Filtering out the other side? Cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites

Disagreement persists as to whether social networking sites (SNSs) are used more frequently to facilitate cross-cutting or like-minded discussions. We examine the relationship between the use of SNSs and involvement in discussions with politically similar and dissimilar others among a sample of US Democrats and Republicans. Affective polarization is negatively related to involvement in cross-cutting discussions, suggesting that individuals extend their dislike of the opposing political party to out-party members within their online social networks. Moreover, political discussion with one’s friends on SNSs plays a mediating role in involvement in both cross-cutting and like-minded discussions. Finally, party identification moderates the relationship between SNS use and involvement in cross-cutting discussions, indicating that Republicans participate more frequently than Democrats in cross-cutting exchanges on SNSs. In the light of these findings, we discuss the contribution of SNSs to the ideals of deliberative democracy.

[1]  Jae Kook Lee,et al.  Social Media, Network Heterogeneity, and Opinion Polarization , 2014 .

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

[3]  David B. Magleby,et al.  The Myth of the Independent Voter , 1992 .

[4]  Nicholas A. Valentino,et al.  Selective Exposure in the Internet Age: The Interaction between Anxiety and Information Utility , 2009 .

[5]  Diana C. Mutz.  Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy , 2006 .

[6]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Political Network Size and Its Antecedents and Consequences , 2013 .

[7]  Michael McDevitt,et al.  The Partisan Child: Developmental Provocation as a Model of Political Socialization , 2006 .

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

[9]  John R. Petrocik.  Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents , 2009 .

[10]  A.M.J. Derks.  Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections , 2009 .

[11]  Howard G. Lavine,et al.  The ambivalent partisan : how critical loyalty promotes democracy , 2012 .

[12]  David P Mackinnon,et al.  Explanation of Two Anomalous Results in Statistical Mediation Analysis , 2012, Multivariate behavioral research.

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

[14]  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..

[15]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[16]  M. Fiorina,et al.  Political Polarization in the American Public , 2008 .

[17]  Shannon K. Gilmartin,et al.  Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper Surveys , 2003 .

[18]  A. Hayes.  Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

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

[20]  Paul M. Haridakis,et al.  Selectively Social Politics: The Differing Roles of Media Use on Political Discussion , 2015 .

[21]  Martin Karlsson,et al.  Understanding Divergent Patterns of Political Discussion in Online Forums—Evidence from the European Citizens' Consultations , 2012 .

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

[23]  Benjamin K. Johnson,et al.  Implications of Pro- and Counterattitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization , 2014 .

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

[25]  Lilliana Mason,et al.  “I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization , 2015 .

[26]  Robert Y. Shapiro,et al.  Hearing the Opposition: It Starts at the Top , 2013 .

[27]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Affect, Not Ideology A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization , 2012 .

[28]  J. McLeod,et al.  Social Networks, Public Discussion and Civic Engagement: A Socialization Perspective , 2012 .

[29]  Lincoln Dahlberg.  The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere , 2001 .

[30]  D. O. Sears,et al.  The Oxford handbook of political psychology , 2013 .

[31]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[32]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[33]  R. Pedersen,et al.  Campaigns Matter: How Voters Become Knowledgeable and Efficacious During Election Campaigns , 2014 .

[34]  J. Rodgers,et al.  The Bootstrap, the Jackknife, and the Randomization Test: A Sampling Taxonomy. , 1999, Multivariate behavioral research.

[35]  R. Kelly Garrett,et al.  Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro‐ and Counterattitudinal News Consumption , 2014 .

[36]  Geert Lovink,et al.  Networks Without a Cause: A Critique of Social Media , 2012 .

[37]  Azi Lev-On,et al.  Happy Accidents: Deliberation and Online Exposure to Opposing Views , 2009 .

[38]  Kyu S. Hahn,et al.  Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use , 2009 .

[39]  Natalie Jomini Stroud,et al.  Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure , 2008 .

[40]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization , 2015 .

[41]  William Wresch,et al.  Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace , 2001, Inf. Soc..

[42]  Seth J. Hill.  The Opt-in Internet Panel : Survey Mode , Sampling Methodology and the Implications for Political Research , 2007 .

[43]  Jennifer Gibbs,et al.  Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[44]  Piotr S. Bobkowski,et al.  Talking Politics on Facebook , 2015 .

[45]  Sean J. Westwood,et al.  Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media , 2014, Commun. Res..

[46]  Matthew S. Levendusky,et al.  Partisan Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward the Opposition , 2013 .

[47]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and “Heterogeneity” of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation , 2009 .

[48]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[49]  Donatella Campus.  Political discussion, opinion leadership and trust , 2012 .

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

[51]  Sonia Livingstone,et al.  Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression , 2008, New Media Soc..

[52]  L. Huddy,et al.  From Group Identity to Political Cohesion and Commitment , 2013 .