Politically Motivated Avoidance in Social Networks: A Study of Facebook and the 2020 Presidential Election
Open accessAbstract
This study considers politically motivated unfriending/unfollowing on Facebook in the lead up to the 2020 Presidential election. As social media has grown more central to public discourse, it has been suggested that these types of avoidance behaviors might contribute to the formation of partisan echo chambers, whereby users may limit their exposure to competing viewpoints and corrective information by eliminating the network ties that transmit it. Building on prior research, this study explores the relationship between politically motivated avoidance and user perceptions of social media’s credibility as a source of political information. A pre-election survey of voting age adults in the state of Florida is analyzed to identify both the frequency and predictors of politically motivated avoidance. The results suggest that avoidance is a function of both individual political characteristics and user perceptions of information credibility. The findings are considered in the context of previous literature, and important avenues for future research are discussed.
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?
Many studies found a small echo chamber effect for Republicans, but none for Democrats before and in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. election.
“Many studies found a small echo chamber effect for Republicans, but none for Democrats before and in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. election [70][71][72][73].”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [71]
Political leanings and perceived credibility influence avoidance behaviors, particularly among Republicans, during the 2020 U.S. elections.
“Neely [71] found that political leanings and perceived credibility influence avoidance behaviors, particularly among Republicans, during the 2020 U.S. elections.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [71]
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
Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media
Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.845827 · Cited by 1,070 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Neely, S. R.
- Affiliations
- University of South Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Neely, Stephen R.
- ORCID
- Neely, Stephen R.
- Venue
- Social Media + Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-10
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3208273877
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 3.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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
- unfriending, Facebook, 2020 presidential election, echo chambers, information credibility, political polarization, social network ties, corrective information, political information sources
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