CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Echo chamber effects on short video platforms

Open access
Gao, Yichang, Liu, Fengming, Gao, Lei·2023·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-023-33370-1PMC PMC10111082
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In recent years, short videos have become an increasingly vital source of information. To compete for users’ attention, short video platforms have been overusing algorithmic technology, making the group polarization intensify, which is likely to push users into the homogeneous “echo chamber”. However, echo chambers can contribute to the spread of misleading information, false news, or rumors, which have negative social impacts. Therefore, it is necessary to explore echo chamber effects in short video platforms. Moreover, the communication paradigms between users and feed algorithms greatly vary across short video platforms. This paper investigated echo chamber effects of three popular short video platforms (Douyin, TikTok, and Bilibili) using social network analysis and explored how user features influenced the generation of echo chambers. We quantified echo chamber effects through two primary ingredients: selective exposure and homophily, in both platform and topic dimensions. Our analyses indicate that the gathering of users into homogeneous groups dominates online interactions on Douyin and Bilibili. We performed performance comparison of echo chamber effects and found that echo chamber members tend to display themselves to attract the attention of their peers and that cultural differences can prevent the development of echo chambers. Our findings are of great value in designing targeted management strategies to prevent the spread of misleading information, false news, or rumors.

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 · 10.1038/s41598-023-33370-1

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Culture or demographics drive polarization and echo chambers.

    “novel research [61,64,92] finds that culture or demographics drive polarization and echo chambers.”

    From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Introduction and Conclusion say cultural differences among platform users can hinder the development of echo chambers, so the source supports a cultural influence on echo chambers. It does not establish that culture drives polarization, and its Results describe members’ ages and other characteristics without showing that demographics drive either outcome. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Gao et al. analyzed platforms such as Douyin, TikTok, and Bilibili, demonstrating how feed algorithms foster selective exposure and homophily, contributing to echo chamber formation, while cultural differences can correlate with the development of echo chambers.

    “However, a study by Gao et al. [64] analyzed platforms such as Douyin, TikTok, and Bilibili, demonstrating how feed algorithms foster selective exposure and homophily, ultimately contributing to echo chamber formation, while also highlighting that cultural differences can correlate with the development of echo chambers and their influence is not equivalently likely for each community and culture.”

    From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [64]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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: 53

  1. [1]Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C. & Adamic, L. in Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web. 519–528.
  2. [2]Han J Collecting, organizing, and sharing pins in pinterest: Interest-driven or social-driven? ACM SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 2014 42 15 27 10.1145/2637364.2591996 · DOI
  3. [3]Li X A CNN-based misleading video detection model Sci. Rep. 2022 12 1 9 35414095 PMC9002042
  4. [4]Cao, J. et al. False news detection on social media. arXiv:1908.10818 (2019). · arXiv
  5. [5]Wang Z Sui J Multilevel attention residual neural network for multimodal online social network rumor detection Front. Phys. 2021 9 711221 10.3389/fphy.2021.711221 · DOI
  6. [7]Choi D Chun S Oh H Han J Kwon T Rumor propagation is amplified by echo chambers in social media Sci. Rep. 2020 10 1 10 31941980 PMC6962360
  7. [9]Liu Z The internet echo chamber and the misinformation of judges: The case of judges’ perception of public support for the death penalty in China Int. Rev. Law Econ. 2022 69 106028 10.1016/j.irle.2021.106028 · DOI
  8. [10]Alatawi, F. et al. A survey on echo chambers on social media: Description, detection and mitigation. arXiv:2112.05084 (2021). · arXiv
  9. [12]Hong S Kim SH Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments Gov. Inf. Q. 2016 33 777 782 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007 · DOI
  10. [13]Törnberg P Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion PLoS ONE 2018 13 e0203958 10.1371/journal.pone.0203958 30235239 PMC6147442 · DOI
  11. [14]Zimmer, F., Scheibe, K., Stock, M. & Stock, W. G. in 8th annual arts, humanities, social sciences & education conference. 1–22.
  12. [15]Wang X Song Y Viral misinformation and echo chambers: The diffusion of rumors about genetically modified organisms on social media Internet Res. 2020 30 1547 1564 10.1108/INTR-11-2019-0491 · DOI
  13. [16]Villa G Pasi G Viviani M Echo chamber detection and analysis Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 2021 11 1 17 10.1007/s13278-021-00779-3 PMC8379609 34457082 · DOI
  14. [17]Morini V Pollacci L Rossetti G Toward a standard approach for echo chamber detection: Reddit case study Appl. Sci. 2021 11 5390 10.3390/app11125390 · DOI
  15. [18]Barberá P Jost JT Nagler J Tucker JA Bonneau R Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 2015 26 1531 1542 10.1177/0956797615594620 26297377 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [19]Yang, S., Zhao, Y. & Ma, Y. in Proceedings of the 2019 9th International Conference on Information and Social Science (ICISS 2019), Manila, Philippines. 12–14.
  17. [20]Kaye DBV Chen X Zeng J The co-evolution of two Chinese mobile short video apps: Parallel platformization of Douyin and TikTok Mob. Media Commun. 2021 9 229 253 10.1177/2050157920952120 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [21]Lu, X. & Lu, Z. in International Conference on human-computer interaction. 233–244 (Springer).
  19. [22]Wang Y Humor and camera view on mobile short-form video apps influence user experience and technology-adoption intent, an example of TikTok (DouYin) Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020 110 106373 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106373 · DOI
  20. [24]Chen X ValdovinosKaye DB Zeng J # PositiveEnergy Douyin: constructing “playful patriotism” in a Chinese short-video application Chin. J. Commun. 2021 14 97 117 10.1080/17544750.2020.1761848 · DOI
  21. [26]Yang Y Ha L Why people use TikTok (Douyin) and how their purchase intentions are affected by social media influencers in China: A uses and gratifications and parasocial relationship perspective J. Interact. Advert. 2021 21 297 305 10.1080/15252019.2021.1995544 · DOI
  22. [28]Li Y Guan M Hammond P Berrey LE Communicating COVID-19 information on TikTok: A content analysis of TikTok videos from official accounts featured in the COVID-19 information hub Health Educ. Res. 2021 36 261 271 10.1093/her/cyab010 33667311 PMC7989330 · DOI
  23. [29]Chen ZT Poetic prosumption of animation, comic, game and novel in a post-socialist China: A case of a popular video-sharing social media Bilibili as heterotopia J. Consum. Cult. 2021 21 257 277 10.1177/1469540518787574 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [30]Yang Y The danmaku interface on Bilibili and the recontextualised translation practice: A semiotic technology perspective Soc. Semiot. 2020 30 254 273 10.1080/10350330.2019.1630962 · DOI
  25. [33]Gao S Zhang Y Liu W How does risk-information communication affect the rebound of online public opinion of public emergencies in China? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 18 7760 10.3390/ijerph18157760 34360053 PMC8345355 · DOI
  26. [34]Dorri, A., Abadi, M. & Dadfarnia, M. SocialBotHunter: Botnet Detection in Twitter-Like Social Networking Services Using Semi-Supervised Collective Classification. 2018 IEEE 16th Intl Conf on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, 16th Intl Conf on Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, 4th Intl Conf on Big Data Intelligence and Computing and Cyber Science and Technology Congress (DASC/PiCom/DataCom/CyberSciTech), 496–503. 10.1109/DASC/PiCom/DataCom/CyberSciTec.2018.00097 (2018). · DOI
  27. [35]Jamieson KH Cappella JN Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment 2008 Oxford Oxford University Press
  28. [36]Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A. & Mathioudakis, M. in Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference. 913–922.
  29. [37]Shin J Jian L Driscoll K Bar F Political rumoring on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election: Rumor diffusion and correction New Media Soc. 2017 19 1214 1235 10.1177/1461444816634054 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [39]Cota W Ferreira SC Pastor-Satorras R Starnini M Quantifying echo chamber effects in information spreading over political communication networks EPJ Data Sci. 2019 8 35 10.1140/epjds/s13688-019-0213-9 · DOI · Paper page
  31. [40]Jiang, B., Karami, M., Cheng, L., Black, T. & Liu, H. Mechanisms and attributes of echo chambers in social media. arXiv:2106.05401 (2021). · arXiv
  32. [41]Scabini, L., Ribas, L., Ribeiro, E. & Bruno, O. in International Conference on Network Science. 54–66 (Springer).
  33. [42]Osterbur M Kiel C Tweeting in echo chambers? Analyzing Twitter discourse between American Jewish interest groups J. Inform. Tech. Polit. 2021 18 194 213 10.1080/19331681.2020.1838396 · DOI
  34. [47]Soroya SH Farooq A Mahmood K Isoaho J Zara S-E From information seeking to information avoidance: Understanding the health information behavior during a global health crisis Inf. Process. Manag. 2021 58 102440 10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102440 33281273 PMC7700063 · DOI
  35. [50]Vaccari C Of echo chambers and contrarian clubs: Exposure to political disagreement among German and Italian users of twitter Soc. Media+ Soc. 2016 2 1 24 10.1177/2056305116664221 · DOI · Paper page
  36. [51]Knobloch-Westerwick S Meng J Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information Commun. Res. 2009 36 426 448 10.1177/0093650209333030 · DOI
  37. [52]Weismueller J Harrigan P Coussement K Tessitore T What makes people share political content on social media? The role of emotion, authority and ideology Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022 129 107150 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107150 · DOI
  38. [53]Wang D Zhou Y Qian Y Liu Y The echo chamber effect of rumor rebuttal behavior of users in the early stage of COVID-19 epidemic in China Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022 128 107088 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107088 PMC8558265 34744299 · DOI
  39. [54]Birjali M Kasri M Beni-Hssane A A comprehensive survey on sentiment analysis: Approaches, challenges and trends Knowl. Based Syst. 2021 226 107134 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107134 · DOI
  40. [55]Zad, S., Heidari, M., Jones, J. H. & Uzuner, O. in 2021 IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT). 0285-0291 (IEEE).
  41. [56]Ligthart A Catal C Tekinerdogan B Systematic reviews in sentiment analysis: A tertiary study Artif. Intell. Rev. 2021 54 4997 5053 10.1007/s10462-021-09973-3 · DOI
  42. [57]Reimers, N. & Gurevych, I. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv:1908.10084 (2019). · arXiv
  43. [58]Ndukwe, I. G., Amadi, C. E., Nkomo, L. M. & Daniel, B. K. in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. 224–227 (Springer).
  44. [59]Wang J Global evidence of expressed sentiment alterations during the COVID-19 pandemic Nat. Hum. Behav. 2022 6 349 358 10.1038/s41562-022-01312-y 35301467 · DOI
  45. [61]Lillie, A. E. & Middelboe, E. R. Fake news detection using stance classification: A survey. arXiv:1907.00181 (2019). · arXiv
  46. [62]Kobbe, J., Hulpuș, I. & Stuckenschmidt, H. in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 50–60.
  47. [63]Rajadesingan, A. & Liu, H. in Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction. (eds William G. Kennedy, Nitin Agarwal, & Shanchieh Jay Yang) 153–160 (Springer).
  48. [64]Fu Y Incorporate opinion-towards for stance detection Knowl.-Based Syst. 2022 246 108657 10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108657 · DOI
  49. [65]Cinelli M De Francisci Morales G Galeazzi A Quattrociocchi W Starnini M The echo chamber effect on social media Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 10.1073/pnas.2023301118 33622786 PMC7936330 · DOI · Paper page
  50. [66]Williams HT McMurray JR Kurz T Lambert FH Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change Glob. Environ. Change 2015 32 126 138 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
  51. [67]Joyce, J. M. in International encyclopedia of statistical science 720–722 (Springer, 2011).
  52. [68]Pérez-Cruz, F. in 2008 IEEE international symposium on information theory. 1666–1670 (IEEE).
  53. [69]Jourard SM Lasakow P Some factors in self-disclosure Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 1958 56 91 13501977

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gao, Y., Liu, F., & Gao, L.
Affiliations
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Shandong Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Liu, Fengming
  • Gao, Lei
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-04-18
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
6282-6282
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-023-33370-1
PMC
PMC10111082
OpenAlex
W4366279712
Cited by
109
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
37.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Shandong Natural Science Foundation (ZR2020MG003)
  • Special Project for internet Development of Social Science Planning Special Program of Shandong Province (17CHLJ23)
  • National Social Science Fund of China (21BGL001)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (71701115)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
echo chambers, short video platforms, algorithmic recommendation, selective exposure, homophily, group polarization, misinformation, fake news, rumors, Douyin, TikTok, Bilibili, user attention, cultural differences

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