Facebook news and (de)polarization: reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election
Abstract
The rise of social media, and specifically Facebook, as a dominant force in the flow of news in the United States has led to concern that people incur greater isolation from diverse perspectives through filter bubbles (from algorithmic filtering) and echo chambers (from an information environment populated by social recommendations coming from overwhelmingly like-minded others). This evolution in news diffusion comes at a time when Americans report increased affective partisan polarization. In particular, evidence shows increasingly negative attitudes about out-party members. Based on selective exposure and reinforcing spirals model perspectives, we examined the reciprocal relationship between Facebook news use and polarization using national 3-wave panel data collected during the 2016 US Presidential Election. Over the course of the campaign, we found media use and attitudes remained relatively stable. Our results also showed that Facebook news use was related to a modest over-time spiral of depolarization. Furthermore, we found that people who use Facebook for news were more likely to view both pro- and counter-attitudinal news in each wave. Our results indicated that counter-attitudinal news exposure increased over time, which resulted in depolarization. We found no evidence of a parallel model, where pro-attitudinal exposure stemming from Facebook news use resulted in greater affective polarization.
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?
High digital media use was for the most part linked to higher levels of polarization, although there was some evidence for balanced online discourse without pronounced patterns of polarization, as well as evidence for potentially depolarizing tendencies.
“Nevertheless, high digital media use was for the most part linked to higher levels of polarization, although there was some evidence for balanced online discourse without pronounced patterns of polarization126–128, as well as evidence for potentially depolarizing tendencies129.”
From A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy (2022) · cites this paper as [129]
The effects of deliberate or accidental cross-cutting and counter-attitudinal consumption can be depolarizing.
“los efectos del consumo transversal y contractitudinal deliberado o accidental pueden ser despolarizantes (Beam, Hutchens y Hmielowski, 2018;Kelly et al., 2014;Nordbrandt, 2022).”
From Dieta mediática y polarización afectiva en un sistema mediático pluralista polarizado: un estudio longitudinal de España (2026) · cites this paper as Beam, Hutchens y Hmielowski, 2018
Exposure to counter-attitudinal news on Facebook could promote depolarization.
“Contrarily, Beam et al. [74] reported that exposure to counter-attitudinal news on Facebook could promote depolarization, challenging assumptions about affective polarization.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [74]
On Facebook, Beam et al. found that users exposed to newsfeeds experienced depolarization over time, suggesting that social media could reduce rather than reinforce ideological segregation.
“On Facebook, Beam et al. [74] found that users exposed to newsfeeds experienced depolarization over time, suggesting that social media could reduce rather than reinforce ideological segregation.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [74]
One-fourth of studies that focused on the echo chamber hypothesis have not identified evidence for echo chambers.
“one-fourth of studies that focused on the echo chamber hypothesis have not identified evidence for echo chambers (e.g., [74,129]).”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [74]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 57 · Cited by 214
- Authors
- Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Kent State University (US)
- Washington State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Beam, Michael A.
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-03-05
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 940-958
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W2792438247
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 47.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- affective polarization, depolarization, selective exposure, 2016 US presidential election, social media news, filter bubbles, echo chambers, partisan attitudes, news dissemination
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
