CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Influence and Politics

The Role of Political Activity in the Formation of Online Identity Bubbles

Open access
Koivula, Aki, Kaakinen, Markus, Oksanen, Atte, Räsänen, Pekka·2019·Policy & Internet
DOI 10.1002/poi3.211
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Increasing social media use has transformed political participation by creating social cliques and echo chambers, which involve interaction between like‐minded people. This article examines the relationship between online political activity and personal involvement in online identity bubbles. This study is the first to examine this phenomenon using nationally representative data; its data were derived from surveys targeted at 18–74‐year‐old Finns (N = 3,724). Measures included online political activity, the Identity Bubble Reinforcement Scale, and behavioral and demographic factors. The results show that online political activity was positively associated with online identity bubbles. This effect was strong even after controlling for behavioral and demographic factors. In addition to online political activity, general online activity, online network size, and basic sociodemographic background variables explained variation of involvement in online identity bubbles. However, neither political preference nor political interest had a systematic effect on involvement in these bubbles. The findings confirm the theoretical assumption that online bubbles can be captured using subjective survey measures. Political activity appears to be a key factor associated with the strength of the online bubble experience. This finding has significance in the contemporary information society, in which various mundane discussions and cultural disputes become politically tinged.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/poi3.211

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The amount of media a person consumes is anti-proportional to their chance of being trapped in an echo chamber, which contradicts findings by CSS studies that engagement and echo chambers are positively correlated.

    “They find that the amount of media a person consumes is anti-proportional to their chance of being trapped in an echo chamber, which contradicts findings by CSS studies [48,50,66,67] that find that engagement and echo chambers are positively correlated.”

    From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [67]

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) says frequent social media use has an effect on identity-bubble formation, and the Results report a positive association involving social media activity and identity-bubble reinforcement. The paper does not find that consuming more media lowers a person's chance of being in an echo chamber; it studies social media activity and online identity bubbles rather than media consumption generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Alashri, S., Kandala, S. S., V.Bajaj, Ravi, R., Smith, K. L., & Desouza, C. K. (2016). An analysis of sentiments on facebook during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (pp. 795-802).
  2. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Anglin, S. M., & Jussim, L. (2017). Science and politics: Do people support the conduct and dissemination of politicized research? Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(1), 142-172. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i1.427 · DOI
  4. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130 LP-1132. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2018). Facebook news and (de)polarization: reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 940-958. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428 · DOI
  7. Bessi, A., Coletto, M., Davidescu, G. A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2015). Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation. PLOS ONE, 10(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118093 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bimber, B., Cunill, M. C., Copeland, L., & Gibson, R. (2014). Digital Media and Political Participation: The Moderating Role of Political Interest Across Acts and Over Time. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 21-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314526559 · DOI
  9. Bischof, D. (2017). New graphic schemes for Stata: plotplain and plottig. The Stata Journal, 17(3), 748-759.
  10. Boulianne, S. (2009). Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600902854363 · DOI
  11. Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542 · DOI
  12. Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017). The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551-569. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12337 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Bright, J. (2018). Explaining the emergence of political fragmentation on social media: The role of ideology and extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(1), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmx002 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2011). Political Involvement in "Mobilized" Society: The Interactive Relationships Among Mobile Communication, Network Characteristics, and Political Participation. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1005-1024. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01601.x · DOI
  15. 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 · DOI
  16. Conover M.D., Ratkiewicz J., Francisco M., Gonçalves B., Flammini A., & Menczer F. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. Proc. 5th Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs Soc. Media. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press
  17. di Gennaro, C., & Dutton, W. (2006). The Internet and the Public: Online and Offline Political Participation in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 299-313. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsl004 · DOI
  18. Dutton, W. H., Reisdorf, B. C., Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2017). Search and Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States. Quello Center Working Paper No. 5-1-17. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2960697 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2960697 · DOI
  19. Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), 283-300. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-012-0024-1 · DOI
  20. Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., & Büchel, F. (2017). Populism and social media: how politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1109-1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1207697 · DOI
  21. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Copeland, L., & Bimber, B. (2014). Political consumerism: Civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media and Society, 16(3), 488-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487960 · DOI
  22. 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. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L., & Zheng, P. (2014). Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 612-634. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103 · DOI
  24. Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van 't Haar, G. (2013). Between Broadcasting Political Messages and Interacting with Voters: The use of Twitter during the 2010 UK general election campaign. Information Communication and Society, 16(5), 692-716. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hampton, K. N., Shin, I., & Lu, W. (2017). Social media and political discussion: when online presence silences offline conversation. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7), 1090-1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1218526 · DOI
  26. Häussler, T. (2018). Heating up the debate? Measuring fragmentation and polarisation in a German climate change hyperlink network. Social Networks, 54, 303-313. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.10.002 · DOI
  27. Himelboim, I., Mccreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 40-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12001 · DOI
  28. Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The Social Identity Perspective: Intergroup Relations, Self-Conception, and Small Groups. Small Group Research, 35(3), 246-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404263424 · DOI
  29. Holt, K., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Ljungberg, E. (2013). Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller? European Journal of Communication, 28(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323112465369 · DOI
  30. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2017). Trump and the Populist Authoritarian Parties: The Silent Revolution in Reverse. Perspectives on Politics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717000111 · DOI
  31. Jann, B. (2014). Plotting regression coefficients and other estimates. Stata Journal, 14(4), 708-737. https://doi.org/The Stata Journal
  32. Jans, L., Leach, C. W., Garcia, R. L., & Postmes, T. (2014). The development of group influence on in-group identification: A multilevel approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(2), 190-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214540757 · DOI
  33. Jost, J. T., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Langer, M., Metzger, M., Nagler, J., … Tucker, J. A. (2018). How Social Media Facilitates Political Protest: Information, Motivation, and Social Networks. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 85-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12478 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Keipi, T., Näsi, M., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2017). Online hate and harmful content: Cross-national perspectives. Online Hate and Harmful Content: Cross-National Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315628370 · DOI
  35. Koiranen, I., Keipi, T., Koivula, A., & Räsänen, P. (in press) Changing patterns of social media use in Finland. A Population-level study. Universal Access in the Information Society.
  36. Kriesi, H. (2010). Restructuration of partisan politics and the emergence of a new cleavage based on values. West European Politics, 33(3), 673-685. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402381003654726 · DOI
  37. Kruikemeier, S., van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication, 28(1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323112464837 · DOI
  38. Kuru, O., Pasek, J., & Traugott, M. W. (2017). Motivated Reasoning in the Perceived Credibility of Public Opinion Polls. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(2), 422-446. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx018 · DOI
  39. Lazarsfeld, P., & Merton, R. (1954). Friendship as social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. Page (Eds.), Freedom and Control in Modern Society (pp. 18-66). New York: Van Nostrand. Retrieved from citeulike- article-id:6531924
  40. Lee, C., Shin, J., & Hong, A. (2018). Does social media use really make people politically polarized? Direct and indirect effects of social media use on political polarization in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.11.005 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 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 · DOI
  42. Lehdonvirta, V., & Räsänen, P. (2011). How do young people identify with online and offline peer groups? A comparison between UK, Spain and Japan. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(1), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2010.506530 · DOI
  43. McGarty, C., Thomas, E. F., Lala, G., Smith, L. G. E., & Bliuc, A.-M. (2014). New Technologies, New Identities, and the Growth of Mass Opposition in the Arab Spring. Political Psychology, 35(6), 725-740. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12060 · DOI
  44. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Mikal, J. P., Rice, R. E., Kent, R. G., & Uchino, B. N. (2015). 100 million strong: A case study of group identification and deindividuation on Imgur.com. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2485-2506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815588766 · DOI
  46. Oesch, D., & Rennwald, L. (2018). Electoral competition in Europe's new tripolar political space: Class voting for the left, centre-right and radical right. European Journal of Political Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12259 · DOI
  47. Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., & Räsänen, P. (2014). Glamorizing rampage online: School shooting fan communities on YouTube. Technology in Society, 39, 55-67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.08.001 · DOI
  48. Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin Publishing Group.
  49. Pasek, J., more, eian, & Romer, D. (2009). Realizing the Social Internet? Online Social Networking Meets Offline Civic Engagement. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3-4), 197-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680902996403 · DOI
  50. Pew Research Center. (2014). Political Polarization in the American Public. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
  51. Schradie, J. (2011). The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics, 39(2), 145-168. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2011.02.003 · DOI
  52. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.fi/books?id=oVBLDwAAQBAJ
  53. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrativ Theory of Intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5 · DOI
  54. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). A self- categorization theory. In Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (pp. 42-67). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00799.x · DOI
  55. Valenzuela, S., Kim, Y., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2012). Social Networks that Matter: Exploring the Role of Political Discussion for Online Political Participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 163-184. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr037 · DOI
  56. van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2018). Internet and Democracy in the Network Society. New York: Routledge. New York: Routledge.
  57. Warren, A. M., Sulaiman, A., & Jaafar, N. I. (2014). Social media effects on fostering online civic engagement and building citizen trust and trust in institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 291-301. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.11.007 · DOI
  58. Weeks, B. E., Lane, D. S., Kim, D. H., Lee, S. S., & Kwak, N. (2017). Incidental Exposure, Selective Exposure, and Political Information Sharing: Integrating Online Exposure Patterns and Expression on Social Media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 363-379. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12199 · DOI
  59. Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(11), 1947-1958. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.1947 · DOI
  60. Zollo, F., Novak, P. K., Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Mozetič, I., Scala, A., … Quattrociocchi, W. (2015). Emotional Dynamics in the Age of Misinformation. PLOS ONE, 10(9), 1- 22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138740 Appendix1 TableA1 about here TableA2 about here about here · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koivula, A., Kaakinen, M., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P.
ORCID
Venue
Policy & Internet
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-15
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
396-417
ISSN
1944-2866 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/poi3.211
OpenAlex
W2957758886
Cited by
34
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7
FWCI
9.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Policy & Internet (publishedVersion)
  • UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion)
  • Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
online political activity, echo chambers, social media use, political participation, political preferences, political interest, information bubbles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review