#PolarizedFeeds: Three experiments on polarization, framing, and social media
Abstract
Does exposure to social media polarize users or simply sort out like-minded voters based on their preexisting beliefs? In this paper, we conduct three survey experiments to assess the direct and unconditioned effect of exposure to tweets on perceived ideological polarization of candidates and parties. We show that subjects treated with negative tweets see greater ideological distance between presidential nominees and between their parties. We also demonstrate that polarization increases with processing time. We demonstrate a social media effect on perceived polarization beyond that due to the self-selection of like-minded users into different media communities. We explain our results as the result of social media frames that increase contrast effects between voters and candidates.
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?
In contrast to face-to-face social interaction, intergroup contact through digital media networks often fosters polarization, at least in the context of political debates.
“Yet, in contrast to face-to-face social interaction (Balietti et al., 2021;Brankovi c et al., 2020), intergroup-contact through digital media networks often fosters polarization, at least in the context of political debates (Banks et al., 2021;Barbera ´, 2020;Zhang et al., 2022).”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Banks et al., 2021
Experimental approaches show distorted meta-representations of outgroups on digital platforms can result in disaffection across ideological groups.
“Experimental approaches show e.g., how distorted meta-representations of outgroups on digital platforms can result in disaffection across ideological groups (Bail et al. 2018, Banks et al. 2021).”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Banks et al. 2021
Cites
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
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
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In the last few years, a consensus has emerged that voters read and share political information in segregated social media communities (Bakshy et al. 2015; Barberá 2015; Bhattacharya et al. 2016; Del Vicario et al. 2016; Vaccari et al. 2013; Yardi and Boyd 2010).”
BackgroundBerinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12081 · Cited by 951 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As researchers find stronger treatment effects among respondents who are more cognitively engaged with political stimuli (Berinsky et al. 2014; Chaiken 1980), our second experiment finds the time respondents spend reading a tweet increases perceived polarization.”
BackgroundAre people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817724170 · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Theodoridis, A. G. (2017) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/692738 · Cited by 117 · 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
Brüggemann, M., & Meyer, H. (2023) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtad012 · Cited by 60 · 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
Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization
Piccardi, T., Saveski, M., Jia, C., Hancock, J., Tsai, J. L., & Bernstein, M. S. (2025) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adu5584 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“Some studies support this hypothesis, finding that online interactions exacerbate polarization ( 27 ), potentially because of the increased visibility of hostile political discussions ( 28 ), divisive language ( 29 – 33 ), and content that reinforces existing beliefs ( 34 ).”
López-Robles, A. (2023) · Revista de la Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación · doi:10.24137/raeic.10.19.12 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Banks, A., Calvo, E., Karol, D., & Telhami, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Corresponding author
- Calvo, Ernesto
- Venue
- The International Journal of Press/Politics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-07-23
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 609-634
- ISSN
- 1040-1620 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-1612
- 1940-1620
- OpenAlex
- W4253755350
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 13.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The International Journal of Press/Politics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- ideological polarization, social media exposure, tweets, framing effects, contrast effects, presidential candidates, party ideology, processing time, survey experiment
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
