Scholarly debate persists as to whether the use of social networking sites (SNSs) encourages or discourages political discussion with people holding different opinions. Drawing on a national survey, this study focuses on Facebook and explores the predictors of cross-cutting discussion on this platform. The results reveal that political interest is positively associated with cross-cutting discussion and this relationship is mediated by the frequency of news consumption on Facebook, suggesting that Facebook use has the potential of exposing the politically attentive to dissonant views. Furthermore, the level of heterogeneity of a person’s strong-tie network is found to accentuate the mediating effect of Facebook news consumption. Implications are discussed for the impacts of Facebook use on deliberative democracy.
AlbarrancínDMitchellAL (2004) The role of defensive confidence in preference for proattitudinal information: how believing that one is strong can sometimes be a defensive weakness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin30(12): 1565–1584.
2.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere. Journal of Communication60(4): 680–700.
5.
BucherT (2012) Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society14: 1164–1180.
6.
ChanM (2016) Social network sites and political engagement: exploring the impact of Facebook connections and uses on political protest and participation. Mass Communication and Society19(4): 430–451.
7.
ChanM (2018) Partisan strength and social media use among voters during the 2016 Hong Kong legislative council election: examining the roles of ambivalence and disagreement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(2): 343–362.
8.
ChanMChenHTLeeFL (2017) Examining the roles of mobile and social media in political participation: a cross-national analysis of three Asian societies using a communication mediation approach. New Media & Society19(12): 2003–2021.
9.
ChanMChenHTLeeFL (2019) Examining the roles of political social network and internal efficacy on social media news engagement: a comparative study of six Asian countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 24: 127–145.
10.
ChoiJLeeJK (2015) Investigating the effects of news sharing and political interest on social media network heterogeneity. Computers in Human Behavior44: 258–266.
11.
DePauloBMKashyDA (1998) Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74(1): 63–79.
DylkoIDolgovIHoffmanW, et al. (2017) The dark side of technology: an experimental investigation of the influence of customizability technology on online political selective exposure. Computers in Human Behavior73: 181–190.
14.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
15.
EvelandWPHivelyMH (2009) Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication59(2): 205–224.
16.
GarrettRKStroudNJ (2014) Partisan paths to exposure diversity: differences in pro-and counterattitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication64(4): 680–701.
17.
Gil de ZúñigaHJungNValenzuelaS (2012) Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication17(3): 319–336.
18.
Gil de ZúñigaHMolyneuxLZhengP (2014) Social media, political expression, and political participation: panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication64(4): 612–634.
19.
GilbertEKarahaliosK (2009) Predicting tie strength with social media. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, 4–9April, pp. 211–220. New York: ACM Press.
GuoLRohdeJAWuHD (2018) Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 US election networks. Information, Communication & Society23(2): 234–251. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1499793.
22.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
23.
HayesAFMontoyaAKRockwoodNJ (2017) The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal25: 76–81.
24.
HeatherlyKALuYLeeJK (2017) Filtering out the other side? Cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites. New Media & Society19(8): 1271–1289.
25.
HolbertRLHmielowskiJDWeeksBE (2012) Clarifying relationships between ideology and ideologically oriented cable TV news use: a case of suppression. Communication Research39(2): 194–216.
26.
HoltKShehataAStrömbäckJ, et al. (2013) Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: do social media function as leveler?European Journal of Communication28(1): 19–34.
27.
HuckfeldtRJohnsonPESpragueJ (2004) Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions Within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
JohnNADvir-GvirsmanS (2015) “I don’t like you any more”: Facebook unfriending by Israelis during the Israel-Gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication65(6): 953–974.
29.
JungNKimYGil de ZúñigaH (2011) The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society14(4): 407–430.
30.
KahneJMiddaughELeeN, et al. (2012) Youth online activity and exposure to diverse perspectives. New Media & Society14(3): 492–512.
31.
KaunAStiernstedtF (2014) Facebook time: technological and institutional affordances for media memories. New Media & Society16: 1154–1168.
32.
KimCLeeJK (2016) Social media type matters: investigating the relationship between motivation and online social network heterogeneity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media60(4): 676–693.
33.
KimYHsuSGil de ZúñigaH (2013) Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: the moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication63(3): 498–516.
34.
Kligler-VilenchikN (2019) Friendship and politics don’t mix? The role of sociability for online political talk. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 2 July. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1635185.
35.
Knobloch-WesterwickS (2008) Information utility. In: DonsbachW (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, pp. 2273–2276.
36.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMengJ (2009) Looking the other way: selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research36(3): 426–448.
37.
LeeFLFChanMCChenH, et al. (2019) Consumptive news feed curation on social media as proactive personalization: a study of six East Asian markets. Journalism Studies20: 2277–2292.
38.
LeeHKwakNCampbellSW (2015) Hearing the other side revisited: the joint workings of cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity in facilitating deliberative and participatory democracy. Communication Research42(4): 569–596.
39.
LeeJKChoiJKimC, et al. (2014) Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication64(4): 702–722.
40.
LuY (2019) Incidental exposure to political disagreement on Facebook and corrective participation: unraveling the effects of emotional responses and issue relevance. International Journal of Communication13: 874–896.
41.
LuYHeatherlyKALeeJK (2016) Cross-cutting exposure on social networking sites: the effects of SNS discussion disagreement on political participation. Computers in Human Behavior59: 74–81.
42.
LuYLeeJK (2019) Stumbling upon the other side: incidental learning of counter-attitudinal political information on Facebook. New Media & Society21(1): 248–265.
43.
LupiaAPhilpotTS (2005) Views from inside the net: how websites affect young adults’ political interest. Journal of Politics67(4): 1122–1142.
44.
McGuireWJ (1968) Selective exposure: a summing up. In: AbelsonRAronsonEMcGuireWJ, et al. (eds) Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 788–796.
45.
McLeodJMLeeNJ (2012) Social networks, public discussion and civic engagement: a socialization perspective. In: SemetkoHAScammellM (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 197–208.
46.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27(1): 415–444.
47.
MarsdenPVCampbellKE (1984) Measuring tie strength. Social Forces63(2): 482–501.
48.
MatthesJRios MorrisonKSchemerC (2010) A spiral of silence for some: attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Communication Research37(6): 774–800.
49.
MoellerJShehataAKruikemeierS (2018) Internet use and political interest: growth curves, reinforcing spirals, and causal effects during adolescence. Journal of Communication68(6): 1052–1078.
50.
MoreyACEvelandWPJrHutchensMJ (2012) The “who” matters: types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication29(1): 86–103.
51.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
NeoRL (2019) Mediation or moderation? Examining how politically like-minded and dissimilar conversations influence the relationship between social media political information consumption and political participation. Communication Studies70: 151–171.
53.
Noelle-NeumannE (1974) The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication24(2): 43–51.
PriorM (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
PriorM (2010) You’ve either got it or you don’t? The stability of political interest over the life cycle. The Journal of Politics72(3): 747–766.
57.
PutnamRD (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
58.
SaxLJGilmartinSKBryantAN (2003) Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education44(4): 409–432.
59.
ScheufeleDAHardyBWBrossardD, et al. (2006) Democracy based on difference: examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication56(4): 728–753.
60.
ShahDVChoJNahS, et al. (2007) Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication57(4): 676–703.
SlateMD (2007) Reinforcing spirals: the mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory17(3): 281–303.
63.
SokheyAEDjupePA (2014) Name generation in interpersonal political network data: results from a series of experiments. Social Networks36: 147–161.
64.
SongHBoomgaardenH (2019) Personalities discussing politics: the effects of agreement and expertise on discussion frequency and the moderating role of personality traits. International Journal of Communication13: 92–115.
65.
SongHEvelandWP (2015) The structure of communication networks matters: how network diversity, centrality, and context influence political ambivalence, participation, and knowledge. Political Communication32(1): 83–108.
66.
StraitsBC (1991) Bringing strong ties back in interpersonal gateways to political information and influence. Public Opinion Quarterly55(3): 432–448.
67.
StrömbäckJDjerf -PierreMShehataA (2013) The dynamics of political interest and news media consumption: a longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research25(4): 414–435.
68.
SunsteinCR (2007) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
69.
SwartJPetersCBroersmaM (2019) Sharing and discussing news in private social media groups: the social function of news and current affairs in location-based, work-oriented and leisure-focused communities. Digital Journalism7(2): 187–205.
70.
TaberCSLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
71.
ThompsonDF (2008) Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science11: 497–520.
72.
ThorsonKWellsC (2016) Curated flows: a framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory26(3): 309–328.
73.
ValenzuelaSBachmannI (2015) Pride, anger, and cross-cutting talk: a three-country study of emotions and disagreement in informal political discussions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research27(4): 544–564.
74.
ValenzuelaSCorreaTGil de ZúñigaH (2018) Ties, likes, and tweets: using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use. Political Communication35(1): 117–134.
75.
Van der WurffR (2011) Do audiences receive diverse ideas from news media? Exposure to a variety of news media and personal characteristics as determinants of diversity as received. European Journal of Communication26(4): 328–342.
76.
Van DijkJ (2012) The Network Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
77.
VragaEKThorsonKKligler-VilenchikN, et al. (2015) How individual sensitivities to disagreement shape youth political expression on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior45: 281–289.
78.
WaltherJBBoydS (2002) Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In: LinCAAtkinD (eds) Communication Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 153–188.
79.
WeeksBELaneDSKimDH, et al. (2017) Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(6): 363–379.
80.
WestenDBlagovPSHarenskiK, et al. (2006) Neural bases of motivated reasoning: an fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 US presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience18(11): 1947–1958.
81.
WojcieszakMMutzDC (2009) Online groups and political discourse. Journal of Communication59(1): 40–56.
82.
ZhouYPinkletonBE (2012) Modeling the effects of political information source use and online expression on young adults’ political efficacy. Mass Communication and Society15(6): 813–830.
