Echo Chambers on Social Media: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Keywords:
echo chambers, filter bubbles, social media, selective exposure, algorithmic curation, systematic literature reviewAbstract
There have been growing concerns regarding the potential impact of social media on democracy and public debate. While some theorists have claimed that ICTs and social media would bring about a new independent public sphere and increase exposure to political divergence, others have warned that they would lead to polarization through the formation of echo chambers. The issue of social media echo chambers is both crucial and widely debated. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive account of the scientific literature on this issue, shedding light on the different approaches, their similarities, differences, benefits, and drawbacks, and offering a consolidated and critical perspective that can hopefully support future research in this area. Concretely, it presents the results of a systematic review of 55 studies investigating the existence of echo chambers on social media, providing a first classification of the literature and identifying patterns across the studies’ foci, methods and findings. We found that conceptual and methodological choices influence the results of research on this issue. Most importantly, articles that found clear evidence of echo chambers on social media were all based on digital trace data. In contrast, those that found no evidence were all based on self-reported data. Future studies should take into account the possible biases of the different approaches and the significant potential of combining self-reported data with digital trace data.
References
Andersen, K., De Vreese, C. H., & Albaek, E. (2016). Measuring Media Diet in a High-Choice Environment - Testing the List-Frequency Technique. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(2), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1150973
Aragó, P., Kappler, K. E., Kaltenbrunner, A., Laniado, D., & Volkovich, Y. (2013). Communication Dynamics in Twitter During Political Campaigns: The Case of the 2011 Spanish National Election. Policy and Internet, 5(2), 183–206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI327
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. http://education.biu.ac.il/files/education/shared/science-2015-bakshy-1130-2.pdf
Balcells, J., & Padró-Solanet, A. (2016). Tweeting on Catalonia’s Independence: The Dynamics of Political Discussion and Group Polarisation. Medijske Studije, 7(14), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.20901/ms.7.14.9
Barberá, P. (2015). Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom on JSTOR. Yale University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1njknw
Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Vicario, M. Del, Puliga, M., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Uzzi, B., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). Users Polarization on Facebook and Youtube. PLoS ONE, 11(8), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159641
Bode, L. (2012). Facebooking It to the Polls: A Study in Online Social Networking and Political Behavior. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9(4), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.709045
Bodrunova, S.S., Smoliarova, A. S., Blekanov, I. S., Zhuravleva, N. N., & Danilova, Y. S. (2018). A GLOBAL PUBLIC SPHERE OF COMPASSION? #JESUISCHARLIE AND #JENESUISPASCHARLIE ON TWITTER AND THEIR LANGUAGE BOUNDARIES. Monitoring of Public Opinion?: Economic and Social Changes, 1(143), 267–295. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2018.1.14
Bodrunova, Svetlana Sergeevna, Litvinenko, A. A., Gavra, D. P., & Yakunin, A. V. (2015). Twitter-based discourse on migrants in Russia: The case of 2013 bashings in Biryulyovo. International Review of Management and Marketing, 5(Special Issue), 97–104.
Borah, P., Thorson, K., & Hwang, H. (2015). Causes and Consequences of Selective Exposure Among Political Blog Readers: The Role of Hostile Media Perception in Motivated Media Use and Expressive Participation. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 12(2), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1008608
Bozdag, E., Gao, Q., Houben, G.-J., & Warnier, M. (2014). Does offline political segregation affect the filter bubble? An empirical analysis of information diversity for Dutch and Turkish Twitter users. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.028
Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology, 17, 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y
Bright, J. (2018). Explaining the Emergence of Political Fragmentation on Social Media: The Role of Ideology and Extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmx002
Callaghan, D. O., Greene, D., Conway, M., & Carthy, J. (2013). The Extreme Right Filter Bubble. ArXiv:1308.6149v1, arXiv:1308.
Chan, C. H., & Fu, K. W. (2017). The Relationship Between Cyberbalkanization and Opinion Polarization: Time-Series Analysis on Facebook Pages and Opinion Polls During the Hong Kong Occupy Movement and the Associated Debate on Political Reform. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(5), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12192
Chen, W. C., & Milojevi?, S. (2018). Interaction or segregation: Vaccination and information sharing on twitter. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1145/3272973.3274082
Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menezer, F. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media Political, 133(26), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja202932e
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 1091–7675. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
Dehghan, E. (2018). A Year of Discursive Struggle Over Freedom of Speech on Twitter: What Can a Mixed-Methods Approach Tell Us? International Conference on Social Media & Society, 266–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/3217804.3217926
Del Valle, M. E., & Borge Bravo, R. (2018). Echo Chambers in Parliamentary Twitter Networks the Catalan Case. International Journal of Communication, 12, 1715–1735.
Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. PNAS, 113(3), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
Del Vicario, M., Gaito, S., Quattrociocchi, W., Zignani, M., & Zollo, F. (2018). News consumption during the Italian referendum: A cross-platform analysis on facebook and twitter. Proceedings - 2017 International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, DSAA 2017, 2018-Janua, 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSAA.2017.33
Del Vicario, M., Zollo, F., Caldarelli, G., Scala, A., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2017). Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks, 50, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.02.002
Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
Eady, G., Nagler, J., Guess, A., Zilinsky, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2019). How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data. SAGE Open, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832705
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=3850
Fink, A. (2014). Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/209351
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(Specialissue1). https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
Francis Lee. (2016). Impact of social media on opinion polarization in varying times. Communication and the Public, 1(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047315617763
Furman, I., & Tunç, A. (2019). The End of the Habermassian Ideal? Political Communication on Twitter During the 2017 Turkish Constitutional Referendum. Policy & Internet, 10(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.218
Garimella, K. (2017). Quantifying Controversy on Social Media. ACM Trans. Soc. Comput, 1(26). https://doi.org/10.1145/3140565
Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018). Political Discourse on Social Media: Echo Chambers, Gatekeepers, and the Price of Bipartisanship. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW ’18, 2, 913–922. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186139
Garrett, K. R. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27(4), 21–39. https://0-journals-sagepub-com.cataleg.uoc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/019145370102700402
Grevet, C., Terveen, L., & Gilbert, E. (2014). Managing Political Differences in Social Media. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW ’14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531676
Grömping, M. (2014). ‘Echo Chambers’: Partisan Facebook Groups during the 2014 Thai Election. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 24(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1326365X14539185
Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.
Hampton, K. N., Lee, C.-J., & Her, E. J. (2011). How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media & Society, 13(7), 1031–1049. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810390342
Häussler, T. (2019). Patterns of polarization: Transnational dynamics in climate change online networks in the US and Switzerland. The Information Society, 35(4), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2019.1614707
Hayat, T., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2017). “You too, Second Screeners?” Second Screeners’ Echo Chambers During the 2016 U.S. Elections Primaries. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 61(2), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1309417
Hong, S., & Kim, S. H. (2016). Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 777–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007
Howison, J., Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2011). Validity issues in the use of social network analysis with digital trace data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12), 767–797. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00282
Internet World Stats. (2019). World Internet Users Statistics and 2019 World Population Stats. https://internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Jacobson, S., Myung, E., & Johnson, S. L. (2016). Open media or echo chamber: the use of links in audience discussions on the Facebook Pages of partisan news organizations. Information Communication and Society, 19(7), 875–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1064461
John, N. A., & Nissenbaum, A. (2019). An agnotological analysis of APIs: or, disconnectivity and the ideological limits of our knowledge of social media . The Information Society, 35(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2018.1542647
Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., Wollebaek, D., & Enjolras, B. (2017). Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication, 32(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323117695734
Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077
Lynch, M., Freelon, D., & Aday, S. (2017). Online clustering, fear and uncertainty in Egypt’s transition. Democratization, 24(6), 1159–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2017.1289179
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Merry, M. (2015). Making friends and enemies on social media: the case of gun policy organizations. Iranian Journal of Information Processing Management, 30(2), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2014-0022
Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. Routledge.
Nguyen, T. T., Hui, P.-M., Harper, F. M., Terveen, L., & Konstan, J. A. (2014). Exploring the Filter Bubble: The Effect of Using Recommender Systems on Content Diversity. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web - WWW ’14, 677–686. https://doi.org/10.1145/2566486.2568012
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Nikolov, D., Oliveira, D. F. M., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2015). Measuring online social bubbles. PeerJ Comput. Sci., 1(38). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.38
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble?: what the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Books.
Park, S. J., Park, J. Y., Lim, Y. S., & Park, H. W. (2016). Expanding the presidential debate by tweeting: The 2012 presidential election debate in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 33, 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.004
Pew Research Center. (2018). Majorities in most European countries get news from social media. https://www.journalism.org/2018/05/14/many-western-europeans-get-news-via-social-media-but-in-some-countries-substantial-minorities-do-not-pay-attention-to-the-source/pj_2018-05-14_western-europe_5-01/
Prell, C. (2011). Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology. SAGE Publications. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/social-network-analysis/book231856
Raynauld, V., & Greenberg, J. (2014). Tweet, Click, Vote: Twitter and the 2010 Ottawa Municipal Election. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 11(4), 412–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.935840
Rheingold, H. (2003). Smart mobs?: the next social revolution. Perseus Pub.
Schmidt, A. L., Zollo, F., Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2017). Anatomy of news consumption on Facebook. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(12), 3035–3039. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617052114
Schmidt, A. L., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Betsch, C., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2018). Polarization of the vaccination debate on Facebook. Vaccine, 36(25), 3606–3612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.040
Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. SAGE Publications . https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-social-network-analysis/book232753
Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2018). Social media and the future of open debate: A user-oriented approach to Facebookâ€TMs filter bubble conundrum. Discourse, Context & Media. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.03.005
Semaan, B. C., Robertson, S. P., Douglas, S., & Maruyama, M. (2014). Social media supporting political deliberation across multiple public spheres: Towards Depolarization Bryan. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW ’14, 1409–1421. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531605
Shore, J., Baek, J., & Dellarocas, C. (2018). Network structure and patterns of information diversity on twitter. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 42(3), 849–872. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2018/14558
Statista. (2016). US Social media online politics debate frequency 2016 | Statistic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/677457/social-media-us-participation-politics/
Statista. (2019). Number of active Twitter users 2010-2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/
Stodel, M. (2015). But What Will People Think?: Getting beyond Social Desirability Bias by Increasing Cognitive Load. International Journal of Market Research, 57(2), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2015-024
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
Sunstein, C.R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
Sunstein, C.R. (2017). #Republic?: divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Takikawa, H. (2017). Analysis of the “ Twitter Political Field ” in Japan. ArXiv:1711.06752, 3061–3068. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2017.8258291
Takikawa, H., & Nagayoshi, K. (2017). Political Polarization in Social Media: Analysis of the Twitter Political Field in Japan. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1711/1711.06752.pdf
Thorson, K., Cotter, K., Medeiros, M., & Pak, C. (2019). Algorithmic inference, political interest, and exposure to news and politics on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1642934
Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2016). Of Echo Chambers and Contrarian Clubs: Exposure to Political Disagreement Among German and Italian Users of Twitter. Social Media + Society, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664221
Wieringa, M., van Geenen, D., Schäfer, M. T., & Gorzeman, L. (2018). Political topic-communities and their framing practices in the dutch twittersphere. Internet Policy Review, 7(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14763/2018.2.793
Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Hugo Lambert, F. (2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006
Wohn, D. Y., & Bowe, B. J. (2016). Micro Agenda Setters: The Effect of Social Media on Young Adults’ Exposure to and Attitude Toward News. Social Media + Society, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115626750
Xenos, M., Vromen, A., & Loader, B. D. (2014). The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.871318
Zollo, F., Bessi, A., Del Vicario, M., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Shekhtman, L., Havlin, S., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2017). Debunking in a world of tribes. PLoS ONE, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181821
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The philosophy of the journal is to be open and to make all articles accessible. It is our belief that open access is a must in the future of science.
Authors who publish with RCR accept a slightly modified Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
You, as author, retain the copyrights for your paper, but the Review of Communication Research is granted exclusivity for publication of the article. The agreement allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and publication in this journal. We do not want third parties to make a commercial use of the article, unless we agree it with authors.
The journal will run an open review process as well as a traditional peer review process.
When the manuscript is accepted for publication, it will get a doi number and get available online to facilitate early citation.
The journal will post the published article to many public repositories for further diffusion and permanence.
You, as author, are permitted and encouraged to post your work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on your website), as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
If you have any doubts, please, contact the editor: editor@rcommunication.org
Many thanks for submitting your work to this journal.
