CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Influence and Politics

Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization

Barberá, Pablo·2020·Social Media and Democracy
DOI 10.1017/9781108890960.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to offer an exhaustive review of the literature exploring the link between social media and political polarization. It highlights the areas where a consensus based on empirical evidence has already emerged but also identifies the questions that remain open and the type of data and analysis that would help address them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/9781108890960.004

Cites

721 of 721 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The scarcity of comparative studies on social media, especially concerning news consumption, fuels the issue.

    “This issue is also fueled by the scarcity of comparative studies on social media, especially concerning news consumption (33).”

    From The echo chamber effect on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [33]

  • Digital networks hardly constitute closed off echo chambers.

    “but that they hardly constitute closed off echo chambers (Barbera ´, 2020)”

    From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Barbera ´, 2020

  • On platforms like Twitter, Reddit, or YouTube, polarization dynamics are not primarily ideological disagreements about issues, but dismissive interactions with out-groups.

    “Scholars such as Barbera ´(2020) made a strong case that especially on platforms like Twitter, Reddit, or YouTube (An et al., 2019;Wu & Resnick, 2021), polarization dynamics are not primarily ideological disagreements about issues, but dismissive interactions with out-groups.”

    From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Barbera ´(2020)

  • In contrast to face-to-face social interaction, intergroup contact through digital media networks often fosters polarization, at least in the context of political debates.

    “Yet, in contrast to face-to-face social interaction (Balietti et al., 2021;Brankovi c et al., 2020), intergroup-contact through digital media networks often fosters polarization, at least in the context of political debates (Banks et al., 2021;Barbera ´, 2020;Zhang et al., 2022).”

    From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Barbera ´, 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barberá, P.
Corresponding author
Barberá, Pablo
ORCID
Barberá, Pablo
Venue
Social Media and Democracy
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2020-08-31
Pages
34-55
DOI
10.1017/9781108890960.004
OpenAlex
W3080223069
Cited by
373
References
721
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 2
FWCI
224.68
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
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
social media, echo chambers, political polarization, filter bubbles, information environment, political attitudes

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