Despite the concern that partisan selectivity in the political use of social media leads to mass polarization, the empirical evidence is mixed at best. Given the possibility that these inconclusive findings are attributable to moderators in the process that have not been adequately studied, this article elaborates the roles played by different forms of social identities. By analyzing three datasets collected in Hong Kong, where Chinese and Hong Kongese identities are constructed in a nonmutually exclusive way, this study demonstrates that (1) partisan selectivity in media use is reliably detected among those with single Hong Kongese identity, but not among those with dual identities of Hong Kongese and Chinese, (2) the political use of social media polarizes the attitudes and affects of single identifiers, whereas it has depolarizing effects on dual identifiers, and (3) these contrasting effects on polarization between single and dual identifiers have downstream consequences for political participation.
AndrighettoLMariSVolpatoC, et al. (2012) Reducing competitive victimhood in Kosovo: the role of extended contact and common ingroup identity. Political Psychology33(4): 513–529.
2.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
3.
BondMHKingAY (1985) Coping with the threat of westernization in Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations9(4): 351–364.
4.
BoulianneS (2015) Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information Communication and Society18(5): 524–538.
5.
BoxellLGentzkowMShapiroJM (2017) Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America114(40): 10612–10617.
6.
BrewerMB (1991) The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin17(5): 475–482.
7.
BrewerMB (1999) Multiple identities and identity transition: implications for Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations23(2): 187–197.
8.
BrewerMBPierceKP (2005) Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin31(3): 428–437.
9.
EndersAMArmalyMT (2019) The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Political Behavior41(3): 815–839.
10.
GaertnerSLDovidioJF (1986) Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: problems, progress and promise. In: DovidioJFGaertnerSL (eds) Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 315–332.
11.
GaertnerSLDovidioJF (2014) Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. New York: Psychology Press.
12.
GarrettRKGvirsmanSDJohnsonBK, et al. (2014) Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research40(3): 309–332.
13.
GentzkowMShapiroJM (2011) Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics126(4): 1799–1839.
14.
HornseyMJHoggMA (2000) Subgroup relations: a comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26(2): 242–256.
15.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
16.
IyengarSLelkesYLevenduskyM, et al. (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22: 129–146.
17.
KlarS (2014) Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science58(3): 687–704.
18.
KnifsendCAJuvonenJ (2013) The role of social identity complexity in inter-group attitudes among young adolescents. Social Development22(3): 623–640.
19.
Knobloch-WesterwickSHastallMR (2010) Please your self: social identity effects on selective exposure to news about in-and out-groups. Journal of Communication60(3): 515–535.
20.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMengJ (2011) Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication61(2): 349–368.
21.
LeeFL (2016) Impact of social media on opinion polarization in varying times. Communication and the Public1(1): 56–71.
22.
LeeFLChanJM (2005) Political attitudes, participation, and Hong Kong identities after 1997. Issues and Studies41(2): 1–35.
23.
LelkesYSoodGIyengarS (2017) The hostile audience: the effect of access to broadband Internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science61(1): 5–20.
24.
LevenduskyM (2013) How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
MaEKFungAY (2007) Negotiating local and national identifications: Hong Kong identity surveys 1996–2006. Asian Journal of Communication17(2): 172–185.
26.
MessingSWestwoodSJ (2014) Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research41(8): 1042–1063.
27.
MutzDC (2002) The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science46(4): 838–855.
28.
NelsonJLWebsterJG (2017) The myth of partisan selective exposure: a portrait of the online political news audience. Social Media + Society3(3). DOI: 10.1177/2056305117729314.
29.
NicolasGde la FuenteMDFiskeST (2017) Mind the overlap in multiple categorization: a review of crossed categorization, intersectionality, and multiracial perception. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations20(5): 621–631.
PetersonEGoelSIyengarS (2019) Partisan selective exposure in online news consumption: Evidence from the 2016 presidential campaign. Political Science Research and Methods. Epub ahead of print 28 November 2019. DOI: 10.1017/psrm.2019.55.
32.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
33.
PriorM (2009) Improving media effects research through better measurement of news exposure. The Journal of Politics71(3): 893–908.
34.
RiekBMManiaEWGaertnerSL, et al. (2010) Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat?Group Processes & Intergroup Relations13(4): 403–423.
35.
RoccasSBrewerMB (2002) Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review6(2): 88–106.
36.
SchmidKHewstoneMRamiahAA (2013) Neighborhood diversity and social identity complexity: implications for intergroup relations. Social Psychological and Personality Science4(2): 135–142.
37.
SchmidKHewstoneMTauschN, et al. (2009) Antecedents and consequences of social identity complexity: intergroup contact, distinctiveness threat, and outgroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin35(8): 1085–1098.
38.
ShinJThorsonK (2017) Partisan selective sharing: the biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication67(2): 233–255.
39.
SlaterMD (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.
40.
StokesDE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review57(2): 368–377.
41.
StroudNJ (2007) Media effects, selective exposure, and Fahrenheit 9/11. Political Communication24(4): 415–432.
42.
StroudNJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication60(3): 556–576.
43.
StroudNJ (2011) Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
TewksburyDRilesJM (2015) Polarization as a function of citizen predispositions and exposure to news on the Internet. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media59(3): 381–398.
45.
WojcieszakMGarrettRK (2018) Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: how priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Human Communication Research44(3): 247–273.
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.
