The Paradox of Information Access: On Modeling Social-Media-Induced Polarization

The paper develops a stochastic model of drift in human beliefs that shows that today's sheer volume of accessible information, combined with consumers' confirmation bias and natural preference to more outlying content, necessarily lead to increased polarization. The model explains the paradox of growing ideological fragmentation in the age of increased sharing. As social media, search engines, and other real-time information sharing outlets purport to facilitate access to information, a need for content filtering arises due to the ensuing information overload. In general, consumers select information that matches their individual views and values. The bias inherent in such selection is echoed by today's information curation services that maximize user engagement by filtering new content in accordance with observed consumer preferences. Consequently, individuals get exposed to increasingly narrower bands of the ideology spectrum, thus fragmenting society into increasingly ideologically isolated enclaves. We call this dynamic the paradox of information access. The model also suggests the disproportionate damage attainable with a small infusion of well-positioned misinformation. The paper describes the modeling methodology, and evaluates modeling results for different population sizes and parameter settings.

[1]  Fokker-Planck Equation Treatment of Interacting Social Groups , 1973 .

[2]  Ping Chen Origin of the division of labour and a stochastic mechanism of differentiation , 1987 .

[3]  R. Nickerson Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[4]  B. Schwartz The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less , 2004 .

[5]  R. Axelrod The Dissemination of Culture , 1997 .

[6]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Boltzmann-like and Boltzmann-Fokker-Planck equations as a foundation of behavioral models , 1993, cond-mat/9805384.

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

[8]  Ananthram Swami,et al.  Consensus, Polarization and Clustering of Opinions in Social Networks , 2013, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[9]  Daniela V. Dimitrova,et al.  The Effects of Digital Media on Political Knowledge and Participation in Election Campaigns , 2014, Commun. Res..

[10]  V. Eguíluz,et al.  Globalization, polarization and cultural drift , 2005 .

[11]  Stuart Soroka,et al.  A Model of Attentiveness to Outlying News , 2018, Journal of Communication.

[12]  A. D. Fokker Die mittlere Energie rotierender elektrischer Dipole im Strahlungsfeld , 1914 .

[13]  S. Sharma,et al.  The Fokker-Planck Equation , 2010 .

[14]  Ron Berman,et al.  Curation Algorithms and Filter Bubbles in Social Networks , 2019, Mark. Sci..

[15]  Clayton Nall The Political Consequences of Spatial Policies: How Interstate Highways Facilitated Geographic Polarization , 2015, The Journal of Politics.

[16]  Ivan B. Dylko,et al.  The dark side of technology: An experimental investigation of the influence of customizability technology on online political selective exposure , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[18]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think , 2012 .

[19]  V. Antoniucci,et al.  Is social polarization related to urban density? Evidence from the Italian housing market , 2017, Landscape and Urban Planning.

[20]  Eric Bonabeau,et al.  The perils of the imitation age. , 2004, Harvard business review.

[21]  Susan T. Fiske,et al.  Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. , 1980 .

[22]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[23]  Valeriĭ Isaakovich Kli︠a︡t︠s︡kin Lectures on Dynamics of Stochastic Systems , 2010 .

[24]  Lav R. Varshney,et al.  Must Surprise Trump Information? , 2019, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[25]  Joshua A. Tucker,et al.  Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature , 2018 .

[26]  J. Druckman,et al.  The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics , 2017 .

[27]  Dominic Spohr Fake news and ideological polarization , 2017 .

[28]  P. Bonacich,et al.  The effect of network density and homogeneity on attitude polarization , 1990 .

[29]  Pamela J. Shoemaker,et al.  Hardwired for News: Using Biological and Cultural Evolution to Explain the Surveillance Function , 1996 .

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

[31]  W. Weidlich,et al.  THE STATISTICAL DESCRIPTION OF POLARIZATION PHENOMENA IN SOCIETY , 1971 .

[32]  Jörg Oechssler,et al.  Imitation under stress , 2017 .