CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and Politics

Partisan blocking: Biased responses to shared misinformation contribute to network polarization on social media

Open access
Kaiser, Johannes, Vaccari, Cristian, Chadwick, Andrew·2022·Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1093/joc/jqac002
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Researchers know little about how people respond to misinformation shared by their social media “friends.” Do responses scale up to distort the structure of online networks? We focus on an important yet under-researched response to misinformation—blocking or unfollowing a friend who shares it—and assess whether this is influenced by political similarity between friends. Using a representative sample of social media users (n = 968), we conducted two 2 × 2 between-subjects experiments focusing on two political issues and individuals’ political ideology as a quasi-factor. The first factor manipulated who shared the misinformation (politically similar vs. dissimilar friend); the second manipulated the misinformation’s plausibility (implausible vs. moderately plausible). Our findings, which replicated across political issues and levels of plausibility, reveal that social media users, particularly left-wing users, are more likely to block and unfollow politically dissimilar than similar friends who share misinformation. Partisan blocking contributes to network polarization on social media.

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/joc/jqac002

Cites

47 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?

  • Very active partisan users are responsible for perceived dominance of misinformation and incivility and the polarization of social media networks.

    “It is precisely these very active partisan users that are found to be responsible for the perceived dominance of misinformation and incivility (Dourado & Salgado, 2021) and the polarization of social media networks (Kaiser et al., 2022).”

    From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Kaiser et al., 2022

    The Abstract says partisan blocking of people who share misinformation is likely to contribute to polarization of social media networks. It does not identify very active partisan users as responsible, and presents network polarization as a likely consequence rather than an established outcome. The incivility claim is attributed to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Users block, unfollow, and unfriend those on social media who appear to conflict with their own position.

    “Other research also illustrates this type of dynamic that users block, unfollow, and unfriend those on social media who appear to conflict with their own position (Bozdag, 2020;Kaiser et al., 2022).”

    From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Kaiser et al., 2022

    The Discussion says politically dissimilar friends who share misinformation are more likely to be blocked or unfollowed, and the Conclusion also describes unfriending in this context. The claim omits that condition and suggests political disagreement alone prompts these actions. The Limitations section says blocking or unfriending is unlikely to be a regular response to all political news from dissimilar users. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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: 1

  1. Bourdieu, P. (2005). Habitus. In E. Rooksby & J. Hillier (Eds.), Habitus: A sense of place (2nd ed., pp. 43-52). New York: Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kaiser, J., Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A.
Affiliations
Loughborough University (GB)
Corresponding author
Vaccari, Cristian
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2022-03-30
Volume
72
Issue
2
Pages
214-240
ISSN
  • 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2466
DOI
10.1093/joc/jqac002
OpenAlex
W4220825383
Cited by
44
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
10.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Swiss National Science Foundation
  • Loughborough University
  • Early Postdoc Mobility Fellowship (#P2ZHP1_191288)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
misinformation, blocking, political similarity, political ideology, social networking sites, echo chambers

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