CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Social Media and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and Politics

Social media echo chambers and satisfaction with democracy among Democrats and Republicans in the aftermath of the 2016 US elections

Open access
Justwan, Florian, Baumgaertner, Bert, Carlisle, Juliet E., Clark, April K., Clark, Michael·2018·Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties
DOI 10.1080/17457289.2018.1434784PMC PMC6587580
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is widespread evidence that individuals select information that supports their convictions and worldviews. This behavior yields the formation of echo chambers - environments in which an individual's own political beliefs are repeated and amplified and dissenting opinions are screened out. Recent research demonstrates that social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook or Twitter can facilitate this selection into homogenous networks. Using data from a representative nationwide online survey, we consider the degree to which respondents' social media networks resemble virtual echo chambers. We then analyze the effect of these social media echo chambers on satisfaction with democracy among Democrats and Republicans in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. elections. Our findings reveal that virtual echo chambers boost democratic satisfaction among Republicans but they do not have an effect on system support by self-identified Democrats. Our paper therefore adds to a growing literature linking online behaviors to mass attitudes about politics.

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 · 10.1080/17457289.2018.1434784

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Many studies found a small echo chamber effect for Republicans, but none for Democrats before and in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. election.

    “Many studies found a small echo chamber effect for Republicans, but none for Democrats before and in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. election [70][71][72][73].”

    From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) reports higher satisfaction with democracy among Republicans in social-media echo chambers and no detected effect among Democrats, based on a January 2017 survey. The paper does not establish the same pattern before the election or characterize the Republican effect as small; the Results report predicted satisfaction of 96.6% for Republicans in echo chambers versus 72.0% for those outside them. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 41

  1. Anderson Christopher J. 1998 “ Parties, Party Systems, and Satisfaction with Democratic Performance in The New Europe.” Political Studies 46 (3): 572– 88.
  2. Anderson Christopher J., Blais A, Bowler S, Donovan T, and Listhaug. O 2005 Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Anderson Christopher J., and Guillory Christine A.. 1997 “ Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review 91 (1): 66– 81.
  4. Anderson Christopher J., and Andrew LoTempio. 2002 “ Winning, Losing, and Political Trust in America.” British Journal of Political Science 32 (2): 335– 51.
  5. Anderson Christopher J., and Tverdova Yuliya V.. 2001 “ Winners, Losers, and Attitudes Toward Government in Contemporary Democracies.” International Political Science Review 22 (4): 321– 38.
  6. Bakshy Eytan, Messing Solomon, and Adamic Lada A.. 2015 “ Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook.” Science 348 (6239): 1130– 2. 25953820
  7. Banducci Susan A., and Karp Jeffrey A.. 2003 “ How Elections Change the Way Citizens View the Political System: Campaigns, Media Effects and Electoral Outcomes in Comparative Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science 33 (3): 443– 67.
  8. Barberá Pablo, Jost John T., Nagler Jonathan, Tucker Joshua A., and Bonneau Richard. 2015 “ Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?” Psychological Science 26 (10): 1531– 42. 26297377
  9. Baumgaertner Bert. 2014 “ Yes, no, maybe so: a veritistic approach to echo chambers using a trichotomous belief model.” Synthese 191 (11): 2549– 69.
  10. Blais André, and François Gélineau. 2007 “ Winning, Losing, and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Political Studies 55 (2): 425– 41.
  11. Ceron Andrea, and Memoli Vincenzo. 2016 “ Flames and Debates: Do Social Media Affect Satisfaction with Democracy?” Social Indicators Research 126 (1): 225– 40.
  12. Colleoni Elanor, Rozza Alessandro, and Arvidsson Adam. 2014 “ Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data.” Journal of Communication 64 (2): 317– 32.
  13. Craig Stephen C., Martinez Michael D., Gainous Jason, and Kane James G.. 2006 “ Winners, Losers, and Election Context: Voter Responses to the 2000 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (4): 579– 92.
  14. Curini Luigi, Jou Willy, and Memoli Vincenzo. 2012 “ Satisfaction with Democracy and the Winner/Loser Debate: The Role of Policy Preferences and Past Experience.” British Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 241– 61.
  15. Ezrow Lawrence, and Xezonakis Georgios. 2011 “ Citizen Satisfaction With Democracy and Parties’ Policy Offerings “ Comparative Political Studies 44 (9): 1152– 78.
  16. Garrett R. Kelly 2009 “ Politically Motivated Reinforcement Seeking: Reframing the Selective Exposure Debate.” Journal of Communication 59 (4): 676– 99.
  17. Garrett R Kelly Dustin Carnahan, and Lynch. Emily K. 2013 “ A Turn Toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004–2008.” Political Behavior 35 (1): 113– 34.
  18. Henderson Ailsa. 2008 “ Satisfaction with Democracy: The Impact of Winning and Losing in Westminster Systems.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 18 (1): 3– 26.
  19. Hobolt Sara B. 2012 “ Citizen Satisfaction with Democracy in the European Union.” Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (S1): 88– 105.
  20. Hollander Barry A. 2014 “ The Surprised Loser: The Role of Electoral Expectations and News Media Exposure in Satisfaction with Democracy.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 9 (1): 651– 68.
  21. Howell Patrick, and Justwan Florian. 2013 “ Nail-biters and no-contests: The effect of electoral margins on satisfaction with democracy in winners and losers.” Electoral Studies 32 (2): 334– 43.
  22. Huckfeldt Robert, Johnson Paul E., and John Sprague. 2004 Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press.
  23. Huckfeldt Robert, Jeanette Morehouse Mendez, and Tracy Osborn. 2004 “ Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks.” Political Psychology 25 (1): 65– 95.
  24. Lavine Howard. 2001 “ The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence toward Presidential Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 915– 29.
  25. Leiter Debra, and Clark Michael. 2015 “ Valence and satisfaction with democracy: A cross‐national analysis of nine Western European democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 54 (3): 543– 62.
  26. Lelkes Yphtach, Sood Gaurav, and Iyengar Shanto. 2017 “ The Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (1): 5– 20.
  27. Lipset Seymour Martin. 1994 “ The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited: 1993 Presidential Address.” American Sociological Review 59 (1): 1– 22.
  28. Listhaug Ola, Bernt Aardal, and Ellis. Ingunn Opheim 2009 “ Institutional Variation and Political Support: An Analysis of CSES Data from 29 Countries” In The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, edited by Klingemann Hans-Dieter, 85– 108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  29. McPherson Miller, Smith-Lovin Lynn, and Cook. James M 2001 “ Birds of a Feater: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415– 44.
  30. Norris Pippa. 1999 Critical Citizens: Global support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  31. Rudolph Thomas J. 2011 “ The Dynamics of Ambivalence.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 561– 73.
  32. Singh Shane. 2014 “ Not all election winners are equal: Satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote.” European Journal of Political Research 53 (2): 308– 27.
  33. Singh Shane, Karakoç Ekrem, and André Blais. 2012 “ Differentiating Winners: How Elections Affect Satisfaction with Democracy.” Electoral Studies 31 (1): 201– 11.
  34. Singh Shane, Lago Ignacio, and Blais André. 2011 “ Winning and Competitiveness as Determinants of Political Support.” Social Science Quarterly 92 (3): 695– 709.
  35. Singh Shane P., and Thornton Judd R.. 2016 “ Strange bedfellows: Coalition makeup and perceptions of democratic performance among electoral winners.” Electoral Studies 42 (1): 114– 25.
  36. Swigger Nathaniel. 2013 “ The Online Citizen: Is Social Media Changing Citizens’ Beliefs About Democratic Values?” Political Behavior 35 (3): 589– 603.
  37. Taber Charles S., and Lodge Milton. 2006 “ Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755– 69.
  38. Thaler Richard. 1994 The Winner’s Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  39. Stephen. Weatherford, M. 1987 “ How Does Government Performance Influence System Support?” Political Behavior 9 (1): 5– 28.
  40. Wilson George V., and Kerr John H.. 1999 “ Affective responses to success and failure:: a study of winning and losing in competitive rugby.” Personality and Individual Differences 27 (1): 85– 99.
  41. Zhang Weiwu, Johnson Thomas J., Seltzer Trent, and Bichard Shannon L.. 2010 “ The Revolution Will be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior.” Social Science Computer Review 28 (1): 75– 92.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Justwan, F., Baumgaertner, B., Carlisle, J. E., Clark, A. K., & Clark, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Idaho (US)
  • Northern Illinois University (US)
Corresponding author
Justwan, Florian
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-02-08
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
424-442
ISSN
  • 1368-9886 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-7289
  • 1745-7297
DOI
10.1080/17457289.2018.1434784
PMC
PMC6587580
OpenAlex
W2789425809
Cited by
61
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM104420)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
echo chambers, social media, satisfaction with democracy, partisanship, 2016 US presidential election, political polarization, Facebook, Twitter, online political behavior

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