CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,055Media Influence and PoliticsSocial Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its Impacts

The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media

Open access
Dubois, Elizabeth, Blank, Grant·2018·Information, Communication & Society
DOI 10.1080/1369118x.2018.1428656
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In a high-choice media environment, there are fears that individuals will select media and content that reinforce their existing beliefs and lead to segregation based on interest and/or partisanship. This could lead to partisan echo chambers among those who are politically interested and could contribute to a growing gap in knowledge between those who are politically interested and those who are not. However, the high-choice environment also allows individuals, including those who are politically interested, to consume a wide variety of media, which could lead them to more diverse content and perspectives. This study examines the relationship between political interest as well as media diversity and being caught in an echo chamber (measured by five different variables). Using a nationally representative survey of adult internet users in the United Kingdom (N = 2000), we find that those who are interested in politics and those with diverse media diets tend to avoid echo chambers. This work challenges the impact of echo chambers and tempers fears of partisan segregation since only a small segment of the population are likely to find themselves in an echo chamber. We argue that single media studies and studies which use narrow definitions and measurements of being in an echo chamber are flawed because they do not test the theory in the realistic context of a multiple media environment.

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 · 10.1080/1369118x.2018.1428656

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • The empirical evidence does not support the existence of echo chambers and filter bubbles as actual, observable phenomena in public communication; there is a pronounced absence of evidence that genuine filter bubbles or echo chambers are real, outside of highly specific and unusual contexts.

    “While the empirical evidence does not support the existence of echo chambers and filter bubbles as actual, observable phenomena in public communication”

    From Filter bubble (2019) · cites this paper as Dubois & Blank, 2018

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports little evidence of echo chambers across the full media environment, but identifies a small group for whom an echo chamber is more likely. The Background (page unavailable) says the study focuses on people’s information choices rather than algorithmic filtering, so it does not support the claim about filter bubbles or the categorical claim that neither phenomenon is observable. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Politically hyperpartisan hashtags or conspiracy theory pages do not exist in isolation but are embedded into a complex and varied social media platform and a rich and diverse media ecology.

    “while politically hyperpartisan hashtags or conspiracy theory pages may attract a fairly homogenous community of participants, these particular online spaces do not exist in isolation, but are embedded into a much more complex and varied social media platform, which in turn forms only one component of a rich and diverse media ecology (cf.Dubois & Blank, 2018).”

    From Filter bubble (2019) · cites this paper as Dubois & Blank, 2018

    The Introduction and ‘Measuring echo chambers in a high-choice environment’ say that even a polarized social-media platform is only one part of a larger, diverse media environment. They do not establish that hyperpartisan hashtags or conspiracy-theory pages sit within a varied platform, so the within-platform part of the claim is not supported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Dubois and Blank found that many users check news sources different from their usual ones, often offline, arguing against generalizing single-media studies to describe the complexity of a high-choice multiple media environment.

    “The authors found that many users check news sources different from their usual ones, often offline. They thus argue against generalizing single-media studies to describe the complexity of a high-choice multiple media environment.”

    From No echo in the chambers of political interactions on Reddit (2021) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Variables and measurement section asks respondents whether they check a news source different from their usual one and whether they confirm information through a major offline news medium. The Broader implications section argues that single-medium studies cannot capture how people use other online and offline media. The passages found do not establish that many respondents checked different sources or that they often did so offline. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Dubois and Blank demonstrated that users with more diverse media consumption habits are less likely to become trapped in echo chambers, as varied exposure promotes openness to differing viewpoints, and politically engaged users are particularly resilient to echo chambers.

    “Similarly, Dubois and Blank [12] demonstrated that users with more diverse media consumption habits are less likely to become trapped in echo chambers, as varied exposure to information promotes openness to differing viewpoints and, again, politically engaged users are particularly resilient to echo chambers, with their media choices further mitigating risks of ideological isolation.”

    From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [12]

    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

  • The effects and the very existence of echo chambers have recently been questioned.

    “However, recently, the effects and the very existence of echo chambers have been questioned (2, 27, 32).”

    From The echo chamber effect on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [2]

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: 3

  1. Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005, August). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election. Proceedings of the 3rd International workshop on Link Discovery (pp. 36-43). Chicago: Il. ACM: New York.
  2. Dubois, E. (2015). The strategic opinion leader: Personal influence and political networks in a hybrid media system (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/ uuid:35b1e408-a70a-4ea0-9c41-10d7df024ee9
  3. Dutton, W., Reisdorf, B., Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2017). Search and politics. Retrieved from http:// ssrn.com/abstract=2960697

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dubois, E., & Blank, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Dubois, Elizabeth
ORCID
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-01-29
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
729-745
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
DOI
10.1080/1369118x.2018.1428656
OpenAlex
W2786236138
Cited by
1,055
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 100 · 2023: 153 · 2022: 152 · 2021: 221 · 2020: 143 · 2019: 90 · 2018: 27
FWCI
273.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
Funders
Google
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
echo chambers, political interest, media pluralism, partisanship, media use, political polarization

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