The political consequences of online disagreement: The filtering of communication networks in a polarized political context
Open accessAbstract
The present study challenges prevailing beliefs and research on the role of social media in supporting deliberation and an active public sphere. Based on a two-wave online panel survey ( n = 791) of the adult population of Hong Kong, as one case of a politically polarized society, we examine the degree to which individuals disconnect from those with whom they politically disagree with on social media. The analysis indicates that exposure to disagreement does indeed lead people to filter their information repertoire by disconnecting from those with whom they disagree. A moderated mediation analysis finds that political disagreement indirectly influenced activist participation through information repertoire filtration. However, in contrast to expectations, this effect was stronger when individuals had a lower level of affective polarization. Our findings underscore the value of focusing on the behavior of users to complement research on access to information about politics.
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 Zhang et al., 2022
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 48 · Cited by 14
- Authors
- Zhang, X., Lin, W.-Y., & Dutton, W. H.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
- City University of Hong Kong (HK)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Xinzhi
- Venue
- Social Media + Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-07
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4286722393
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- CityU Scholars (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee (12609319)
- 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
- political conflict, social media, information filtering, affective polarization, political polarization, deliberation, public sphere, Hong Kong, online communication networks
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
