Right-wing populism, social media and echo chambers in Western democracies
Abstract
Many observers are concerned that echo chamber effects in digital media are contributing to the polarization of publics and, in some places, to the rise of right-wing populism. This study employs survey data collected in France, the United Kingdom and the United States (1500 respondents in each country) from April to May 2017. Overall, we do not find evidence that online/social media explain support for right-wing populist candidates and parties. Instead, in the United States, use of online media decreases support for right-wing populism. Looking specifically at echo chamber measures, we find offline discussion with those who are similar in race, ethnicity and class positively correlates with support for populist candidates and parties in the United Kingdom and France. The findings challenge claims about the role of social media and the rise of populism.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Only a minority of articles found no relationship or the reverse relationship between digital media and populism.
“Only a minority of articles found no relationship or the reverse relationship between digital media and populism138–140.”
From A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy (2022) · cites this paper as [138]
Greater media diversity reduces the likelihood of echo chamber formation.
“Greater media diversity reduces the likelihood of echo chamber formation, as studies such as Boulianne et al. [16], Dubois et al. [65], Jones-Jang and Chung [68], Burnett et al. [69], found only minimal indication of echo chambers when examining the complete multimedia environment.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
There is no evidence that social media increases support for right-wing populism.
“Boulianne et al. [16] found no evidence that social media increases support for right-wing populism”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
User attributes linked to echo chambers include, besides selective exposure, personality traits, fear of isolation and anger, openness, and reflectiveness.
“These user attributes that are linked to echo chambers include-besides selective exposurepersonality traits (e.g., [16]), fear of isolation and anger (e.g, [104]), openness (e.g., [84]), and reflectiveness (e.g., [93]).”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
Most studies examined specific groups or communities on platforms, such as climate change deniers, vaccination opponents and advocates, and Trump supporters.
“Most studies examined specific groups or communities on platforms, such as climate change deniers (e.g., [94]), vaccination opponents and advocates (e.g., [49]), and Trump supporters (e.g., [16]).”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 · Cited by 1,992 · 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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Waisbord, S. (2020) · REVISTA SAAP · doi:10.46468/rsaap.14.2.a1 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Boulianne, S., Koc-Michalska, K., & Bimber, B.
- Affiliations
- MacEwan University (CA)
- Audencia Business School, France
- University of California, USA
- Corresponding author
- Boulianne, Shelley
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 683-699
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W3014908418
- Cited by
- 153
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 7
- FWCI
- 69.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- New Media & Society (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- right-wing populism, social media, echo chambers, political polarization, offline social interaction, Western democracies, France, United Kingdom, United States
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