Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates
Open accessAbstract
In this article, we take issue with the claim by Sunstein and others that online discussion takes place in echo chambers, and suggest that the dynamics of online debates could be more aptly described by the logic of ‘trench warfare’, in which opinions are reinforced through contradiction as well as confirmation. We use a unique online survey and an experimental approach to investigate and test echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. The results show that people do indeed claim to discuss with those who hold opposite views from themselves. Furthermore, our survey experiments suggest that both confirming and contradicting arguments have similar effects on attitude reinforcement. Together, this indicates that both echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics – a situation where attitudes are reinforced through both confirmation and disconfirmation biases – characterize online debates. However, we also find that two-sided neutral arguments have weaker effects on reinforcement than one-sided confirming and contradicting arguments, suggesting that online debates could contribute to collective learning and qualification of arguments.
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
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.
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?
Online climate change discussions are interactionally polarized, exhibiting echo chamber-like homophilic interactions between Believers and Disbelievers.
“In other words, online discussions about climate change are interactionally polarized, implying the persistence of echo chambers between Believers and Disbelievers [17]- [19].”
From Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter (2020) · cites this paper as [14]
The Conclusion (page unavailable) explicitly says that describing online debate as an echo chamber is inaccurate: debaters report discussing with people who hold different values almost as often as with like-minded people. The paper examines political debate generally, not climate-change discussions or interactions between Believers and Disbelievers. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredStudies on social media have found limited evidence for homogeneous clusters on most social media platforms; users may be unlikely to rebroadcast opposing content but are often exposed to it and may respond.
“Studies on social media have found limited evidence for the described homogeneous clusters on most social media platforms: while users may be unlikely to rebroadcast content from the opposing side, they are often exposed to it and may even respond (11, 62–69).”
From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
The Trench warfare dynamics section says there is little evidence that people avoid political diversity online, and the Conclusion reports that people frequently encounter opposing arguments and can interact with those holding opposite views. The paper does not establish this pattern across most social media platforms or address whether users rebroadcast opposing content; its Conclusion cautions that the dynamics may differ by platform. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe hashtags #ClimateChangeIsReal and #SavetheEarth are used mostly by Believers, and #ClimateHoax and #Qanon are used mostly by Disbelievers.
“These hashtags have been shown to be used mostly by the respective groups [14].”
From Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter (2020) · cites this paper as [14]
The empirical-analysis passages report survey responses and attitude change in online debates, not hashtag use by climate-change Believers or Disbelievers. Searches for the four named hashtags and for climate-change hashtag use found no passage addressing the claimed group-specific usage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
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
Red 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 · see citing works
Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users
Garrett, R. K. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x · Cited by 1,040 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Arceneaux K Johnson M Cryderman J (2013) Communication, persuasion, and the conditioning value of selective exposure: Like minds may unite and divide but they mostly tune out. Political Communication 30(2): 213– 231.
- Brundidge J (2010) Encountering ‘difference’ in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication 60: 680– 700.
- Bücher T (2012) Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society 14(7): 1164– 1180.
- Dahlberg L (2007) Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society 9(5): 827– 847.
- Dahlgren P (2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication 22(2): 147– 162.
- Edwards K Smith EE (1996) A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 5– 24.
- Freelon DG (2010) Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society 12(7): 1172– 1190.
- Gentzkow M Shapiro JM (2011) Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics 126: 1799– 1839.
- Hart W Albarracín D Eagly AH (2009) Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin 135(4): 555– 588. 19586162 PMC4797953
- Hirzalla F van Zoonen L de Ridder J (2011) Internet use and political participation: Reflections on the mobilization/normalization controversy. Information Society 27(1): 1– 15.
- Jamieson KH Capella JN (2008) Echo Chamber. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Jenkins H (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
- Lebo MJ Cassino D (2007) The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology 28(6): 719– 746.
- Lodge M Taber CS (2000) Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In: Lupia A McCubbins M Popkin S (eds) Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183– 213.
- Mutz DC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Mutz DC (2011) Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Noelle-Neumann E (1974) The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 24: 43– 51.
- Noelle-Neumann E (1984) The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion – Our Social Skin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Pool IS (1990) Technologies without Boundaries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Prior M (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Salmon CT Kline FG (1985) The spiral of silence ten years later: An examination and evaluation. In: Sanders KR Kaid LL Nimmo D (eds) Political Communication Yearbook 1984. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 3– 30.
- Stromer-Galley J Muhlbeger P (2009) Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy. Political Communication 26(2): 173– 192.
- Sunstein C (2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
- Sunstein C (2007) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
- Taber CS Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 755– 769.
- Van Alstyne M Brynjolfsson E (1996) Electronic communities: Global village or cyberbalkans? In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on information systems, Cleveland, OH, 15 December.
- Van Dijk JAGM (2006) The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media, 2nd edn. London: SAGE.
- Zerback T Fawzi N (2016) Can online exemplars trigger a spiral of silence? Examining the effects of exemplar opinions on perceptions of public opinion and speaking out. New Media & Society.Published online before print. DOI: 10.1177/1461444815625942 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter
Tyagi, A., Uyheng, J., & Carley, K. M. (2020) · 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) · doi:10.1109/asonam49781.2020.9381419 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
“Opposed groups may communicate in a highly balkanized fashion, such that members of an ingroup are only minimally exposed to out-group members and their beliefs [6], [7].”
BackgroundHomophily and polarization on political twitter during the 2017 Norwegian election
Enjolras, B., & Salway, A. (2022) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-022-01018-z · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationNordbrandt, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2022.921188 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“, Barberá, 2015; Levendusky and Stecula, 2021; PadróSolanet and Balcells, 2022), and still, other pieces of evidence are based on experimental manipulation of crosscutting exposure or discussion (e.g., Taber and Lodge, 2006; Wojcieszak and Price, 2010; Karlsen et al., 2017; Bail et al., 2018; Druckman and Levendusky,…”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., Wollebæk, D., & Enjolras, B.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Social Research (NO)
- Institute for Social Research, Norway
- Corresponding author
- Karlsen, Rune
- Venue
- European Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-04-03
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 257-273
- ISSN
- 0267-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-3705
- PMC
- PMC5482382
- OpenAlex
- W2604583612
- Cited by
- 154
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 31.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Journal of Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- echo chambers, trench warfare, online debate, confirmation bias, online discourse, argumentation, collective learning
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
