The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Dynamics of Audience Fragmentation: Public Attention in an Age of Digital Media
Abstract
Audience fragmentation is often taken as evidence of social polarization. Yet the tools we use to study fragmentation provide limited information about how people allocate their attention across digital media. We offer a theoretical framework for understanding fragmentation and advocate for more audience-centric studies. This approach is operationalized by applying network analysis metrics to Nielsen data on television and Internet use. We find extremely high levels of audience duplication across 236 media outlets, suggesting overlapping patterns of public attention rather than isolated groups of audience loyalists.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification
Freeman, L. C. (1978) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 · Cited by 17,062
The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2783 · Cited by 2,869
Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1121066 · Cited by 2,231 · cited 2×
“Most social media seem to offer some sort of measures that alert users to what their fellow consumers have done or said, often guiding subsequent choices (Cho & Roy, 2004; Salganik, Dodds, & Watts, 2006).”
BackgroundRed Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x · Cited by 1,940
Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure
Stroud, N. J. (2008) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9 · Cited by 1,154
Ideological Segregation Online and Offline *
Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjr044 · Cited by 980
The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure
Prior, M. (2009) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfp002 · Cited by 561
Viewer Preference Segmentation and Viewing Choice Models for Network Television
Rust, R. T., Kamakura, W. A., & Alpert, M. I. (1992) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.1992.10673356 · Cited by 87
Cited by
The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media
Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1428656 · Cited by 1,055
Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?
Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., et al. (2017) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551 · Cited by 974
Curated Flows: A Framework for Mapping Media Exposure in the Digital Age
Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2016) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/comt.12087 · Cited by 570
Social media and the formation of organizational reputation
Etter, M., Ravasi, D., & Colleoni, E. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0280 · Cited by 428
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-02
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-56
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168008434
- Cited by
- 604
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 43.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Dynamics of Audience Fragmentation: Public Attention in an Age of Digital Media. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x
- The paper
- Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). The Dynamics of Audience Fragmentation: Public Attention in an Age of Digital Media. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
