CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Opinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceSocial Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its Impacts

Echo chamber formation sharpened by priority users

Open access
Ferraz de Arruda, Henrique, Andrade Oliveira, Kleber, Moreno, Yamir·2024·iScience
DOI 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111098PMC PMC11607542
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

On social media platforms, priority users (e.g., verified profiles on X) are users whose posts are promoted by recommendation algorithms. However, their influence on opinion dynamics, in particular polarization and echo chamber formation, is not well understood. Through computational modeling, we investigate this influence in a stylized setting. By introducing priority user accounts, we find that prioritization can mitigate polarization. However, by incorporating stubborn user behavior, we find that the results change and that priority accounts can exacerbate the formation of echo chambers. In other words, a minority of extremist ideologues can trigger a transition from consensus to polarization. Our study suggests careful monitoring of platform prioritization policies to prevent potential misuse of users with enhanced influence.

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 · 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111098

Cites

7 of 7 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 increased prominence of non-institutional voices such as verified political commentators and influencers potentially introduces sensationalism and misinformation into echo chambers.

    “The increased prominence of non-institutional voices, such as verified political commentators and influencers, further exacerbates this issue by potentially introducing sensationalism and misinformation into these echo chambers [11].”

    From Auditing Political Exposure Bias: Algorithmic Amplification on Twitter/X During the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election (2025) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Introduction says verification can increase users’ visibility and reach, and the Discussion links priority users to stronger echo chambers. But the paper does not identify non-institutional political commentators or influencers as the relevant users, or show that they introduce sensationalism or misinformation. The Introduction explicitly says misinformation falls outside the study’s scope; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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: 35

  1. [1]Karami A. Lundy M. Webb F. Dwivedi Y.K. Twitter and Research: A Systematic Literature Review Through Text Mining IEEE Access 8 2020 67698 67717 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2983656 · DOI
  2. [4]Sîrbu A. Pedreschi D. Giannotti F. Kertész J. Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion fragmentation and polarization: A bounded confidence model PLoS One 14 2019 1 20 10.1371/journal.pone.0213246 PMC6400382 30835742 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [7]Watts D.J. Dodds P.S. Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation J. Consum. Res. 34 2007 441 458 10.1086/518527 https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-pdf/34/4/441/17929486/34-4-441.pdf · DOI
  4. [8]Centola D. Pescosolido B. Smith E.B. Influencers, Backfire Effects, and the Power of the Periphery Small M.L. Perry B.L. Personal Networks: Classic Readings and New Directions in Egocentric Analysis 2021 Cambridge University Press 73 86 10.1017/9781108878296.005 Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences · DOI
  5. [9]Ott B.L. The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement Crit. Stud. Mass Commun. 34 2017 59 68 10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686 · DOI
  6. [10]Morris M.R. Counts S. Roseway A. Hoff A. Schwarz J. Tweeting Is Believing? Understanding Microblog Credibility Perceptions Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. CSCW ’12 2012 Association for Computing Machinery Seattle, Washington, USA 441 450 10.1145/2145204.2145274 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [11]Paul I. Khattar A. Kumaraguru P. Gupta M. Chopra S. Elites Tweet? Characterizing the Twitter Verified User Network 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) 2019 278 285 10.1109/ICDEW.2019.00006 · DOI
  8. [12]Vaidya T. Votipka D. Mazurek M.L. Sherr M. Does Being Verified Make You More Credible? Account Verification’s Effect on Tweet Credibility Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’19 2019 Association for Computing Machinery Glasgow, Scotland Uk 9781450359702 1 13 10.1145/3290605.3300755 · DOI
  9. [13]Alkhamees M. Alsaleem S. Al-Qurishi M. Al-Rubaian M. Hussain A. User trustworthiness in online social networks: A systematic review Appl. Soft Comput. 103 2021 107159 10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107159 · DOI
  10. [15]Bak-Coleman J.B. Alfano M. Barfuss W. Bergstrom C.T. Centeno M.A. Couzin I.D. Donges J.F. Galesic M. Gersick A.S. Jacquet J. Stewardship of global collective behavior Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118 2021 e2025764118 10.1073/pnas.2025764118 PMC8271675 34155097 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [17]Del Vicario M. Bessi A. Zollo F. Petroni F. Scala A. Caldarelli G. Stanley H.E. Quattrociocchi W. The spreading of misinformation online Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113 2016 554 559 10.1073/pnas.1517441113 26729863 PMC4725489 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [21]Baker S.R. Baksy A. Bloom N. Davis S.J. Rodden J.A. Elections, Political Polarization, and Economic Uncertainty 2020 National Bureau of Economic Research 1 26 10.3386/w27961 Working Paper · DOI
  13. [23]Del Vicario M. Zollo F. Caldarelli G. Scala A. Quattrociocchi W. Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate Soc. Network. 50 2017 6 16 10.1016/j.socnet.2017.02.002 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [24]Noorazar H. Vixie K.R. Talebanpour A. Hu Y. From classical to modern opinion dynamics Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 31 2020 2050101 10.1142/S0129183120501016 · DOI
  15. [31]Sznajd-Weron K. Sznajd J. Weron T. A review on the sznajd model—20 years after Phys. Stat. Mech. Appl. 565 2021 125537
  16. [32]Holme P. Newman M.E.J. Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions Phys. Rev. E 74 2006 056108 17279969
  17. [34]Baumann F. Lorenz-Spreen P. Sokolov I.M. Starnini M. Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 2020 048301 32058741
  18. [36]Valensise C.M. Cinelli M. Quattrociocchi W. The drivers of online polarization: Fitting models to data Inf. Sci. 642 2023 119152 10.1016/j.ins.2023.119152 · DOI
  19. [38]Mobilia M. Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 2003 028701 12906515
  20. [40]Namatame A. Chen S.-H. Agent-Based Modeling and Network Dynamics 2016 Oxford University Press 1 341 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198708285.001.0001 · DOI
  21. [41]Kubin E. von Sikorski C. The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review Ann. Intern. Comm. Assoc. 45 2021 188 206 10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [42]Terren L. Borge-Bravo R. Echo chambers on social media: A systematic review of the literature Rev. Commun. Res. 9 2021 99 118
  23. [43]Ross Arguedas A. Robertson C. Fletcher R. Nielsen R. Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarisation: A Literature Review. Tech. Rep. 2022
  24. [49]Pfister R. Schwarz K.A. Janczyk M. Dale R. Freeman J.B. Good things peak in pairs: a note on the bimodality coefficient Front. Psychol. 4 2013 700 24109465 PMC3791391
  25. [50]Kokoska S. Zwillinger D. CRC Standard Probability and Statistics Tables and Formulae 2000 CRC Press
  26. [52]Gewers F.L. Ferreira G.R. Arruda H.F.d. Silva F.N. Comin C.H. Amancio D.R. Costa L.d.F. Principal component analysis: A natural approach to data exploration ACM Comput. Surv. 54 2021 1 34
  27. [57]Molden D.C. Higgins E.T. How preferences for eager versus vigilant judgment strategies affect self-serving conclusions J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 2008 1219 1228 19727421 PMC2607037
  28. [59]Del Vicario M. Scala A. Caldarelli G. Stanley H.E. Quattrociocchi W. Modeling confirmation bias and polarization Sci. Rep. 7 2017 40391 PMC5225437 28074874
  29. [60]Alvim M.S. Amorim B. Knight S. Quintero S. Valencia F. A Multi-Agent Model for Polarization under Confirmation Bias in Social Networks International Conference on Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems 2021 Springer 22 41
  30. [63]Silva F.N. Amancio D.R. Bardosova M. Costa L.d.F. Oliveira O.N. Jr. Using network science and text analytics to produce surveys in a scientific topic J. Informetrics 10 2016 487 502 10.1016/j.joi.2016.03.008 · DOI
  31. [64]Centola D. Becker J. Brackbill D. Baronchelli A. Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention Science 360 2018 1116 1119 10.1126/science.aas8827 29880688 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [66]Xie J. Sreenivasan S. Korniss G. Zhang W. Lim C. Szymanski B.K. Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Phys. 84 2011 011130 21867136
  33. [67]Gallagher R.J. Young J.-G. Welles B.F. A clarified typology of core-periphery structure in networks Sci. Adv. 7 2021 eabc9800 10.1126/sciadv.abc9800 PMC7968838 33731343 · DOI
  34. [68]Borge-Holthoefer J. Rivero A. García I. Cauhé E. Ferrer A. Ferrer D. Francos D. Iñiguez D. Pérez M.P. Ruiz G. Structural and Dynamical Patterns on Online Social Networks: The Spanish May 15th Movement as a Case Study PLoS One 6 2011 1 8 10.1371/journal.pone.0023883 PMC3158778 21886834 · DOI
  35. [72]Newman M. Networks 2018 Oxford University Press 1 1042 10.1093/oso/9780198805090.001.0001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferraz de Arruda, H., Andrade Oliveira, K., & Moreno, Y.
Affiliations
Universidad de Zaragoza (ES)
ORCID
Venue
iScience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-11
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
111098
ISSN
2589-0042 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.isci.2024.111098
PMC
PMC11607542
OpenAlex
W4403638663
Cited by
6
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • iScience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zaguan (Universidad de Zaragoza) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Banco Santander (Santander-UZ 2020/0274)
  • Espana Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
  • Gobierno de Aragón (UZ-164255)
  • European Regional Development Fund (E36-23R)
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, PID2020-115800GB-I00)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
echo chambers, polarization, recommendation algorithms, social media, opinion dynamics, Twitter

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