The Impact of Social Media on Political Polarization
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/jcomm.1686Keywords:
Social Media, Impact, Political Polarization, Online Communication, Media InfluenceAbstract
Purpose: The main objective of this study was to explore the impact of social media on political polarization.
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 revealed that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to the impact of social media on political polarization. Preliminary empirical review revealed that social media significantly contributes to political polarization through mechanisms like filter bubbles and echo chambers. It emphasizes the need for media literacy programs and critical thinking to navigate these platforms effectively. The implications are substantial, impacting society and democracy. Future research should delve into individual characteristics and cross-cultural variations, while policymakers and social media companies should consider transparency and algorithmic adjustments. By addressing these challenges and promoting informed discourse, we can work towards a healthier democratic environment in the digital age.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The Filter Bubble Theory, Spiral of Silence Theory and the Selective Exposure Theory may be used to anchor future studies on political polarization. The study offered four key recommendations. Firstly, there is a need to enhance digital media literacy programs to equip individuals with critical thinking skills to discern credible information on social media. Secondly, social media platforms should prioritize algorithmic transparency and accountability to avoid inadvertently exacerbating polarization. Thirdly, promoting civil and constructive online discourse, discouraging toxic behavior, and enforcing moderation policies can foster a more inclusive online environment. Lastly, supporting independent fact-checking and news verification initiatives can help combat the spread of misinformation and promote reliance on credible sources, thereby reducing the impact of misinformation on political polarization.
Downloads
References
Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12-22. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.009
Afrobarometer. (2018). Democracy and political polarization in Kenya: Evidence from the Afrobarometer. Retrieved from https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/Working%20paper/Afrobarometer-WP151-Kenya-Political-Polarization.pdf
Afrobarometer. (2020). Afrobarometer survey data. Retrieved from https://www.afrobarometer.org/
Asatsuma, S. (2018). Polarization in Japanese public opinion: Economic inequality, social policy and politics. Asian Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 148-166. DOI: 10.1080/02185377.2018.1450579
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
Bode, L., & Dalrymple, K. E. (2020). Politics in 140 characters or less: Campaign communication, network heterogeneity, and Twitter use by US politicians. Political Communication, 37(2), 226-249.
Bovet, A., & Makse, H. A. (2019). Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1-9.
Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P. (2017). UK general election 2017: Reflections on the campaign and its aftermath. Political Quarterly, 88(2), 286-293. DOI: 10.1111/1467-923X.12418
Conover, M. D., Ferrara, E., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2018). The digital echo chamber: Understanding the referral structure of political memes on Facebook. Political Communication, 35(3), 396-418.
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320.
Guess, A. M., 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). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 472-480.
Hobolt, S. B. (2018). Brexit and the 2017 UK general election: A second-order election model of the Brexit vote. The Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(5), 1095-1103. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12751
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Klapper, J. T. (1960). The Effects of Mass Communication. Free Press.
Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication, 33(2), 283-301. doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1121949
Mare, A., & Adi, A. (2019). Social media, election campaigning, and political polarization: Evidence from Africa. Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 832-848.
Nakamura, K., & Suzuki, S. (2018). Security and constitutional revision in Japan: Assessing public opinion on the basis of the Japonica Secure Japan Survey. Japan Forum, 30(1), 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/09555803.2017.1404087
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43-51.
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin.
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Stories Increases Perceived Accuracy of Stories Without Warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944-4957.
Pew Research Center. (2020). Americans' Views of Misinformation and Disinformation. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/11/24/americans-views-of-misinformation-and-disinformation/
Pew Research Center. (2020). Political polarization in the American public. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
Rotberg, R. I. (2018). Political polarization in Sub-Saharan Africa: A grave danger. Africa Center for Strategic Studies. Retrieved from https://africacenter.org/spotlight/political-polarization-in-sub-saharan-africa-a-grave-danger/
Sasaki, T., & Wakabayashi, M. (2019). Attitudes toward immigration in Japan: Evidence from a national survey experiment. Asian Politics & Policy, 11(3), 444-464. DOI: 10.1111/aspp.12402
Stroud, N. J. (2017). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 67(4), 563-586.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2020). The online media landscape and political polarization: A comparative analysis of Europe. Digital Journalism, 8(2), 243-261.
World Values Survey. (2020). Japan - World Values Survey Wave 7 (2020). Retrieved from https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Polycarp Otieno
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.
