Cited by 130Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and Politics

Selective exposure shapes the Facebook news diet

Open access
Cinelli, Matteo, Brugnoli, Emanuele, Schmidt, Ana Lucia, Zollo, Fabiana, Quattrociocchi, Walter, Scala, Antonio·2020·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The social brain hypothesis approximates the total number of social relationships we are able to maintain at 150. Similar cognitive constraints emerge in several aspects of our daily life, from our mobility to the way we communicate, and might even affect the way we consume information online. Indeed, despite the unprecedented amount of information we can access online, our attention span still remains limited. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that online users are more likely to ignore dissenting information, choosing instead to interact with information adhering to their own point of view. In this paper, we quantitatively analyse users' attention economy in news consumption on social media by analysing 14 million users interacting with 583 news outlets (pages) on Facebook over a time span of six years. In particular, we explore how users distribute their activity across news pages and topics. On the one hand, we find that, independently of their activity, users show a tendency to follow a very limited number of pages. On the other hand, users tend to interact with almost all the topics presented by their favoured pages. Finally, we introduce a taxonomy accounting for users' behaviour to distinguish between patterns of selective exposure and interest. Our findings suggest that segregation of users in echo chambers might be an emerging effect of users' activity on social media and that selective exposure-i.e. the tendency of users to consume information adhering to their preferred narratives-could be a major driver in their consumption patterns.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0229129

Cites

56 of 56 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]Goncalves B, Perra N, Vespignani A. Validation of Dunbar’s number in Twitter conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:11055170. 2011;.
  2. [51]Kendall MG, Stuart A. TheAdvanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 1, DistributionTheory. New York: Hafner Publishing Company; 1958.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cinelli, M., Brugnoli, E., Schmidt, A. L., Zollo, F., Quattrociocchi, W., & Scala, A.
Affiliations
  • Institute for Complex Systems (IT)
  • Ca' Foscari University of Venice (IT)
Corresponding author
Cinelli, Matteo
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2020-03-13
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
e0229129
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3012266030
Cited by
130
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7
FWCI
18.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
  • ARCA (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia) (submittedVersion)
  • CNR ExploRA (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
selective exposure, Facebook, news consumption, echo chambers, social media, attention economy, user behavior, information segregation, social brain hypothesis, online information seeking
MeSH terms
Peer Influence, Attention, Communication, Educational Status, Humans, Deception, Models, Statistical, Occupational Exposure, Information Dissemination, Narration, Social Networking, Social Media

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