Understanding Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: The Impact of Social Media on Diversification and Partisan Shifts in News Consumption
Abstract
Echo chambers and filter bubbles are potent metaphors that encapsulate widespread public fear that the use of social media may limit the information that users encounter or consume online. Specifically, the concern is that social media algorithms combined with tendencies to interact with like-minded others both limits users’ exposure to diverse viewpoints and encourages the adoption of more extreme ideological positions. Yet empirical evidence about how social media shapes information consumption is inconclusive. We articulate how characteristics of platform algorithms and users’ online social networks may combine to shape user behavior. We bring greater conceptual clarity to this phenomenon by expanding beyond discussion of a binary presence or absence of echo chambers and filter bubbles to a richer set of outcomes incorporating changes in both diversity and slant of users’ information sources. Using a data set with over four years of web browsing history for a representative panel of nearly 200,000 U.S. adults, we analyzed how individuals’ social media usage was associated with changes in the information sources they chose to consume. We find differentiated impacts on news consumption by platform. Increased use of Facebook was associated with increased information source diversity and a shift toward more partisan sites in news consumption; increased use of Reddit with increased diversity and a shift toward more moderate sites; and increased use of Twitter with little to no change in either. Our results demonstrate the value of adopting a nuanced multidimensional view of how social media use may shape information consumption.
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?
Users often consume partisan content, reinforcing existing beliefs.
“Users often consume partisan content, reinforcing existing beliefs [24,54].”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
Facebook users tend to consume more partisan news than Reddit users, who encounter greater content diversity.
“Comparative studies, such as Kitchens et al. [24], found that Facebook users tend to consume more partisan news than Reddit users, who encounter greater content diversity.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
Data utilized in empirical echo chamber research is subject to sampling bias even if there are attempts to counteract these differences.
“data utilized in the empirical research is subject to sampling bias even if there are attempts to counteract these differences [12,24].”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
The echo chamber concept does not represent any observable outcome because it describes a state of absence, namely the absence of an idealized model of a deliberative public sphere such as the Habermasian democratic model.
“This is largely because the concept does not represent any observable outcome since “echo chambers” describe a state of absence, namely the absence of an idealized model of a deliberative public sphere such as the Habermasian democratic model [24,114].”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
Cites
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093 · see citing works
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767 · see citing works
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 · Cited by 1,992 · see citing works
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 · Cited by 1,863 · see citing works
Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users
Garrett, R. K. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x · Cited by 1,040 · see citing works
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…groups” (Shore et al. 2018, p. 850), with “political fragmentation and social polarization” (Garrett 2009, p. 278), and with “segregation by interest or opinion [that] will … increase political polarization” (Dubois and Blank 2018, pp. 1-2) and “foster social extremism” (Barberá 2015, p. 86).”
BackgroundAre people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817724170 · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Algorithmic audiencing: Why we need to rethink free speech on social media
Riemer, K., & Peter, S. (2021) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1177/02683962211013358 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
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
The chat-chamber effect: Trusting the AI hallucination
Jacob, C., Kerrigan, P., & Bastos, M. (2025) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517241306345 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Lv, L., Kang, K. Q., & Liu, G. (. (2024) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.22057 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Nabity-Grover, T., Matthews, K. D., Roth, P. L., Kwon, Y., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2020.0497 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kitchens, B., Johnson, S. L., & Gray, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia (US)
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2020-12-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1619-1649
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W3111533018
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 64 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 15
- FWCI
- 37.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- echo chambers, filter bubbles, social media, news consumption, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, platform algorithms, ideological polarization, web browsing history
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