Exploring How Homophily and Accessibility Can Facilitate Polarization in Social Networks

Polarization in online social networks has gathered a significant amount of attention in the research community and in the public sphere due to stark disagreements with millions of participants on topics surrounding politics, climate, the economy and other areas where an agreement is required. This work investigates into greater depth a type of model that can produce ideological segregation as a result of polarization depending on the strength of homophily and the ability of users to access similar minded individuals. Whether increased access can induce larger amounts of societal separation is important to investigate, and this work sheds further insight into the phenomenon. Center to the hypothesis of homophilic alignments in friendship generation is that of a discussion group or community. These are modeled and the investigation into their effect on the dynamics of polarization is presented. The social implications demonstrate that initial phases of an ideological exchange can result in increased polarization, although a consensus in the long run is expected and that the separation between groups is amplified when groups are constructed with ideological homophilic preferences.

[1]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Modeling Users' Activity on Twitter Networks: Validation of Dunbar's Number , 2011, PloS one.

[2]  José Ramón Saura,et al.  Do Online Comments Affect Environmental Management? Identifying Factors Related to Environmental Management and Sustainability of Hotels , 2018, Sustainability.

[3]  S. Levin,et al.  The dynamics of political polarization , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  José Ramón Saura,et al.  Attitudes Expressed in Online Comments about Environmental Factors in the Tourism Sector: An Exploratory Study , 2018, International journal of environmental research and public health.

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

[6]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates , 1992 .

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

[8]  Leaf Van Boven,et al.  Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States , 2015, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[9]  Eckehard Olbrich,et al.  Opinion polarization by learning from social feedback , 2017, The Journal of Mathematical Sociology.

[10]  B. Weitz Hosted By , 2003 .

[11]  I. N. A. C. I. J. H. Fowler Book Review: Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. , 2009 .

[12]  A. Flache,et al.  Differentiation without Distancing. Explaining Bi-Polarization of Opinions without Negative Influence , 2013, PloS one.

[13]  S. Davies The twin impact of homophily and accessibility on ideological polarization , 2017 .

[14]  Thomas C. Schelling,et al.  Dynamic models of segregation , 1971 .

[15]  Yasufumi Shibanai,et al.  Effects of Global Information Feedback on Diversity , 2001 .

[16]  M. Newman,et al.  Mixing patterns in networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  M. Maes,et al.  Will the Personalization of Online Social Networks Foster Opinion Polarization , 2015 .

[18]  Patti M. Valkenburg,et al.  Developing a Model of Adolescent Friendship Formation on the Internet , 2005, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[19]  Andreas Flache,et al.  Why more contact may increase cultural polarization , 2006, physics/0604196.

[20]  M. Macy,et al.  Small Worlds and Cultural Polarization , 2011 .

[21]  Ricardo Alonso,et al.  Persuading Voters , 2015 .

[22]  Eckehard Olbrich,et al.  An Argument Communication Model of Polarization and Ideological Alignment , 2018, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[23]  Aaron Smith,et al.  Teens, technology and friendships , 2015 .

[24]  Noah Mark,et al.  Culture and Competition: Homophily and distancing Explanations for Cultural Niches , 2003, American Sociological Review.

[25]  Adrian Carro,et al.  The noisy voter model on complex networks , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[26]  Keith N. Hampton,et al.  CORE NETWORKS, SOCIAL ISOLATION, AND NEW MEDIA , 2011 .

[27]  Erica L. Anthony,et al.  Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies , 2017 .

[28]  R. Holley,et al.  Ergodic Theorems for Weakly Interacting Infinite Systems and the Voter Model , 1975 .

[29]  David Lee,et al.  Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[31]  N. Christakis,et al.  The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network Over 32 Years , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.