CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 377Social Media and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMisinformation and Its Impacts

Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America

Open access
Settle, Jaime E.·2018·Cambridge University Press eBooks
DOI 10.1017/9781108560573
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Why do Americans have such animosity for people who identify with the opposing political party? Jaime E. Settle argues that in the context of increasing partisan polarization among American political elites, the way we communicate on Facebook uniquely facilitates psychological polarization among the American public. Frenemies introduces the END Framework of social media interaction. END refers to a subset of content that circulates in a social media ecosystem: a personalized, quantified blend of politically informative 'expression', 'news', and 'discussion' seamlessly interwoven into a wider variety of socially informative content. Scrolling through the News Feed triggers a cascade of processes that result in negative attitudes about those who disagree with us politically. The inherent features of Facebook, paired with the norms of how people use the site, heighten awareness of political identity, bias the inferences people make about others' political views, and foster stereotyped evaluations of the political out-group.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/9781108560573

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Like-minded content has the potential to reinforce partisan identity even if it is not explicitly political.

    “This content has the potential to reinforce partisan identity even if it is not explicitly political14.”

    From Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

  • Most people are more moderate than people think and consume news from the same sources on social media, while those who engage on social media are the most engaged partisans.

    “These false beliefs help explain why social media can fuel (moral) conflicts, as most people are more moderate than people think (Levendusky & Malhotra 2016) and consume news from the same sources on social media (Guess 2021), while those who engage on social media are the most engaged partisans (Settle 2018).”

    From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Settle 2018

  • Most people are passive on social media and only consume content.

    “While most people are passive on social media and only consume content (Settle 2018), encouraging users to participate in online discourse and to react negatively to hostility may improve the social media environment.”

    From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Settle 2018

  • Other work on Facebook offers a more ambiguous portrait: some evidence suggests it contributes to issue polarization, while other shows it has no effect on ideological extremity, affective polarization, or belief in false claims.

    “That said, other work, specifically on Facebook, offers a more ambiguous portrait.While some evidence suggests it contributes to issue polarization (Allcott et al., 2020;Settle, 2018), other shows it has no effect on ideological extremity, affective polarization, or belief in false claims (Nyhan et al., 2023; also see Guess et al., 2023aGuess et al., , 2023b).”

    From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Settle, 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Settle, J. E.
Affiliations
William & Mary (US)
Corresponding author
Settle, Jaime E.
ORCID
Settle, Jaime E.
Venue
Cambridge University Press eBooks
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2018-08-17
DOI
10.1017/9781108560573
OpenAlex
W4211086993
Cited by
377
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3
FWCI
31.22
Type
book
Language
nl
Open access
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
political polarization, Facebook, social media, political identity, stereotypes, partisan hostility, news feeds, political communication, American public opinion, political elites

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