This study explores how social network sites (SNSs) expose users to cross-cutting views. Relying on cross-national data collected among French and Japanese users of Facebook and Twitter, the design of this study allows assessment of the extent to which active and passive social media use fosters cross-cutting exposure in different national contexts. The results show that SNS use is differently related to cross-cutting exposures depending on forms of usage: while active SNS use is associated with a decrease in cross-cutting exposures, passive use leads to more exposure to dissonant views. This study also acknowledges significant variations across national subsamples, questioning the generalizability of results obtained from single case studies.
AcarADeguchiA (2013) Culture and social media usage: Analysis of Japanese Twitter users. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies4(1): 21–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7903/ijecs.989.
2.
AlthausSLTewksburyD (2002) Agenda setting and the “new” news: Patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of The New York Times. Communication Research29(2): 180–207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202029002004.
3.
AnspachNM (2017) The new personal influence: How our Facebook friends influence the news we read. Political Communication34(4): 590–606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1316329.
4.
AudemardJ (2021) Discussing politics on SNSs across national contexts: A comparison between Facebook and Twitter users in France and Japan. International Journal of Communication15: 4884–4907. DOI: 1932–8036/20210005.
5.
BailCAArgyleLPBrownTW, et al. (2018) Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America115(37): 9216–9221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115.
6.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa116.
7.
BarnidgeM (2017) Exposure to political disagreement in social media versus face-to-face and anonymous online settings. Political Communication34(2): 302–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1235639.
8.
BarthelMShearerEGottfriedJ, et al. (2015) The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook. Washington, DC: Pew Report.
9.
BergströmABelfrageMJ (2018) News in social media. Incidental consumption and the role of opinion leaders. Digital Journalism6(5): 583–598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1423625.
10.
BimberB (2008) The internet and political fragmentation. In: NardulliPF (ed.) Domestic Perspectives on Contemporary Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 155–170.
BoveeNCvitkovicR (2010) Anonymity in computer-mediated communication in Japanese and western contexts. Cyber University Bulletin2: 41–52.
13.
BrownT (2006) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guildford Press.
14.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication60(4): 680–700. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x.
15.
ChanMChenH-TLeeFLF (2021) Cross-cutting discussion on social media and online political participation: A cross-national examination of information seeking and social accountability explanations. Social Media † Society7(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211035697.
16.
ChoSEParkHW (2013) A qualitative analysis of cross-cultural new media research: SNS use in Asia and the west. Quality & Quantity47(4): 2319–2330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9658-z.
17.
ChuYDiamondLNathanAJ, et al. (2008) How East Asians View De-mocracy. New York: Columbia University Press.
18.
DanowskiJAParkHW (2020) East Asian communication technology use and cultural values. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia19(1): 43–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2020.19.1.043.
19.
DavenportSWBergmanSMBergmanJZ, et al. (2014) Twitter versus Facebook: Exploring the role of narcissism in the motives and usage of different social media platforms. Computers in Human Behavior32: 212–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.011.
20.
DuboisEBlankG (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society21(5): 729–745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656.
21.
Dvir-GvirsmanSTsfatiYMenchen-TrevinoE (2016) The extent and nature of ideological selective exposure online: Combining survey responses with actual web log data from the 2013 Israeli elections. New Media & Society18(5): 857–877. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814549041.
22.
EadyGNaglerJGuessA, et al. (2019) How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data. SAGE Open9(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832705.
23.
ElenbaasMde VreeseCSchuckA, et al. (2014) Reconciling passive and motivated learning: The saturation-conditional impact of media coverage and motivation on political information. Communication Research41(4): 481–504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212467032.
24.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
GersonJPlagnolACorrPJ (2017) Passive and active Facebook use measure (PAUM): Validation and relationship to the reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences117: 81–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.034.
26.
Gil de ZúñigaHMolyneuxLZhengP (2014) Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication64(4): 612–634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103.
27.
HeatherlyKALuYLeeJK (2017) Filtering out the other side? Cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites. New Media & Society19(8): 1271–1289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816634677.
28.
HirokawaKVannieuwenhuyseBDohiI, et al. (2001) Comparison of French and Japanese individuals with reference to Hofstede’s concepts of individualism and masculinity. Psychological Report89(2): 243–251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2001.89.2.243.
29.
HuckfeldtRIkedaKIPappiFU (2005) Patterns of disagreement in democratic politics: Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States. American Journal of Political Science49(3): 497–514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00138.x.
30.
HuckfeldtRJohnsonPESpragueJ (2004) Political Disagreement. The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
HughesDJRoweMBateyM, et al. (2012) A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior28(2): 561–569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001.
32.
IkedaK (2005) The creation of social capital and political reality from political & non-political social networks: Using the social networks module on the Japanese general social survey. JGSS research Series4: 169–203.
IshiiK (2014) A comparative study of Facebook users between Japan, U.S., and Taiwan: Focusing on disclosure of personal information and network homogeneity. Johotsushin-Gakkaishi31(4): 39–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11430/jsicr.31.4_39.
35.
IshiiK (2017b) A comparative study between Japanese, U.S., Taiwanese, and Chinese social networking site users: Self-disclosure and network homogeneity. In: TelleríaAS (ed.) Between the Public and Private in Mobile Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 155–174.
36.
IshiiK (2017a) Online communication with strong ties and subjective well-being in Japan. Computers in Human Behavior66: 129–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.033.
37.
JohnsonTJBichardSLZhangW (2009) Communication communities or “CyberGhettos?”: A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication15(1): 60–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01492.x.
KahneJMiddaughELeeN-J, et al. (2012) Youth online activity and exposure to diverse perspectives. New Media & Society14(3): 492–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811420271.
40.
KarnowskiVKümpelASLeonhardL, et al. (2017) From incidental news exposure to news engagement. How perceptions of the news post and news usage patterns influence engagement with news articles encountered on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior76: 42–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.041.
41.
KimCLeeJK (2016) Social Media Type Matters: Investigating the Relationship Between Motivation and Online Social Network Heterogeneity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media60(4): 676–693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1234481.
42.
KimM (2018) How does Facebook news use lead to actions in South Korea? The role of Facebook discussion network heterogeneity, political interest, and conflict avoidance in predicting political participation. Telematics and Informatics35(5): 1373–1381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.007.
43.
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.001.
44.
KobayashiTIkedaK (2009) Selective exposure in political web browsing. Information, Communication & Society12(6): 929–953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180802158490.
45.
KobayashiTYokoyamaT (2018) Missing effect of party cues in Japan: Evidence from a survey experiment. Japanese Journal of Political Science19(1): 61–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109917000226..
46.
KümpelAS (2019) Getting tagged, getting involved with news? A mixed-methods investigation of the effects and motives of news-related tagging activities on social network sites. Journal of Communication69(4): 373–395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz019.
47.
KuritaN (2011) The long-term effects of political socialization during late-1960s student protest. In: BroadbentJBrockmanV (eds) East Asian Social Movements. Power, Protest, and Change in a Dynamic Region. New York: Springer, pp. 99–112.
48.
KwakNLaneDSZhuQ, et al. (2020) Political rumor communication on instant messaging platforms: Relationships with political participation and knowledge. International Journal of Communication14: 5663–5685. DOI: 1932–8036/20200005.
49.
LeeJChoiY (2018) Informed public against false rumor in the social media era: Focusing on social media dependency. Telematics and Informatics35(5): 1071–1081. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.12.017.
50.
LeeJKChoiJKimC, et al. (2014) Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication64(4): 702–722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077.
51.
LeeSRojasHYamamotoM (2021) Social media, messaging apps, and affective polarization in the United States and Japan. Mass Communication and Society25(5): 673–697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1953534.
52.
LuYLeeJK (2021) Determinants of cross-cutting discussion on Facebook: Political interest, news consumption, and strong-tie heterogeneity. New Media & Society23(1): 175–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819899879.
53.
MarthalerS (2010) La course au centre: Policy convergence and partisanship in France, 1981-2002. French Politics, Culture & Society28(2): 75–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3167/fpcs.2010.280207.
54.
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.
55.
MinSJWohnDY (2020) Underneath the filter bubble: The role of weak ties and network cultural diversity in cross-cutting exposure to disagreements on social media. The Journal of Social Media in Society9(1): 22–38.
56.
MiyataKYamamotoHOgawaY (2015) What Affects the Spiral of Silence and the Hard Core on Twitter? An Analysis of the Nuclear Power Issue in Japan. American Behavioral Scientist59(9): 1129–1141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215580618.
57.
MuraokaTMontgomeryJLucasC, et al. (2021) Love and anger in global party politics: Facebook reactions to political party posts in 79 democracies. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media1: 1–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2021.005.
58.
MutzDC (2002) Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review96(1): 111–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264.
59.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side. Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
NakaneC (1970) Japanese Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
61.
NieNHMillerDWGoldeS, et al. (2010) The world wide web and the U.S. Political news market. American Journal of Political Science54(2): 428–439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00439.x.
62.
NielsenRKSchrøderKC (2014) The relative importance of social media for accessing, finding, and engaging with news: An eight-country cross-media comparison. Digital Journalism2(4): 472–489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2013.872420.
63.
OgasaharaM (2018) Media environments in the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. In: KiyoharaSMaeshimaKOwenD (eds) Internet Election Campaigns in the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. New York: Palgrave-McMillan, pp. 79–113.
64.
ParkCS (2015) Pathways to expressive and collective participation: Usage patterns, political efficacy, and political participation in social networking sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media59(4): 698–716. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093480.
65.
Quan-HaaseAYoungAL (2010) Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society30(5): 350–361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380009.
66.
RicheySIkedaKI (2006) The influence of political discussion on policy preference: A comparison of the United States and Japan. Japanese Journal of Political Science7(03): 273–288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109906002362.
67.
RojasHValenzuelaS (2019) A call to contextualize public opinion-based research in political communication. Political Communication36(4): 652–659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1670897.
68.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
69.
SunsteinCR (2007) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
SunsteinCR (2018) #Republic. Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
71.
SwartzLDriscollK (2014) “I hate your politics but I love your diamonds”: Citizenship and the off-topic message board subforum. In: RattoMBolerM (eds) DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 295–306.
72.
ThomsonRYukiMItoN (2015) A socio-ecological approach to national differences in online privacy concern: The role of relational mobility and trust. Computers in Human Behavior51(Part A): 285–292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.068.
73.
ThorsonKWellsC (2016) Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory26(3): 309–328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087.
74.
UrmanA (2020) Context matters: Political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective. Media, Culture & Society42(6): 857–879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719876541.
75.
ValkenburgPMvan DrielIIBeyensI (2022) The associations of active and passive social media use with well-being: A critical scoping review. New Media & Society24(2): 530–549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211065425.
76.
VerduynPYbarraORésiboisM, et al. (2017) Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review11(1): 274–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12033.
77.
VragaEKThorsonKKligler-VilenchikN, et al. (2015) How individual sensitivities to disagreement shape youth political expression on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior45: 281–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.025.
78.
WangSS (2016) To tweet or not to Tweet: Factors affecting the intensity of Twitter usage in Japan and the online and offline sociocultural norms. International Journal of Communication10: 2637–2660. DOI: 1932–8036/20160005.
79.
WangYMarkG (2017) Engaging with political and social issues on Facebook in college life. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 433–445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998295.
80.
WojcieszakMEMutzDC (2009) Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication59(1): 40–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x.
81.
WojcieszakMEPriceV (2012) Perceived versus actual disagreement: Which influences deliberative experiences?Journal of Communication62(3): 418–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01645.x.
82.
Woo-YooSGil-de-ZúñigaH (2014) Connecting blog, Twitter and Facebook use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Communication & Society27(4): 33–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.27.35978.
83.
WuSHofmanJMMasonWA, et al. (2011) Who says what to whom on twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, pp. 705–714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963504.
