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[28]  Thomas J. Johnson,et al.  Communication Communities or "CyberGhettos?": A Path Analysis Model Examining Factors that Explain Selective Exposure to Blogs , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[29]  Yonghwan Kim,et al.  The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[30]  M. Prior,et al.  News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout , 2005 .

[31]  R. Garrett Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate , 2009 .

[32]  D. Boyd,et al.  Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter , 2010 .

[33]  Frank Schweitzer,et al.  Ideological and Temporal Components of Network Polarization in Online Political Participatory Media , 2015, ArXiv.

[34]  Yamir Moreno,et al.  Broadcasters and Hidden Influentials in Online Protest Diffusion , 2012, ArXiv.

[35]  H. J. Crockett,et al.  Tolerance for nonconformity , 1978 .

[36]  N. Stroud Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure , 2010 .

[37]  Frank Schweitzer,et al.  Political polarization and popularity in online participatory media: an integrated approach , 2012, PLEAD '12.

[38]  A. Bruns,et al.  Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics , 2015 .

[39]  Jesse M. Shapiro,et al.  Ideological Segregation Online and Offline , 2010 .

[40]  F. Castles,et al.  Left Right Political Scales - Some Expert Judgments , 1984 .

[41]  KimYonghwan The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference , 2011 .

[42]  H. G. D. Zúñiga,et al.  Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits , 2013 .

[43]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog , 2005, LinkKDD '05.

[44]  Claire Cardie,et al.  A Measure of Polarization on Social Media Networks Based on Community Boundaries , 2013, ICWSM.

[45]  A. Gruzd,et al.  Investigating Political Polarization on Twitter: A Canadian Perspective , 2014 .

[46]  A. Arvidsson,et al.  Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data , 2014 .

[47]  Jonathan Bright The Social News Gap: How News Reading and News Sharing Diverge , 2016 .

[48]  Jonathan Bright,et al.  Power users in online democracy: their origins and impact , 2019, Information, Communication & Society.

[49]  Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick,et al.  Looking the Other Way , 2009, Commun. Res..

[50]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Predicting the Political Alignment of Twitter Users , 2011, 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing.

[51]  Zizi Papacharissi The virtual sphere , 2002, New Media Soc..

[52]  Jennifer Brundidge Encountering "Difference" in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks , 2010 .

[53]  Alan Godoy,et al.  Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Computational Techniques to Understand User Communities in Social Networks , 2016, #Microposts.

[54]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  Divided They Tweet: The Network Structure of Political Microbloggers and Discussion Topics , 2011, ICWSM.

[55]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[56]  Alexander H. Trechsel,et al.  eu and i : Project Description and Datasets Documentation , 2015 .

[57]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[58]  M. Hindman,et al.  Campaign Politics and the Digital Divide , 2007 .

[59]  Robert Huckfeldt,et al.  Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks , 2004 .

[60]  Diana C. Mutz The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation , 2002 .

[61]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[62]  Walter Quattrociocchi,et al.  Echo Chambers on Facebook , 2016 .

[63]  M. McPherson,et al.  BIRDS OF A FEATHER: Homophily , 2001 .

[64]  Brian J. Gaines,et al.  Typing Together? Clustering of Ideological Types in Online Social Networks , 2009 .

[65]  Van AlstyneMarshall,et al.  Global Village or Cyber-Balkans? Modeling and Measuring the Integration of Electronic Communities , 2005 .

[66]  John M. Sides,et al.  Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics , 2010, Perspectives on Politics.

[67]  C. Sunstein The Law of Group Polarization , 1999, How Change Happens.