CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 25Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

Echo Chambers Exist! (But They're Full of Opposing Views)

Open access
Bright, Jonathan, Marchal, Nahema, Ganesh, Bharath, Rudinac, Stevan·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2001.11461arXiv 2001.11461
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The theory of echo chambers, which suggests that online political discussions take place in conditions of ideological homogeneity, has recently gained popularity as an explanation for patterns of political polarization and radicalization observed in many democratic countries. However, while micro-level experimental work has shown evidence that individuals may gravitate towards information that supports their beliefs, recent macro-level studies have cast doubt on whether this tendency generates echo chambers in practice, instead suggesting that cross-cutting exposures are a common feature of digital life. In this article, we offer an explanation for these diverging results. Building on cognitive dissonance theory, and making use of observational trace data taken from an online white nationalist website, we explore how individuals in an ideological 'echo chamber' engage with opposing viewpoints. We show that this type of exposure, far from being detrimental to radical online discussions, is actually a core feature of such spaces that encourages people to stay engaged. The most common 'echoes' in this echo chamber are in fact the sound of opposing viewpoints being undermined and marginalized. Hence echo chambers exist not only in spite of but thanks to the unifying presence of oppositional viewpoints. We conclude with reflections on policy implications of our study for those seeking to promote a more moderate political internet.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2001.11461

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • En la polarización actitudinal como en el consumo de medios, el mayor consumo de plataformas digitales genera un grado más alto de exposición a contenidos diversos, y salir de las supuestas burbujas informativas no reduce sino que fortalece convicciones.

    “Asimismo, hay estudios que en la polarización actitudinal como en el consumo de medios, el mayor consumo de plataformas digitales genera un grado más alto de exposición a contenidos diversos, y salir de la supuestas “burbujas” informativas no reduce sino que fortalece convicciones.”

    From ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas y polarización afectiva (2020) · cites this paper as Bright et al,2020

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • La relación comunicación digital-sentimientos políticos es más compleja que lo sugerido por el conocido argumento sobre las burbujas.

    “La relación comunicación digital-sentimientos políticos es más compleja que lo sugerido por el conocido argumento sobre las burbujas (Bright et al,2020).”

    From ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas y polarización afectiva (2020) · cites this paper as Bright et al,2020

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: 60

  1. Abelson, R. P. (1959). Modes of Resolution of Belief Dilemmas. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 3 (4), 343-352.
  2. Anderson, L. R., & McGuire, W. J. (1965). Prior Reassurance of Group Consensus as a Factor in Producing Resistance to Persuasion. Sociometry , 28 (1), 44.
  3. Aronson, E., & Mettee, D. (1968). Dishonest Behavior as a Function of Differential Levels of Induced Self-Esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 9 (2), 121-127.
  4. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-Percetion: An Alternative Interpretation of Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena. Psychological Review , 74 (3), 183-200.
  5. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication. Journal of Communication , 58 (4), 707-731.
  6. Bessi, A., Petroni, F., Vicario, M. Del, Zollo, F., Anagnostopoulos, A., Scala, A., … Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). Homophily and Polarization in the Age of Misinformation. European Physical Journal: Special Topics , 225 (10), 2047-2059.
  7. Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017). The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks. Political Psychology , 38 (3), 551-569.
  8. Bowman-Grieve, L. (2009). Exploring Stormfront: A Virtual Community of the Radical Right. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism , 32 (11), 989-1007.
  9. Brehm, J. W. (2007). A Brief History of Dissonance Theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 1 (1), 381-391.
  10. Bright, J. (2018). Explaining the Emergence of Political Fragmentation on Social Media: The Role of Ideology and Extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 23 (1), 17-33.
  11. Carr, C. T. (2017). Social Media and Intergroup Communication. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication . Retrieved from https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/a crefore-9780190228613-e-460?print=pdf · DOI
  12. Cohen, A. R. (1960). Attitudinal Consequences of Induced Discrepancies Between Cognitions and Behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly , 24 (2, Special Issue: Attitude Change), 297.
  13. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data. Journal of Communication , 64 (2), 317-332.
  14. Cooper, J., & Stone, J. (2000). Cognitive Dissonance and the Social Group. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Applied Social research. Attitudes, Behavior, and Social context: The Role of Norms and Group Membership (pp. 227-244). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  15. De Koster, W., & Houtman, D. (2008). Stormfront is Like a Second Home to Me. Information Communication and Society , 11 (8), 1155-1176.
  16. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences Upon Individual Judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 51 (3), 629-636.
  17. Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The Echo Chamber is Overstated: The Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media. Information Communication and Society , 21 (5), 729-745.
  18. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude Structure and Function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., pp. 269-322). Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.
  19. Ehrlich, D., Guttman, I., Schönbach, P., & Mills, J. (1957). Postdecision Exposure to Relevant Information. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 54 (1), 98-102.
  20. Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the Motivational Nature of Cognitive Dissonance: Dissonance as Psychological Discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67 (3), 382-394.
  21. Elster, J. (2007). Explaining Social Behavior . Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
  23. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  24. Garrett, R. Kelly, Weeks, B. E., & Neo, R. L. (2016). Driving a Wedge Between Evidence and Beliefs: How Online Ideological News Exposure Promotes Political Misperceptions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 21 (5), 331-348.
  25. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological Segregation Online and Offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 126 (4), 1799-1839.
  26. Gibbons, F. X., Eggleston, T. J., & Benthin, A. C. (1997). Cognitive Reactions to Smoking Relapse: The Reciprocal Relation between Dissonance and Self-Esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 (1), 184-195.
  27. Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Kaltenbrunner, A., & Banchs, R. E. (2010). The Structure of Political Discussion Networks: A Model for the Analysis of Online Deliberation. Journal of Information Technology , 25 (2), 230-243.
  28. Harmon-Jones, C., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2017). Dissonance Reduction in Nonhuman Animals: Implications for Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Animal Sentience , 12 (4), 1-8.
  29. Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. (1996). Evidence That the Production of Aversive Consequences Is Not Necessary to Create Cognitive Dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 (1), 5-16.
  30. Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2007). Cognitive Dissonance Theory after 50 Years of Development. Zeitschrift Fur Sozialpsychologie , 38 (1), 7-16.
  31. Hayat, T., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2017). 'You too, Second Screeners?' Second Screeners' Echo Chambers During the 2016 U.S. Elections Primaries. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 61 (2), 291-308.
  32. Hogg, M. A., Turner, P. J., & Smith, P. M. (1984). Failure and Defeat as Determinants of Group Cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology , 23 (2), 97-111.
  33. Hogg, Michael A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The Social Identity Perspective: Intergroup Relations, Self-conception, and Small Groups. Small Group Research , 35 (3), 246-276.
  34. John, N. A., & Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2015). I Don't Like You Any More: Facebook Unfriending by Israelis During the Israel-Gaza Conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication , 65 (6), 953-974.
  35. Kiesler, C. A., & Pallak, M. S. (1976). Arousal Properties of Dissonance Manipulations. Psychological Bulletin , 83 (6), 1014-1025.
  36. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015). The Selective Exposure Self- and Affect-Management (SESAM) Model: Applications in the Realms of Race, Politics, and Health. Communication Research , 42 (7), 959-985.
  37. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the Other Way: Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counterattitudinal Political Information. Communication Research , 36 (3), 426-448.
  38. Losch, M. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Cognitive Dissonance May Enhance Sympathetic Tonus, but Attitudes are Changed to Reduce Negative Affect Rather than Arousal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 26 (4), 289-304.
  39. Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup Emotions: Explaining Offensive Action Tendencies in an Intergroup Context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79 (4), 602-616.
  40. Marwick, A. (2013). Status Update : Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  41. Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive Dissonance in Groups: The Consequences of Disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 (1), 22-37.
  42. McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2009). Dissonance Reduction in the Context of Group Membership: The Role of Metaconsistency. Group Dynamics , 13 (2), 103-119.
  43. McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A. S. R., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2003). I'm a Hypocrite, but so Is Everyone Else: Group Support and the Reduction of Cognitive Dissonance. Group Dynamics , 7 (3), 214-224.
  44. Meddaugh, P. M., & Kay, J. (2009). Hate Speech or 'Reasonable Racism?' The Other in Stormfront. Journal of Mass Media Ethics , 24 (4), 251-268.
  45. Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A General and Simple Method for Obtaining R2 from Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 4 (2), 133-142.
  46. O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion : Theory and Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  47. Papacharissi, Z. A. (2011). On Convergent Supersurfaces and Public Spheres Online. International Journal of Electronic Governance , 4 (1-2), 9-17.
  48. Prentice, R. L., Williams, B. J., & Peterson, A. V. (1981). On the Regression Analysis of Multivariate Failure Time Data. Biometrika , 68 (2), 373-379.
  49. Simon, L., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, J. (1995). Trivialization: The Forgotten Mode of Dissonance Reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 (2), 247-260.
  50. Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can Emotions Be Truly Group Level? Evidence Regarding Four Conceptual Criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93 (3), 431-446.
  51. Smith, S. M., Fabrigar, L. R., & Norris, M. E. (2008). Reflecting on Six Decades of Selective Exposure Research: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 2 (1), 464-493.
  52. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure. Journal of Communication , 60 (3), 556-576.
  53. Stroud, N. J. (2014). Selective Exposure Theories. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 119-142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  55. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic : Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  56. Torcal, M., & Maldonado, G. (2014). Revisiting the Dark Side of Political Deliberation: The Effects of Media and Political Discussion on Political Interest. Public Opinion Quarterly , Vol. 78, pp. 679-706.
  57. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source Credibility and Attitude Certainty: A Metacognitive Analysis of Resistance to Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 14 (4), 427-442.
  58. Van Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2005). Global Village or Cyber-Balkans? Modeling and Measuring the Integration of Electronic Communities. Management Science , 51 (6), 851-868.
  59. Wojcieszak, M. (2010). 'Don't Talk to Me': Effects of Ideologically Homogeneous Online Groups and Politically Dissimilar Offline Ties on Extremism. New Media and Society , 12 (4), 637-655.
  60. Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society , 30 (5), 316-327.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bright, J., Marchal, N., Ganesh, B., & Rudinac, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2001.11461
arXiv
2001.11461
OpenAlex
W3004037623
Cited by
25
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Seventh Framework Programme (312827)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Keywords
echo chambers, political polarization, radicalization, white nationalism, online political discussion, cognitive dissonance, opposing viewpoints, ideological homogeneity

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