Cited by 118Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Influence and Politics

Me, My Echo Chamber, and I: Introspection on Social Media Polarization

Open access
Gillani, Nabeel, Yuan, Ann, Saveski, Martin, Vosoughi, Soroush, Roy, Deb·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18

Abstract

Homophily - our tendency to surround ourselves with others who share our perspectives and opinions about the world - is both a part of human nature and an organizing principle underpinning many of our digital social networks. However, when it comes to politics or culture, homophily can amplify tribal mindsets and produce "echo chambers" that degrade the quality, safety, and diversity of discourse online. While several studies have empirically proven this point, few have explored how making users aware of the extent and nature of their political echo chambers influences their subsequent beliefs and actions. In this paper, we introduce Social Mirror, a social network visualization tool that enables a sample of Twitter users to explore the politically-active parts of their social network. We use Social Mirror to recruit Twitter users with a prior history of political discourse to a randomized experiment where we evaluate the effects of different treatments on participants' i) beliefs about their network connections, ii) the political diversity of who they choose to follow, and iii) the political alignment of the URLs they choose to share. While we see no effects on average political alignment of shared URLs, we find that recommending accounts of the opposite political ideology to follow reduces participants» beliefs in the political homogeneity of their network connections but still enhances their connection diversity one week after treatment. Conversely, participants who enhance their belief in the political homogeneity of their Twitter connections have less diverse network connections 2-3 weeks after treatment. We explore the implications of these disconnects between beliefs and actions on future efforts to promote healthier exchanges in our digital public spheres.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3178876.3186130

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Combating social media's echo chamber effect through active exposure to diverse perspectives and networks represents a viable individual-level strategy for addressing the deepfake problem.

    “Thus, combating social media's echo chamber effect through an active exposure to diverse perspectives and networks also represents a viable individual-level strategy for addressing the deepfake problem (Cinelli et al., 2021; Gillani et al., 2018).”

    From Deepfakes: Deceptions, mitigations, and opportunities (2023) · cites this paper as Gillani et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gillani, N., Yuan, A., Saveski, M., Vosoughi, S., & Roy, D.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
2018
Pages
823-831
OpenAlex
W4300918441
Cited by
117
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4
FWCI
38.61
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
echo chambers, political homophily, social network visualization, Twitter, political polarization, network diversity, social mirror, online political discourse, public sphere

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