Segmenting the Electorate: The Effects of Exposure to Political Extremism Online
Abstract
The Internet provides people with an opportunity to preselect the ideological perspective of the political content they encounter, allowing them to fragment themselves into narrow interest groups and ultimately polarize along ideological lines. This study seeks to test the extremism portion of the fragmentation thesis: that if individuals sort into cocoons of homogeneous perspectives their attitudes will polarize and greater political extremism will result. A random sample of students was exposed to one of four experimental conditions: ideologically homogeneous and highly conservative media, ideologically homogenous and highly liberal content, moderate content, and a condition that included media from each of the three prior conditions. The results demonstrated that exposure to ideological homogeneity did drive attitude extremism in the conservative condition but not in the liberal condition. The moderate condition reduced extremism and the mixed condition demonstrated no significant attitude change. This article concludes that, given media fragmentation, greater extremism is possible. However, this result was only evident in the conservative condition.
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?
The negative effects of echo chambers in social networks might be overstated.
“This also reaffirms the fact that the negative effects of echo chambers in social networks, which are known to arise due to high levels of homophily in communication, might be overstated”
From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Warner, 2010
Cites
The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation
Mutz, D. C. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088437 · Cited by 1,265 · cited 3× · see citing works
“The political significance of this is exacerbated by research that finds these polarized groups to be more politically active than most of mainstream society (Mutz, 2002; Prior, 2007; Wojcieszak, 2009).”
BackgroundGroup polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141 · Cited by 1,044 · see citing works
Online and in the know: uses and gratifications of the web for political information
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_4 · Cited by 492 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Troll and divide: the language of online polarization
Simchon, A., Brady, W. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2022) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac019 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Credibility of climate change denial in social media
Samantray, A., & Pin, P. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0344-4 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
- Authors
- Warner, B. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Kansas (US)
- Corresponding author
- Warner, Benjamin R.
- ORCID
- Warner, Benjamin R.
- Venue
- Communication Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-08-10
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 430-444
- ISSN
- 1051-0974 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-1035
- OpenAlex
- W2126643508
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 5.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Keywords
- political extremism, ideological polarization, media fragmentation, echo chambers, ideological homogeneity, conservative media, liberal press, attitude change
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