The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 U.S. election networks
Abstract
This study examined the echo chamber phenomenon and opinion leadership on Twitter based on the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Network analysis and ‘big data’ analytics were employed to analyze more than 50 million tweets about the two presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, during the election cycle. Overall, the results suggested that Twitter communities discussing Trump and Clinton differed significantly in the level of political homogeneity and opinion leadership, and that certain opinion leaders were responsible of creating homogeneous communities on Twitter. This study made a theoretical contribution to the literature by linking opinion leadership and Twitter’s network structure and shedding light on what may have caused the echo chamber problem to happen in an emerging media landscape.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Studies examining major political events, including the 2015 Polish elections, the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, and the 2016 U.S. elections, support the echo chamber hypothesis, showing pronounced clustering in user interactions.
“Studies examining major political events, including the 2015 Polish elections [51], the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff [52], and the 2016 U.S. elections [53], also support the echo chamber hypothesis, showing pronounced clustering in user interactions.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [53]
Citations
Cites
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767
What 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/009365096023005002 · DOI
- 10.1080/1369118X.2011.635214 · DOI
- 10.22174/jcr.2011.48.1.59 · DOI
- 10.1111/jcom.12084 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/19331681.2012.669191 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_10 · DOI
- 10.1177/0002764214527088 · DOI
- Festinger L., 1962, A theory of cognitive dissonance
- 10.1177/0002716214563921 · DOI
- 10.1089/big.2017.0044 · DOI
- 10.1177/0002764211409378 · DOI
- Hansen D., 2010, Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world
- 10.1111/jcc4.12001 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF02288695 · DOI
- Lazarsfeld P. F., 1948, The people’s choice
- 10.1080/1369118X.2014.892149 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1075547008328797 · DOI
- 10.1080/23808985.2013.11679146 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.044 · DOI
- Rogers E. M., 1983, Diffusion of innovations
- Tremayne M., 2013, American Communication Journal, 15, 34
- 10.1177/1090198106297855 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/jcom.12089 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511815478 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/518527 · DOI
- 10.2307/2095212 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0002764214527091 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Guo, L., A. Rohde, J., & Wu, H. D.
- Affiliations
- College of Communication, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
- Boston University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-07-20
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 234-251
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W2884571392
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 20.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Texas at Austin
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- echo chambers, opinion leadership, Twitter, 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, political homogeneity, online communities, social network structure, emerging media
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
