Cited by 207Social Media and PoliticsPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsMisinformation and Its Impacts

Explaining the Emergence of Political Fragmentation on Social Media: The Role of Ideology and Extremism

Open access
Bright, Jonathan·2018·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Abstract

The emergence of politically driven divisions in online discussion networks has attracted a wealth of literature, but also one which has thus far been largely limited to single country studies. Hence whilst there is good evidence that these networks do divide and fragment into what are often described as "echo chambers", we know little about the factors which might explain this division or make networks more or less fragmented, as studies have been limited to a small number of political groupings with limited possibilities for systematic comparison. This paper seeks to remedy this deficit, by providing a systematic large scale study of fragmentation on Twitter which considers discussion networks surrounding 90 different political parties in 23 different countries. It shows that political party groupings which are further apart in ideological terms interact less, and that individuals and parties which sit at the extreme ends of the ideological scale are particularly likely to form echo chambers. Indeed, exchanges between centrist parties who sit on different sides of the left-right divide are more likely than communication between centrist and extremist parties who are, notionally, from the same ideological wing. In light of the results, theory about exposure to different ideological viewpoints online is discussed and enhanced.

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 · 10.1093/jcmc/zmx002

Cites

4 of 4 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?

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: 43

  1. Adamic, L., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Link Discovery, 36-43.
  2. Aragón, P., Kappler, K., Kaltenbrunner, A., Laniado, D., & Volkovich, Y. (2013). Communication dynamics in twitter during political campaigns: The case of the 2011 Spanish national election. Policy & Internet, 5(2), 183-206.
  3. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bright, J. (2016). The social news gap: How news reading and news sharing diverge. Journal of Communication, 66(3), 343-365. doi:10.1111/jcom.12232 · DOI
  5. Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering "difference" in the contemporary public sphere. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680-700. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x · DOI
  6. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2015). Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In N. Rambukkana (Ed.), Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks. New York: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-1672-8 · DOI
  7. Castles, F., & Mair, P. (1984). Left-right political scales: Some "expert" judgments. European Journal of Political Research, 12(1), 73-88.
  8. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317-332. doi:10.1111/jcom.12084 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Conover, M., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2012). Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science, 1(6). doi:10.1140/epjds6 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Conover, M., Gonçalves, B., Ratkiewicz, J., Flammini, A., Menczer, F. (2011). Predicting the political alignment of twitter users. Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust, Boston, MA (USA), 192-199.
  11. Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society, 9(5), 827-847. doi:10.1177/1461444807081228 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Döring, H. (2012). The collective action of data collection: A data infrastructure on parties, elections and cabinets. European Union Politics, 14(1), 161-178.
  13. Feller, A., Kuhnert, M., Sprenger, T., Welpe, I. (2011). Divided they tweet: The network structure of political microbloggers and discussion topics. Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Spain, 474-477.
  14. Gaines, B., & Mondak, J. (2009). Typing together? Clustering of ideological types in online social networks. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3), 216-231.
  15. Garcia, D., Abisheva, A., Schweighofer, S., Serdült, U., & Schweitzer, F. (2015). Ideological and temporal components of network polarization in online political participatory media. Policy & Internet, 7(1), 46-79. doi:10.1002/poi3.82 · DOI
  16. Garcia, D., Mendez, F., Serdült, U., & Schweitzer, F. (2012). Political polarization and popularity in online participatory media. In Proceedings of the First Edition Workshop on Politics, Elections and Data-Plead'12, Maui, Hawaii, USA.
  17. Garrett, R. K. (2009a). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676-699.
  18. Gruzd, A., & Roy, J. (2014). Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 28-45. doi:10.1002/1944-2866. · DOI · Paper page
  19. POI354 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hargittai, E., Gallo, J., & Kane, M. (2008). Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice, 134(1-2), 67-86. doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9201-x · DOI · Paper page
  21. Herrnson, P., Stokes-Brown, A., & Hindman, M. (2007). Campaign politics and the digital divide: Constituency characteristics, strategic considerations, and candidate internet use in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 60(1), 31-42.
  22. Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 40-60.
  23. Huckfeldt, R., Morehouse Mendez, J., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65-95. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. Johnson, T., Bichard, S., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication communities or "Cyber-Ghettos?": A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 60-82.
  25. Kim, K. (2011). Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: The hostile media approach. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 690-705.
  26. Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 971-977.
  27. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015). Choice and preference in media use: Advances in selective exposure theory and research. London: Routledge.
  28. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude- consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426-448. doi:10.1177/0093650209333030 · DOI
  29. Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 123-140.
  30. Lawrence, E., Sides, J., & Farrell, H. (2010). Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 8(1), 141-157.
  31. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
  32. Myers, D., & Lamm, H. (1975). The polarizing effect of group discussion. American Scientist, 63(3), 297-303.
  33. Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133-142.
  34. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9-27. doi:10.1177/14614440222226244 · DOI
  35. Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Sunstein, C. (2016). Echo chambers on Facebook. Available from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795110
  36. Stroud, N. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x · DOI · Paper page
  37. Sunstein, C. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175-195. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00148 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Sunstein, C. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  39. Van Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1999). Global village or cyber-Balkans? Management Science, 51(6), 851-868. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0363 · DOI
  40. Warner, B. R. 2010. Segmenting the electorate: The effects of exposure to political extremism online. Communication Studies, 61(4), 430-444.
  41. Wojcieszak, M. (2009). Carrying online participation offline: Mobilization by radical online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties. Journal of Communication, 59(3), 564-586.
  42. Wojcieszak, M., & Mutz, D. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication, 59(1), 40-56. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x · DOI
  43. Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316-327.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bright, J.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Bright, Jonathan
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Published
2018-01-01
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
17-33
ISSN
1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2789529217
Cited by
207
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
46.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • VOX-Pol Network
  • EU 7th Framework Programme (312827)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
political fragmentation, ideology, extremism, left-right divide, political groups, Twitter, ideological distance, 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