The Relationship between Political Ideology and Social Media Echo Chambers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/ijhss.1781Keywords:
Political Ideology, Social Media, Echo Chambers, Influence, Information Consumption, Selective Exposure, Democratic DiscourseAbstract
Purpose: The general purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between political ideology and social media echo chambers.
Methodology: The study adopted a desktop research methodology. Desk research refers to secondary data or that which can be collected without fieldwork. Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive's time, telephone charges and directories. Thus, the study relied on already published studies, reports and statistics. This secondary data was easily accessed through the online journals and library.
Findings: The findings reveal that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to political ideology and social media echo chambers. Preliminary empirical review revealed that echo chambers exist on social media platforms, with individuals predominantly exposed to information aligning with their political beliefs. Social Identity Theory and Selective Exposure Theory were instrumental in understanding how users' political affiliations influenced their interactions online, reinforcing echo chambers. These echo chambers, driven by users' desire for ingroup solidarity and selective exposure to like-minded content, posed challenges to democratic discourse and societal cohesion. The study emphasized the importance of addressing these challenges by promoting media literacy, critical thinking, and exposure to diverse viewpoints on social media platforms to foster a more inclusive and deliberative public sphere.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The Social Identity theory, Selective Exposure theory and Dual Process theory may be used to anchor future studies on the relationship between political ideology and social media echo chambers. The study provided valuable recommendations that contributed to advancing theoretical understanding, informing practical interventions, and shaping policy responses to the challenges posed by echo chambers in contemporary political discourse. It emphasized the integration of social identity theory and selective exposure theory into theoretical frameworks, highlighting the psychological mechanisms driving the formation of echo chambers. Practically, the study underscored the importance of promoting media literacy and critical thinking skills among social media users, while suggesting that social media platforms play a pivotal role in shaping users' information environments. On the policy front, it emphasized the need for evidence-based interventions aimed at mitigating the adverse effects of echo chambers on democratic governance and societal cohesion.
Downloads
References
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?. Psychological science, 26(10), 1531-1542.
Bastos, M. T., Raimundo, R., Travitzki, R., Cunha, E. E., & Baron, N. (2019). An Anatomy of WhatsApp Virality: How Message Diffusion Contributes to the Formation of Conversational Threads. Social Media + Society, 5(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119866616
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2021). Cross-cutting exposure and partisan polarization: Evidence from the national reader study. American Political Science Review, 115(1), 176-193.
Chagas, M., & Sotero, A. (2020). Polarization and the role of social media in the 2018 Brazilian presidential election. In R. Marques, T. Scholz, & T. Magalhães (Eds.), Digital Democracy in Latin America (pp. 93-108). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31166-6_6
Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1), eaau4586.
Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). The sources of partisan misinformation about COVID-19. American Journal of Political Science, 65(4), 750-764.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2012). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 175-197.
Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Free Press of Glencoe.
Mitchell, A., Oliphant, J. B., Shearer, E., & Matsa, K. E. (2021). News Use across Social Media Platforms in 2020. Pew Research Center. https://www.journalname.com/full-article-url
Napoli, P. M. (2021). Social Media and the Public Interest: Media Regulation in the Disinformation Age. Columbia University Press.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(7), 2521-2526.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press.
Pew Research Center. (2021). Social Media Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/
Sakamoto, Y., & Mikami, K. (2018). Homophily on social media: Usefulness of topic diversity and network structure in personal network formation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(2), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmx037
Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2016). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., & Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. William & Mary Law Review, 59(3), 101-177.
Wang, Y., & Kosinski, M. (2018). Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(2), 246-257.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Smith Namazzi
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.