We estimated ideological preferences of 3.8 million Twitter users and, using a data set of nearly 150 million tweets concerning 12 political and nonpolitical issues, explored whether online communication resembles an “echo chamber” (as a result of selective exposure and ideological segregation) or a “national conversation.” We observed that information was exchanged primarily among individuals with similar ideological preferences in the case of political issues (e.g., 2012 presidential election, 2013 government shutdown) but not many other current events (e.g., 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, 2014 Super Bowl). Discussion of the Newtown shootings in 2012 reflected a dynamic process, beginning as a national conversation before transforming into a polarized exchange. With respect to both political and nonpolitical issues, liberals were more likely than conservatives to engage in cross-ideological dissemination; this is an important asymmetry with respect to the structure of communication that is consistent with psychological theory and research bearing on ideological differences in epistemic, existential, and relational motivation. Overall, we conclude that previous work may have overestimated the degree of ideological segregation in social-media usage.
AdamicL. A.GlanceN. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery (pp. 36–43). doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277
2.
BackM. D.StopferJ. M.VazireS.GaddisS.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB.GoslingS. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 372–374. doi:10.1177/0956797609360756
3.
BakshyE.MessingS.AdamicL. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348, 1130–1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160
4.
BarberáP. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23, 76–91. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011
5.
BerraY. (2008). You can observe a lot by watching: What I’ve learned about teamwork from the Yankees and life. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
6.
BondR.MessingS. (2015). Quantifying social media’s political space: Estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on Facebook. American Political Science Review, 109, 62–78.
7.
BonicaA. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 367–386. doi:10.1111/ajps.12062
8.
ClintonJ. S.JackmanS.RiversD. (2004). The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review, 98, 355–370.
9.
ConoverM. D.GonçalvesB.FlamminiA.MenczerF. (2012). Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science, 1, 1–19. doi:10.1140/epjds6
10.
ConoverM. D.RatkiewiczJ.FranciscoM.GonçalvesB.FlamminiA.MenczerF. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 89–96). Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2847/3275
11.
DittoP. H.LopezD. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 345–355.
12.
GarrettR. K. (2009a). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 265–285. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
13.
GarrettR. K. (2009b). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676–699. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
14.
GentzkowM.ShapiroJ. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 1799–1839. doi:10.3386/w15916
15.
GolderS. A.MacyM. W. (2011). Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures. Science, 333, 1878–1881. doi:10.1126/science.1202775
16.
González-BailónS.Borge-HolthoeferJ.MorenoY. (2013). Broadcasters and hidden influentials in online protest diffusion. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 943–965. doi:10.1177/0002764213479371
17.
GreenacreM. J. (1993). Correspondence analysis in practice. London, England: Academic Press.
18.
HoffP.RafteryA. E.HandcockM. S. (2002). Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 1090–1098. doi:10.1198/016214502388618906
19.
HoggM. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 69–126). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39002-8
20.
HongL.PageS. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 101, 16385–16389. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101
21.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
22.
IyengarS.HahnK. S.KrosnickJ. A.WalkerJ. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. Journal of Politics, 70, 186–200. doi:10.1017/s0022381607080139
23.
JostJ. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.651
24.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
25.
JostJ. T.KrochikM. (2014). Ideological differences in epistemic motivation: Implications for attitude structure, depth of information processing, susceptibility to persuasion, and stereotyping. Advances in Motivation Science, 1, 181–231. doi:10.1016/bs.adms.2014.08.005
26.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2182588
27.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426–448. doi:10.1177/0093650209333030
28.
KosinskiM.StillwellD.GraepelT. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 5802–5805. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218772110
29.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30.
LaxJ. R.PhillipsJ. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 148–166. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00537.x
31.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
32.
MunroG. D.DittoP. H.LockhartL. K.FagerlinA.GreadyM.PetersonE. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 15–26. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2401_2
33.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 36–66. doi:10.1177/0002716214555474
36.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
37.
PfauM.HoustonJ. B.SemmlerS. M. (2007). Mediating the vote: The changing media landscape in U.S. presidential campaigns. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SearsD. O.FreedmanJ. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31, 194–213.
40.
ShortreedS.HandcockM. S.HoffP. (2006). Positional estimation within a latent space model for networks. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2, 24–33. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.2.1.24
SternC.WestT. V.JostJ. T.RuleN. O. (2014). “Ditto heads”: Do conservatives perceive greater consensus within their ranks than liberals?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1162–1177.
43.
Van BovenL.JuddC. M.ShermanD. K. (2012). Political polarization projection: Social projection of partisan attitude extremity and attitudinal processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 84–100.
44.
WebbE. J.CampbellD. T.SchwartzR. D.SechrestL. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Non-reactive research in the social sciences. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
45.
WestfallJ.Van BovenL.ChambersJ.JuddC. M. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 145–158.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
