Disagreement persists as to whether social networking sites (SNSs) are used more frequently to facilitate cross-cutting or like-minded discussions. We examine the relationship between the use of SNSs and involvement in discussions with politically similar and dissimilar others among a sample of US Democrats and Republicans. Affective polarization is negatively related to involvement in cross-cutting discussions, suggesting that individuals extend their dislike of the opposing political party to out-party members within their online social networks. Moreover, political discussion with one’s friends on SNSs plays a mediating role in involvement in both cross-cutting and like-minded discussions. Finally, party identification moderates the relationship between SNS use and involvement in cross-cutting discussions, indicating that Republicans participate more frequently than Democrats in cross-cutting exchanges on SNSs. In the light of these findings, we discuss the contribution of SNSs to the ideals of deliberative democracy.
AdamicLAGlanceN (2005) The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. In: LinkKDD ‘05: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on link discovery, Chicago, IL, 21–24 August, pp. 36–43. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicL (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
4.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
5.
boyddmEllisonNB (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 210–230.
6.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere. Journal of Communication60(4): 680–700.
7.
CampusD (2012) Political discussion, opinion leadership and trust. European Journal of Communication27(1): 46–55.
8.
ConoverMDGonçalvesBFlamminiA. (2012) Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science1(6): 1–19.
9.
ConoverMDRatkiewiczJFranciscoM. (2011) Political polarization on Twitter. In:Proceedings of the fifth international conference on weblogs and social media, Barcelona, 17–21 July, pp. 89–96. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
10.
DahlbergL (2001) The Internet and democratic discourse: exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society4(4): 615–633.
EvelandWPJrHivelyMH (2009) Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication59(2): 205–224.
13.
EvelandWPJrHutchensMJMoreyAC (2013) Political network size and its antecedents and consequences. Political Communication30(3): 371–394.
14.
FritzMSTaylorABMacKinnonDP (2012) Explanation of two anomalous results in statistical mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research47(1): 61–87.
15.
GarrettRKStroudNJ (2014) Partisan paths to exposure diversity: differences in pro- and counter-attitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication64(4): 680–701.
16.
GarrettRKGvirsmanSDJohnsonBK. (2014) Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research40(3): 309–332.
17.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
18.
HalpernDGibbsJ (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 1159–1168.
19.
HansenKMPedersenRT (2014) Campaigns matter: how voters become knowledgeable and efficacious during election campaigns. Political Communication31(2): 303–324.
20.
HargittaiEGalloJKaneM (2007) Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice134(1): 67–86.
21.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
HillSJLoJVavreckL. (2007) The opt-in Internet panel: survey mode, sampling methodology and the implications for political research. Unpublished manuscript, University of California—Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
24.
HuddyL (2013) From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In: HuddyLSearsDOLevyJ (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 737–773.
25.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
26.
IyengarSWestwoodSJ (2015) Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 690–707.
27.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
28.
KarlssonM (2012) Understanding divergent patterns of political discussion in online forums—evidence from the European Citizens’ Consultations. Journal of Information Technology & Politics9(1): 64–81.
29.
KeithBEMaglebyDBNelsonCJ. (1992) The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
30.
KimY (2011) The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: the relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior27(2): 971–977.
31.
LavineHGJohnstonCDSteenbergenMR (2012) The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
LeeJKChoiJKimC. (2014) Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication64(4): 702–722.
33.
LevenduskyM (2013) Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Political Communication30(4): 565–581.
34.
Lev-OnAManinB (2009) Happy accidents: deliberation and online exposure to opposing views. In: DaviesTGangadharanSP (eds) Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 105–122.
35.
LivingstoneS (2008) Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society10(3): 393–411.
36.
LovinkG (2011) Networks without a Cause: A Critique of Social Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.
37.
McDevittM (2005) The partisan child: developmental provocation as a model of political socialization. International Journal of Public Opinion Research18(1): 67–88.
38.
McLeodJMLeeN-J (2012) Social networks, public discussion and civic engagement: a socialization perspective. In: SemetkoHAScammellM (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication. London: SAGE, pp. 197–208.
39.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27: 415–444.
40.
MasonL (2015) “I disrespectfully agree”: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(1): 128–145.
41.
MessingSWestwoodSJ (2014) Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research41(8): 1042–1063.
42.
MillerPRBobkowskiPSMaliniakD. (2015) Talking politics on Facebook: network centrality and political discussion practices in social media. Political Research Quarterly68(2): 377–391.
43.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PetrocikJR (2009) Measuring party support: leaners are not independents. Electoral Studies28(4): 562–574.
45.
PonderJDHaridakisP (2015) Selectively social politics: the differing roles of media use on political discussion. Mass Communication and Society18(3): 281–302.
46.
PreacherKJHayesA (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers36(4): 717–731.
47.
PriorM (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
RodgersJL (1999) The bootstrap, the jackknife, and the randomization test: a sampling taxonomy. Multivariate Behavioral Research34(4): 441–456.
51.
SaxLGilmartinSBryantA (2003) Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education44(4): 409–432.
52.
ShapiroRY (2013) Hearing the opposition: it starts at the top. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society25(2): 226–244.
53.
StroudNJ (2008) Media use and political predispositions: revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior30(3): 341–366.
54.
SunsteinCR (2007) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
ValentinoNABanksAJHutchingsVL. (2009) Selective exposure in the Internet age: the interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology30(4): 591–613.
56.
WilhelmAG (2000) Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
