Cited by 272Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Influence and Politics

Echo Chambers on Social Media: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Open access
Ludovic Terren, Ludovic Terren, Rosa Borge-Bravo, Rosa Borge-Bravo·2021·Review of Communication Research

Abstract

There have been growing concerns regarding the potential impact of social media on democracy and public debate. While some theorists have claimed that ICTs and social media would bring about a new independent public sphere and increase exposure to political divergence, others have warned that they would lead to polarization through the formation of echo chambers. The issue of social media echo chambers is both crucial and widely debated. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive account of the scientific literature on this issue, shedding light on the different approaches, their similarities, differences, benefits, and drawbacks, and offering a consolidated and critical perspective that can hopefully support future research in this area. Concretely, it presents the results of a systematic review of 55 studies investigating the existence of echo chambers on social media, providing a first classification of the literature and identifying patterns across the studies’ foci, methods and findings. We found that conceptual and methodological choices influence the results of research on this issue. Most importantly, articles that found clear evidence of echo chambers on social media were all based on digital trace data. In contrast, those that found no evidence were all based on self-reported data. Future studies should take into account the possible biases of the different approaches and the significant potential of combining self-reported data with digital trace data.

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 · 10.12840/issn.2255-4165.028

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • There is conflicting evidence on the existence and effects of echo chambers.

    “However, there is conflicting evidence on the existence and effects of echo chambers.”

    From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Highlights (p. 100) report studies finding clear evidence of social-media echo chambers and others finding none, supporting conflicting evidence about their existence. The Introduction (p. 100) describes competing views of their potential consequences, but the passages do not establish conflicting empirical evidence about their effects. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Differences in datasets used across studies have led to inconsistent results, with much of the evidence relying on data collected in 2020.

    “Differences in datasets used across studies have led to inconsistent results, with much of the evidence relying on data collected in 2020.”

    From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Highlights (before p. 100) link differing findings to the type of data used: studies finding clear evidence of echo chambers used digital trace data, while those finding none used self-reported data. They describe the review as covering the state of the literature at January 2020, not as relying largely on data collected in 2020. The data-collection-year claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ludovic Terren, L. T., & Rosa Borge-Bravo, R. B.-B.
Venue
Review of Communication Research
Published
2021-03-15
Volume
9
ISSN
2255-4165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3149657409
Cited by
272
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 5
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Review of Communication Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • O2 - Repositori Institucional (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
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
echo chambers, social media, political polarization, public sphere, digital traces, self-reported data, research bias, democracy, public debate

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