Polarized information ecosystems can reorganize social networks via information cascades
Open accessAbstract
The precise mechanisms by which the information ecosystem polarizes society remain elusive. Focusing on political sorting in networks, we develop a computational model that examines how social network structure changes when individuals participate in information cascades, evaluate their behavior, and potentially rewire their connections to others as a result. Individuals follow proattitudinal information sources but are more likely to first hear and react to news shared by their social ties and only later evaluate these reactions by direct reference to the coverage of their preferred source. Reactions to news spread through the network via a complex contagion. Following a cascade, individuals who determine that their participation was driven by a subjectively "unimportant" story adjust their social ties to avoid being misled in the future. In our model, this dynamic leads social networks to politically sort when news outlets differentially report on the same topic, even when individuals do not know others' political identities. Observational follow network data collected on Twitter support this prediction: We find that individuals in more polarized information ecosystems lose cross-ideology social ties at a rate that is higher than predicted by chance. Importantly, our model reveals that these emergent polarized networks are less efficient at diffusing information: Individuals avoid what they believe to be "unimportant" news at the expense of missing out on subjectively "impo…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Twitter networks are sorted ideologically, but this is not necessarily due to individuals deliberately following others with similar ideologies; instead, networks become sorted as users gradually unfollow ties that distribute dissonant information.
“Studying Twitter networks, Tokita et al. (2021) observed that networks are sorted ideologically, but this is not necessarily due to individuals deliberately following others with similar ideologies.”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Tokita et al., 2021
The more a user retweeted ideologically slanted information, the more he or she lost followers from the other ideological camp, sliding into a highly ideologically biased network.
“The more a user retweeted ideologically slanted information, the more he or she was losing followers from the other ideological camp and, thus, unintentionally, sliding into a highly ideologically biased network.”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Tokita et al., 2021
Echo chambers, to the extent that they exist, may not echo so much as silence.
“"This suggests that 'echo chambers'-to the extent that they exist-may not echo so much as silence" (Tokita et al. 2021, p. 1).”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Tokita et al. 2021
Ideological networks evolve by following (or linking to, in the case of blogs) like-minded people and unfollowing dissenters.
“Ideological networks evolve by following (or linking to, in the case of blogs) like-minded people and unfollowing dissenters.”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Tokita et al., 2021
Cites
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This assumption—that network changes happen on a much slower timescale than information diffusion—is consistent with empirical data on social media dynamics (40, 54).”
ResultWhat is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652 · see citing works
Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
Mason, L. (2018) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001 · Cited by 1,985 · see citing works
Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x · Cited by 1,940 · see citing works
Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties
Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/521848 · Cited by 1,878 · see citing works
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 · Cited by 1,863 · see citing works
Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics
Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001 · Cited by 1,504 · see citing works
Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1618923114 · Cited by 1,396 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, without much loss of generality, one could assume that activation operates via negative emotional reactions, such as anger or outrage, consistent with evidence on negativity bias in news coverage (48, 49) and moral contagion on social media (50, 51).”
BackgroundOut-group animosity drives engagement on social media
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2024292118 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Fair and Balanced? Quantifying Media Bias through Crowdsourced Content Analysis
Budak, C., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw007 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
Mäs, M., & Flache, A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074516 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Zuboff, S. (2022) · Organization Theory · doi:10.1177/26317877221129290 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
“…researchers have closely examined many of the dynamics identified in this discussion and their causal role in rising societal polarization and diminished social resilience (Cinelli et al., 2021; R. Levy, 2021; Rathje et al., 2021; Santos et al., 2021; Tokita et al., 2021; Vasconcelos et al., 2021).”
BackgroundBrüggemann, M., & Meyer, H. (2023) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtad012 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tokita, C. K., Guess, A. M., & Tarnita, C. E.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tokita, Christopher K.
- Guess, Andrew M.
- Tarnita, Corina E.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2021-12-06
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 50
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC8685718
- OpenAlex
- W4200121659
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7
- FWCI
- 18.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (DGE1656466)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- political polarization, information cascades, complex contagion, echo chambers, information dissemination, news source evaluation, 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
