CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsMedia and Digital Communication

Managing diverse online networks in the context of polarization: Understanding how we grow apart on and through social media

Open access
Bozdag, Cigdem·2020·Social Media + Society
DOI 10.1177/2056305120975713
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Social media enable their users to be connected with a diverse group of people increasing their chances of coming across divergent viewpoints. Thus, network diversity is a key issue for understanding the potentials of social media for creating a cross-cutting communication space that is one of the premises of a functioning democracy. This article analyzes the strategies social media users adopt to manage their network diversity in the context of increasing polarization. The study is based on 29 semi-structured interviews with diverse social media users from Turkey and qualitative network maps. Furthermore, the study adopts a cross-platform approach comparing Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp in relation to the diversity of their users’ networks. The study shows that social media users adopt different strategies interchangeably in specific contexts. These strategies include visible (unfriending, blocking) and invisible (muting, unfollowing, and ignoring) forms of disconnection, debating, observing divergent opinions, and self-censorship. Political interest of social media users, political climate, issue sensitivity, and “imagined affordances” of social media platforms play a role in users’ choices about which strategy to choose when they are confronted with divergent viewpoints through their diverse online networks. Building on the unfriending literature that points out to rather partisan users, who unfriend, unfollow or block others, this article demonstrates that in peak moments of polarization, also the politically disengaged or moderate users disconnect from diverse others.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2056305120975713

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 36 · Cited by 59

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Baym, N. K., & boyd, d. (2012). Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 320-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.70 5200 · DOI
  2. Beam, M. A., Child, J. T., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2018). Context collapse and privacy management: Diversity in Facebook friends increases online news reading and shar- ing. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2296-2314. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444817714790 · DOI
  3. Berg, M., & Hepp, A. (2018). A qualitative network approach to transmedia communication. In M. Freeman & R. R. Gambarato (Eds.), The Routledge companion to transmedia studies (pp. 455-463). Routledge.
  4. Bode, L. (2016). Pruning the news feed: Unfriending and unfollow- ing political content on social media. Research & Politics, 3(3), Article 661873. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168016661873 · DOI
  5. boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 39-58). Routledge.
  6. boyd, d. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
  7. Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering "difference" in the contem- porary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x · DOI
  8. Çelik, A. B., Bilali, R., & Iqbal, Y. (2017). Patterns of "othering" in Turkey: A study of ethnic, ideological, and sectarian polari- sation. South European Society and Politics, 22(2), 217-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2016.1250382 · DOI
  9. Chen, H. T. (2018). Spiral of silence on social media and the moderating role of disagreement and publicness in the net- work: Analyzing expressive and withdrawal behaviors. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3917-3936. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444818763384 · DOI
  10. Choi, J., & Lee, J. K. (2015). Investigating the effects of news shar- ing and political interest on social media network heterogene- ity. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 258-266. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.029 · DOI
  11. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measur- ing political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcom.12084 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011, July 17-21). Political polarization on Twitter [Full paper]. Fifth International Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Spain. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM/paper/ viewPaper/112847
  13. Costa, E. (2018). Affordances-in-practice: An ethnographic cri- tique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3641-3656. https://doi.org/10.1177 /1461444818756290 · DOI
  14. Davis, J. L., & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691 18x.2014.888458 · DOI
  15. Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729-745. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1428656 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hampton, K. N., Lee, C. J., & Her, E. J. (2011). How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social set- tings. New Media & Society, 13(7), 1031-1049. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444810390342 · DOI
  17. Hayes, R. A., Smock, A., & Carr, C. T. (2015). Face[book] man- agement: Self-presentation of political views on social media. Communication Studies, 66(5), 549-568. http://doi.org/10.108 0/10510974.2015.1018447 · DOI
  18. Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analy- ses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 154-174. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12001 · DOI
  19. John, N. A., & Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2015). "I don't like you any more": Facebook unfriending by Israelis during the Israel-Gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 953-974. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12188 · DOI
  20. John, N. A., & Gal, N. (2018). "He's got his own sea": Political Facebook unfriending in the personal public sphere. Intern- ational Journal of Communication, 65(2015), 953-974. https:// doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2014.214 · DOI
  21. Kearney, M. W. (2019). Analyzing change in network polariza- tion. New Media & Society, 21(6), 1380-1402. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444818822813 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Kim, C., & Lee, J. K. (2016). Social media type matters: Investigating the relationship between motivation and online social network heterogeneity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(4), 676-693. https://doi.org/10.1080/08 838151.2016.1234481 · DOI
  23. Kim, Y., & Chen, H. T. (2015). Discussion network heterogene- ity matters: Examining a moderated mediation model of social media use and civic engagement. International Journal of Communication, 9, 2344-2365.
  24. Kocer, S., & Bozdağ, Ç. (2020). News-sharing repertoires on social media in the context of networked authoritarianism: The case of Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 14, 5292-5310.
  25. Lee, F. L. (2016). Impact of social media on opinion polarization in varying times. Communication and the Public, 1(1), 56-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047315617763 · DOI
  26. Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702-722. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077 · DOI
  27. Lu, Y., & Lee, J. K. (2020). Determinants of cross-cutting discus- sion on Facebook: Political interest, news consumption, and strong-tie heterogeneity. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819899879 · DOI
  28. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet pas- sionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444810365313 · DOI · Paper page
  29. McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynam- ics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 16-42. https://doi.org/10 .1177/0002764218759576 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97-114. https://doi. org/10.1017/s0003055401000223 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Nagy, P., & Neff, G. (2015). Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media+ Society, 1(2), Article 603385. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full /10.1177/2056305115 · DOI
  32. Panayırcı, U. C., İşeri, E., & Şekercioğlu, E. (2016). Political agency of news outlets in a polarized media system: Framing the cor- ruption probe in Turkey. European Journal of Communication, 31(5), 551-567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116669455 · DOI
  33. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9-27. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-11719-1_3 · DOI
  34. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE.
  35. Schwarz, O., & Shani, G. (2016). Culture in mediated interaction: Political defriending on Facebook and the limits of networked individualism. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 4(3), 385-421. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-016-0006-6 · DOI
  36. Skoric, M. M., Zhu, Q., & Lin, J. H. T. (2018). What predicts selective avoidance on social media? A study of political unfriending in Hong Kong and Taiwan. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(8), 1097-1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002 764218764251 · DOI
  37. Sunstein, C. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
  38. Thorson, K. (2014). Facing an uncertain reception: Young citi- zens and political interaction on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 203-216.
  39. Van Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2005). Global village or cyber-balkans? Modeling and measuring the integration of electronic communities. Management Science, 51(6), 851-868. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2013.862563 · DOI

Authors
Bozdag, C.
Affiliations
University of Groningen, The Netherlands
ORCID
Bozdag, Cigdem
Venue
Social Media + Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-10
Volume
6
Issue
4
ISSN
2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/2056305120975713
OpenAlex
W3112042938
Cited by
59
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 2
FWCI
11.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES, Istanbul 2016)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
social media polarization, network diversity, unfriending, blocking, muting, self-censorship, political disengagement, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Turkey

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