This article addresses questions of ideological polarization and the filter bubble in social media. It develops a theoretical analysis of ideological polarization on social media by considering a range of relevant factors. Over recent years, fake news and the effect of the social media filter bubble have become of increasing importance both in academic and general discourse. The article reviews the assumption that algorithmic curation and personalization systems place users in a filter bubble of content that decreases their likelihood of encountering ideologically cross-cutting news content. At the intersection of new media, politics and behavioural science, the article establishes a theoretical framework for further research and future actions by society, policymakers and industries.
AbramowitzAISaundersKL (2006) Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly59: 175–187.
2.
AllcottHGentzkowM (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives31(2): 211–236.
BarberaPJostTTNaglarJ. (2015) Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science26(10): 1531–1542.
5.
BaronJ (1991) Beliefs about thinking. In NickersonRS (ed) Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 2(2), 1998, pp. 175–220.
6.
BaronJ (1995) Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and Reasoning1(3): 221–235.
7.
BellD (1960) The end of ideology: on the exhaustion of political ideas in the fifties. In: DaltonRJ (ed) Social Modernization and the End of Ideology Debate: Patterns of Ideological Polarization. Japanese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 7(1), 2006, pp. 1–22.
8.
BishopB (2008) The Big Sort: Why The Clustering of Like-minded America is Tearing Us Apart. New York: Mariner Books.
9.
BogardusES (1947) Measurement of personal-group relations. Sociometry10(4): 306–311.
10.
BorgesiusFJZTrillingDMöllerJ. (2016) Should we worry about filter bubbles?Internet Policy Review5(1): 1–16.
11.
BoutylineAWillerR (2017) The social structure of political echo chambers: variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology38(3): 551–569.
12.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: the contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication60: 680–700.
13.
CampbellJE (2008) Presidential politics in a polarized nation: The reelection of George W. Bush. In: IyengarSSoodG and LelkesY (ed) Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 76(3), 2012, pp. 405–431.
14.
ChambreJKulkarniCKlemmerSR (2017) Escaping the echo chamber: ideologically and geographically diverse discussions about politics. In: MarkGFussellS. (eds) Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 06–11 May 2017, pp. 2423–2428. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
15.
DaltonRJ (2006) Social modernization and the end of ideology debate: patterns of ideological polarization. Japanese Journal of Political Science7(1): 1–22.
16.
DellaVignaSKaplanE (2006) The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting. Institute for International Economic Studies. Stockholm University. Seminar Paper No. 748. pp. 1–36.
17.
Del VicarioMZolloFCaldarelliG. (2017) Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: the Brexit debate. Social Networks50: 6–16.
18.
DiFranzoDGloria-GarciaK (2017) Filter bubbles and fake news. XRDS Magazine23(3): 32–35.
19.
DylkoIDolgovIHoffmanW. (2017) The dark side of technology: an experimental investigation of the influence of customizability technology on online political selective exposure. Computer in Human Behavior73: 181–190.
20.
FiorinaMPAbramsSJPopeJC (2006) Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
21.
FreyD (1986) Recent research on selective exposure to information. In: LiaoQVFuWMackayWendy E. (eds) Beyond the Filter Bubble: Interactive Effects of Perceived Threat and Topic Involvement on Selective Exposure to Information. Changing Perspectives Conference, Paris, France, 27 April–02 May 2013, pp. 2359–2368. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
22.
FriedrichJ (1993) Primary error detection and minimization (PEDMIN) strategies in social cognition: a reinterpretation of confirmation bias phenomena. Psychological Review100(2): 298–319.
23.
GastilJBlackLMoscovitzK (2008) Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face to face groups. In: BrundidgeJ (ed) Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, Vol. 60, 2010, pp. 680–700.
Gil de ZúñigaH (2015) Toward a European public sphere? The promise and perils of modern democracy in the age of digital and social media. International Journal of Communication9(1): 3152–3160.
27.
Gil de ZúñigaHDiehlT (2017) Citizenship, social media, and big data: current and future research in social sciences. Social Science Computer Review35(1): 3–9.
HuckfeldtRBeckPDaltonR. (1995) Political environments cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion. In: BrundidgeJ (ed) Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, Vol. 60, 2010, pp. 680–700.
33.
InglehartR (1977) The Silent Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
34.
InlgehartR (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35.
IyengarS (1990) The accessibility bias in politics: television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research2(1): 1–15.
36.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
37.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
38.
JacobsonGC (2000) The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York: Longman.
39.
JacobsonSMyungEJohnsonSL (2016) Open media or echo chamber: the use of links in audience discussions on the Facebook pages of partisan news organizations. Information, Communication and Society19(7): 875–891.
40.
KirchheimerO (1966) The transformation of the Western European party systems. In: DaltonRJ (ed) Social Modernization and the End of Ideology Debate: Patterns of Ideological Polarization. Japanese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 7(1), 2006, pp. 1–22.
41.
KlapperJT (1960) The Effects of Mass Communication. Glencoe: The Free Press.
42.
KramerADIGuilloryJEHancockJT (2014) Experimental evidence of massive scale emotional contagion through social networks. In: Del VicarioMZolloFCaldarelliGScalaAQuattrociocchiW (eds) Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks, Vol. 50, pp. 6–16.
43.
KullSRamsayCLewisE (2004) Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly118(4): 569–598.
44.
LiaoQVFuW (2013) Beyond the filter bubble: interactive effects of perceived threat and topic involvement on selective exposure to information. In: Changing Perspectives Conference 2013. pp. 2359–2368.
45.
McKuenM (1990) Speaking of politics: individual conversational choice, public opinion, and the prospects for deliberative democracy. In: BrundidgeJ (ed) Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, Vol. 60, 2010, pp. 680–700.
46.
McLeodJMScheufeleDAMoyP (1999) Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. In: BrundidgeJ (ed) Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, Vol. 60, 2010, pp. 680–700.
MoscoviciSZavalloniM (1969) The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1(2): 125–135.
49.
MouraoRRYooJGeiseS. (2015) Online news, social media and European union attitudes: a multidimensional analysis. International Journal of Communication9(24): 3199–3222.
50.
MullainathanSShleiferA (2008) The Market for News. In: MialonHMRubinPH (eds) (2008), Economics, Law, and Individual Rights. Oxford & New York: Routledge Books, pp. 90–107.
51.
MyersDLammH (1976) The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin83(4): 602–603.
52.
NickersonRS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology2(2): 175–220.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Group.
55.
PerkinsDNAllenRHafnerJ (1983) Difficulties in everyday reasoning. In: NickersonRS (ed) Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 2(2), 1998, pp. 175–220.
PriceVCappellaJNNirL (2002) Does more disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? In: BrundidgeJ (ed) Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, Vol. 60, 2010, pp. 680–700.
58.
QuattrociocchiWCaldarelliGScalaA (2014) Opinion dynamics on interacting networks: media competition and social influence. Scientific Reports4: 1–7.
59.
RaderEGrayR (2015) Understanding user believes about algorithmic curation in the Facebook news feed. In: BegoleBKimJ (eds) Proceedings of the 33 rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 18–23 April 2015, pp. 173–182. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
60.
SaldañaMMcGregrorSGil de ZúñigaH (2015) Social media as a public space for politics: crossnational comparison of news consumption and participatory behaviors in the United States and the United Kingdom. International Journal of -Communication9(1): 3304–3326.
61.
ScheufeleDANisbitMCBrossardD. (2004) Social structure and citizenship: examining the impact of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. In: BrundidgeJ (ed) Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, Vol. 60, 2010, pp. 680–700.
62.
SearsDOFreedmanJL (1967) Selective exposure to information: a critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly31(2): 194–213.
ThomasJ (1979) The changing nature of partisan divisions in the West: trends in domestic policy orientations in ten party systems. In: DaltonRJ (ed) Social Modernization and the End of Ideology Debate: Patterns of Ideological Polarization. Japanese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 7(1), 2006, pp. 1–22.
70.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology5: 207–232.
