The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Me, My Echo Chamber, and I: Introspection on Social Media Polarization
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · Cited by 3,245
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,996
The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog
Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005) · Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery · doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277 · Cited by 2,619
Political Polarization in the American Public
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836 · Cited by 1,798
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
LaFollette, H., & Woodruff, M. L. (2013) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2013.838752 · Cited by 1,402
The law of group polarization.
Sunstein, C. R. (2002) · Journal of Political Philosophy · doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00148 · Cited by 1,371
Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation
GREEN, D. P. (2024) · doi:10.61700/sgeirzx0v0mjh1252 · Cited by 1,322
Network Diversity and Economic Development
Eagle, N., Macy, M. W., & Claxton, R. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1186605 · Cited by 778
Understanding the Demographics of Twitter Users
Mislove, A. E., Lehmann, S., Ahn, Y., Onnela, J.-P. “., & Rosenquist, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14168 · Cited by 761
Political Polarization on Twitter
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14126 · Cited by 626 · cited 2×
“ed mention networks — suggesting homophilous endorsement patterns accompanied by a tendency for politically active users to inject partisan content and “call out” their counterparts on the other side [7]. Therefore, even when social media platforms create opportunities for cross-cutting dialog, the dialog is often muc…”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–118 of 118
Méndez-Domínguez, P., de Mesa, J. C., & Peláez, A. L. (2022) · Media Education · doi:10.36253/me-13387
Algorithmic Intervention: Addressing Social Media Polarization Via Genetic AlgorithmsPreprint
Mustafa, Z. U. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4814800
Noda, K., Fukuma, T., Ubukata, T., Ichikawa, Y., Kambe, K., Masubuchi, Y., & Toriumi, F. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825907
PARALLAX: Leveraging Polarization Knowledge for Misinformation Detection
Paschalides, D., Pallis, G., & Dikaiakos, M. D. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78541-2_6
Evaluating LLMs Capabilities Towards Understanding Social Dynamics
Tahir, A., Cheng, L., Sandoval, M. I., Silva, Y. N., Hall, D. L., & Liu, H. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78548-1_18
Guidotti, S., Donabauer, G., Somazzi, S., Kruschwitz, U., Taibi, D., & Ognibene, D. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-87654-7_6
Mahdi, H. A. (2025) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-87154-2_31
Hughes, M. A., DeSota, E., Victor, M., Lynn, S., Stormonth-Darling, J., & Barry, L. (2025) · Decennial Aarhus Conference · doi:10.1145/3737609.3747119
Measuring Social Media Polarization Using Large Language Models and Heuristic Rules
Chowdhury, J. M., Rashid, R., & Terejanu, G. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-14107-1_35
Attri, P. S., Ramya, S. M., Glozer, S., & Soundararajan, V. (2026) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503261415776
Silence and Noise: Self-censorship and Opinion Expression on Social Media
Wang, X., Carpenetti, E., Desmarais, B. A., & Rajtmajer, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3817000
Kim, S. (2026) · Asian Communication Research · doi:10.20879/acr.2026.23.005
Unicoon: Hypergraph-based Multi-Agent Simulation of Information Cocoons
Wei, C., Tu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2026) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3774904.3792486
The Dark Side of Fandom and the Detrimental Effects of Pop Culture Idol Worship
Su, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.54691/6hcf7769
Leading Through Change and Challenge: A Critical Inclusive Praxis Framework
Osiname, A., & Kirk, J. (2026) · Journal of School Leadership · doi:10.1177/10526846261452419
PANther: Party-specific Attention-based Networks for Accurate Political Perspective Detection
Ryu, S., & Kim, S. (2026) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/3748522.3780001
Breaking the echo-chamber effect via consent
Korem, N., Shrot, T., & Daltrophe, H. (2026) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-026-01631-2
Metadata
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
