Social Media, Network Heterogeneity, and Opinion Polarization

Employing a national probability survey in 2012, this study tests relationships between social media, social network service (SNS) network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. The results show that the use of social media is a positive predictor of the level of network heterogeneity on SNSs and that the relationship is mediated by several news-related activities, such as getting news, news posting, and talking about politics on SNSs. Testing the association between SNS network heterogeneity and polarization, this study considers 3 different dimensions of opinion polarization: partisan, ideological, and issue. The findings indicate that political discussion moderates the relationship between network heterogeneity and the level of partisan and ideological polarizations. The implications of this study are discussed.

[1]  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 .

[2]  R. Garrett,et al.  A Turn Toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004–2008 , 2013 .

[3]  Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick,et al.  Selective Exposure and Reinforcement of Attitudes and Partisanship Before a Presidential Election , 2012 .

[4]  S. Valenzuela,et al.  Social Networks that Matter: Exploring the Role of Political Discussion for Online Political Participation , 2012 .

[5]  Rossano Schifanella,et al.  Friendship prediction and homophily in social media , 2012, TWEB.

[6]  Margaret Scammell,et al.  The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication , 2012 .

[7]  S. Valenzuela,et al.  The Social Media Basis of Youth Protest Behavior: The Case of Chile , 2012 .

[8]  Gilad Mishne,et al.  ClickRank: Learning Session-Context Models to Enrich Web Search Ranking , 2012, TWEB.

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

[10]  Magdalena Wojcieszak,et al.  Correlates of Party, Ideology and Issue Based Extremity in an era of Egocentric Publics , 2011 .

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

[12]  Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick,et al.  Reinforcement of the Political Self Through Selective Exposure to Political Messages , 2011 .

[13]  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..

[14]  Keith N. Hampton,et al.  How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings , 2011, New Media Soc..

[15]  Jingbo Meng,et al.  Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counterattitudinal Political Information , 2011 .

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

[17]  Anabel Quan-Haase,et al.  Uses and Gratifications of Social Media: A Comparison of Facebook and Instant Messaging , 2010 .

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

[19]  Xiaowei Xu,et al.  Investigating Homophily in Online Social Networks , 2010, 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.

[20]  Bryan M. Parsons,et al.  Social Networks and the Affective Impact of Political Disagreement , 2010 .

[21]  Magdalena Wojcieszak,et al.  Bridging the Divide or Intensifying the Conflict? How Disagreement Affects Strong Predilections about Sexual Minorities , 2010 .

[22]  Hosung Park,et al.  What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? , 2010, WWW '10.

[23]  Daniel M. Butler,et al.  The World Wide Web and the U.S. Political News Market , 2010 .

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

[25]  Magdalena Wojcieszak,et al.  ‘Don’t talk to me’: effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism , 2010, New Media Soc..

[26]  Kerk F. Kee,et al.  Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

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

[28]  Andrew R. Binder,et al.  The Soul of a Polarized Democracy , 2009, Commun. Res..

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

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

[31]  Young Mie Kim,et al.  Issue Publics in the New Information Environment , 2009, Commun. Res..

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

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

[34]  Kyle L. Saunders,et al.  Is Polarization a Myth? , 2008, The Journal of Politics.

[35]  Natalie Jomini Stroud,et al.  Media Effects, Selective Exposure, and Fahrenheit 9/11 , 2007 .

[36]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The Benefits of Facebook "Friends: " Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[37]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Democracy Based on Difference: Examining the Links Between Structural Heterogeneity, Heterogeneity of Discussion Networks, and Democratic Citizenship , 2006 .

[38]  Michael F. Meffert,et al.  The Effects of Negativity and Motivated Information Processing During a Political Campaign. , 2006 .

[39]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse , 2006, The Journal of Politics.

[40]  P. S. Nivola,et al.  Characteristics and causes of America's polarized politics , 2006 .

[41]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs , 2006 .

[42]  Lilach Nir,et al.  Ambivalent Social Networks and Their Consequences for Participation , 2005 .

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

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

[45]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Examining Differential Gains From Internet Use: Comparing the Moderating Role of Talk and Online Interactions , 2005 .

[46]  Hoon Lee,et al.  Talking Politics and Engaging Politics: , 2005, Commun. Res..

[47]  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.

[48]  M. D. Carpini,et al.  Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature , 2004 .

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

[50]  Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement , 2004 .

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

[52]  Diana C. Mutz.  Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice , 2002, American Political Science Review.

[53]  J. Cappella,et al.  Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion? , 2002 .

[54]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media , 2001, American Political Science Review.

[55]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Democracy for some? How political talk both informs and polarizes the electorate , 2001 .

[56]  Cass R. Sunstein,et al.  Deliberative Trouble - Why Groups Go to Extremes , 2000 .

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

[58]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  Biased Assimilation, Attitude Polarization, and Affect in Reactions to Stereotype-Relevant Scientific Information , 1997 .

[59]  John H. Evans,et al.  Have American's Social Attitudes Become More Polarized? , 1996, American Journal of Sociology.

[60]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. , 1996 .

[61]  Alain Boyer.  Democracy and Disagreement , 1995 .

[62]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign , 1995 .

[63]  R. Little.  Regression with Missing X's: A Review , 2011 .

[64]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions , 1992 .

[65]  J. Habermas,et al.  The structural transformation of the public sphere : an inquiryinto a category of bourgeois society , 1991 .

[66]  B. Guerin,et al.  Cognitive tuning sets: Anticipating the consequences of communication , 1989 .

[67]  R. Huckfeldt,et al.  Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[68]  Dean A. Ziemke.  Selective Exposure in a Presidential Campaign Contingent on Certainty and Salience , 1980 .

[69]  P. Blau.  Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure , 1978 .

[70]  Brian Groombridge,et al.  The Effects of Mass Communication , 1965, Mental Health.

[71]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .