CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,040Media Influence and PoliticsSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Studies and Communication

Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users

Open access
Garrett, R. Kelly·2009·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
DOI 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A review of research suggests that the desire for opinion reinforcement may play a more important role in shaping individuals’ exposure to online political information than an aversion to opinion challenge. The article tests this idea using data collected via a web-administered behavior-tracking study with subjects recruited from the readership of 2 partisan online news sites (N = 727). The results demonstrate that opinion-reinforcing information promotes news story exposure while opinion-challenging information makes exposure only marginally less likely. The influence of both factors is modest, but opinion-reinforcing information is a more important predictor. Having decided to view a news story, evidence of an aversion to opinion challenges disappears: There is no evidence that individuals abandon news stories that contain information with which they disagree. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

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 · 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Homophily in communication is understood to lead to the formation of echo chambers which reinforce individual beliefs and fuel further increase in polarization.

    “Homophily in communication, the tendency of people to communicate with others having similar beliefs, is understood to lead to the formation of echo chambers which reinforce individual beliefs and fuel further increase in polarization.”

    From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Garrett, 2009

    The Discussion says people prefer opinion-reinforcing news, but also says there is little evidence that they use the Internet to create echo chambers devoid of other viewpoints. The Conclusion says concern about increasing fragmentation appears overstated. The paper therefore does not support the claimed progression from like-minded communication to echo chambers and greater polarization. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Homophily among liberals and conservatives in political blogs links leads to echo chambers.

    “For example, homophily among liberals and conservatives in political blogs links (Adamic and Glance, 2005), i.e., the tendency of liberal and conservative blogs to link primarily within their separate communities, leads to echo chambers (Jasny et al., 2015;Garrett, 2009;Flaxman et al., 2016), and hence beliefs can be polarized due to such exposure to selective information (Bakshy et al., 2015).”

    From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Garrett, 2009

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says there is little evidence that people use the Internet to create echo chambers devoid of other viewpoints, contrary to the claim that selective linking leads to echo chambers. Garrett studies online news choices, not links between political blogs; the Discussion treats politically segmented services as a possible future threat, not an established outcome. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Users show a tendency to favor information adhering to their beliefs and join groups formed around a shared narrative, that is, echo chambers.

    “Furthermore, users show a tendency to favor information adhering to their beliefs and join groups formed around a shared narrative, that is, echo chambers (1, 14–18).”

    From The echo chamber effect on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Discussion reports that users are more likely to select and spend time reading news that reinforces their opinions. It does not show that they join groups formed around a shared narrative; the Conclusion instead cautions that fears of Internet-driven fragmentation may be overstated. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Estudios basados en encuestas encuentran que el efecto polarizador de la red no deriva de la tendencia de las cámaras de eco, sino de la exposición transversal a mensajes de personas con ideologías políticas opuestas.

    “Estudios basados en encuestas encuentran que el efecto polarizador de la red no deriva de la tendencia de las cámaras de eco, sino más bien de la exposición transversal a los mensajes de personas con ideologías políticas opuestas (Bail y otros, 2018;Garrett, 2009).”

    From Polarización, heterogeneidad política y redes sociales en México: un análisis comparativo de #PresidenteRompaElPacto, #FRENA y #RevocacionDeMandato en Twitter (2023) · cites this paper as Garrett, 2009

    The Conclusion (page not provided) says online news users do not isolate themselves entirely from opposing views, supporting the claim's rejection of complete echo chambers. But the paper does not find that cross-cutting exposure causes internet-driven polarization; its own study used behavioral tracking rather than a survey (Abstract, page not provided). (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Polarized communication networks have been observed in controversial debates on social media, including political orientation, elections, and street protests.

    “In social media, such polarized communication networks were observed in controversial debates ranging from political orientation [10, 11], US and French presidential elections [12], or street protests [13].”

    From Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks (2020) · cites this paper as [13]

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. Kohut, A., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., & Keeter, S. (2006). Online papers modestly boost newspaper readership: Maturing Internet news audience-broader than deep. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for The People and The Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Garrett, R. K.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Garrett, R. Kelly
ORCID
Garrett, R. Kelly
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009-01
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
265-285
ISSN
1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
OpenAlex
W2137809006
Cited by
1,040
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 102 · 2020: 120 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 16
FWCI
45.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 2434 d)
Locations
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
Keywords
selective exposure, echo chambers, online news, political information, political polarization, news avoidance

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