This paper examines the polarization and cyberbalkanization of opinions within a Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) community on Zhihu, a prominent Chinese social question-answering platform. The study explores the impact of online interactions on opinion dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilizing a hybrid content and network analysis approach, the research identifies distinct subcommunities within the TCM debate and analyzes the influence of opinion leaders and user participation. The study finds a high level of cyberbalkanization, with users forming segregated communities based on their views towards TCM. However, contrary to expectations, the overall polarization levels do not increase monotonically over time, despite fluctuations during peak discussion periods. Further analysis reveals that the influx of moderate views from low-engagement users during heated debates counterbalances the extreme rhetoric of high-engagement partisan users. The longitudinal patterns suggest a potential convergence of views between the entrenched and peripheral users over time. These findings highlight the nuanced interplay between cyberbalkanization and polarization within online communities, challenging assumptions of an inevitable polarizing effect. The study underscores the importance of considering user heterogeneity and temporal dynamics when examining opinion polarization in digital spaces, offering insights into the complex forces shaping public discourse in the contemporary media environment.
BarberáP. (2020). Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. In PersilyN.TuckerJ. A. (Eds.), Social media and democracy (1st ed., pp. 34–55). Cambridge University Press.
2.
BarberáP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A.BonneauR. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
3.
BeamM. A.HutchensM. J.HmielowskiJ. D. (2018). Facebook news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 940–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1444783
4.
BenklerY.FarisR.RobertsH. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.
5.
BimberB. A.DavisR. (2003). Campaigning online: The internet in U.S. Elections. Oxford University Press.
6.
BrainardL. A. (2009). Cyber-communities. International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, 587–600. Springer.
7.
CarpiniM. X. D.CookF. L.JacobsL. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
8.
ChanC.FuK. (2017). The relationship between cyberbalkanization and opinion polarization: Time-series analysis on facebook pages and opinion polls during the Hong Kong occupy movement and the associated debate on political reform. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(5), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12192
9.
CinelliM.MoralesG. D. F.GaleazziA.QuattrociocchiW.StarniniM. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), Article e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
10.
ColleoniE.RozzaA.ArvidssonA. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data: Political homophily on twitter. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084
11.
DeffuantG.AmblardF.WeisbuchG.FaureT. (2002). How can extremism prevail? A study based on the relative agreement interaction model. The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(4). Retrieved from https://www.jasss.org/5/4/1.html.
12.
DowningJ.DronR. (2022). Theorising the ‘security influencer’: Speaking security, terror and muslims on social media during the manchester bombings. New Media & Society, 24(5), 1234–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820971786
13.
DuboisE.BlankG. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1428656
FreelonD.McIlwainC.ClarkM. (2018). Quantifying the power and consequences of social media protest. New Media & Society, 20(3), 990–1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676646
16.
FreudenthalerR.WesslerH. (2022). Mapping emerging and legacy outlets online by their democratic functions—agonistic, deliberative, or corrosive?The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(2), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211015077
GalamS.VandewalleN. (1998). A new conjecture extends the GM law for percolation thresholds to dynamical situations. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 09(04), 667–671. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0129183198000558
19.
GarrettR. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
20.
GoodmanD. S. (2014). Class in contemporary China. John Wiley & Sons.
21.
GrimmerJ.StewartB. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028
22.
GründlJ. (2022). Populist ideas on social media: A dictionary-based measurement of populist communication. New Media & Society, 24(6), 1481–1499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820976970
23.
GuessA.NyhanB.LyonsB.ReiflerJ. (2018). Avoiding the echo chamber about echo chambers. Knight Foundation.
24.
HäusslerT. (2018). Heating up the debate? Measuring fragmentation and polarisation in a German climate change hyperlink network. Social Networks, 54, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.10.002
25.
KarlsenR.Steen-JohnsenK.WollebækD.EnjolrasB. (2017). Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication, 32(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323117695734
26.
KastenmüllerA.GreitemeyerT.JonasE.FischerP.FreyD. (2010). Selective exposure: The impact of collectivism and individualism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 745–763. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X478988
27.
KimY.ChenH.-T.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2013). Stumbling upon news on the Internet: Effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2607–2614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.005
28.
LazarsfeldP.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press.
29.
LeeC.ShinJ.HongA. (2018). Does social media use really make people politically polarized? Direct and indirect effects of social media use on political polarization in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.11.005
30.
LeeE.-J. (2006). When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated communication?Communication Research, 33(6), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206293248
31.
LeeF. L. F. (2016). Impact of social media on opinion polarization in varying times. Communication and the Public, 1(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047315617763
32.
LeeH.HahnK. S. (2018). Partisan selective following on twitter over time: Polarization or depolarization?Asian Journal of Communication, 28(3), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2017.1384845
33.
LiangH. (2018). Broadcast versus viral spreading: The structure of diffusion cascades and selective sharing on social media. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy006
34.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
35.
MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
36.
MetzgerM. J.HartsellE. H.FlanaginA. J. (2020). Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research, 47(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215613136
37.
MoscoviciS.ZavalloniM. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027568
38.
MutzD. C.MartinP. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401000223
39.
NewmanM. E. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(23), 8577–8582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103
40.
PariserE. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
41.
PengA. Y. (2020). A feminist reading of China’s digital public sphere. Springer.
42.
PengA. Y.ChenS. (2021). Traditional Chinese medicine works: A politicised scientific debate in the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Communication, 31(5), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2021.1913618
RecueroR.ZagoG.SoaresF. (2019). Using social network analysis and social capital to identify user roles on polarized political conversations on twitter. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 205630511984874. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119848745
45.
Reiter-HaasM.KlöschB.HadlerM.LexE. (2023). Polarization of opinions on COVID-19 measures: Integrating twitter and survey data. Social Science Computer Review, 41(5), 1811–1835. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393221087662
46.
ScheidV. (2002). Chinese medicine in contemporary China: Plurality and synthesis. Duke University Press.
47.
Schulz-HardtS.FreyD.LüthgensC.MoscoviciS. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.655
48.
ScottJ. (2017). Social network analysis (4th ed.). Sage.
49.
SobkowiczP.SobkowiczA. (2012). Two-year study of emotion and communication patterns in a highly polarized political discussion forum. Social Science Computer Review, 30(4), 448–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312436512
50.
StonerJ. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk [Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
StrykerJ. E.WrayR. J.HornikR. C.YanovitzkyI. (2006). Validation of database search terms for content analysis: The case of cancer news coverage. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300212
53.
SunsteinC. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
54.
Van AlstyneM.BrynjolfssonE. (1996). Electronic communities: Global village or cyberbalkans. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on information systems (pp. 80–98). Wiley.
55.
WojcieszakM. (2010). ‘Don’t talk to me’: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society, 12(4), 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342775
56.
ZhangC. (2020a). Right-wing populism with Chinese characteristics? Identity, otherness and global imaginaries in debating world politics online. European Journal of International Relations, 26(1), 88–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119850253
57.
ZhangW.HuL.ParkJ. (2023). Politics go “viral”: A computational text analysis of the public attribution and attitude regarding the COVID-19 crisis and governmental responses on twitter. Social Science Computer Review, 41(3), 790–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211053743
