social media
how social media can (and can't) drive polarization
Parasocial Relationships
Social media has an incredibly powerful manifestation in our face-to-face social affairs and emotional states. It enables us to form "parasocial relationships," where an individual holds a one-sided relationship, typically with a celebrity or public figure.
Examining multi-party interactions with former United States president Donald Trump, a group of researchers determined that exposure to mass media related to Trump had polarizing effects on participants with opposing political views to that of Trump (Paravati et al., 2020). This effect was attributed to exposure on social media as well as on television programs such as Fox News. Essentially, if an individual dislikes Trump, their negative views are likely to be amplified when exposed to relevant media.
Social Sorting and "Nationalization"
Why has social media been so powerful in breaking down the relationships between partisan groups? Consider before the age of social media, when most political interaction took place at a local level. Individuals likely had something else in common, such as a common favorite sports team, that could bridge the gap between political ideology.
Social media "nationalizes" politics by opening up a platform where anyone can debate issues. By exposing us to people with such drastically different opinions compared to us, we find little to no social "glue", which can contribute to an "us vs. them" mentality. On the contrary, when we interact with people who have extremely similar opinions, we may hyper-align with them, which can cause us to apply lower scrutiny and think less critically about their beliefs.
algorithms, fake news, and polarization
"From a partisan-motivated perspective, fake news is not categorically different from other sources of political information." (Osmundsen et al., 2021)
The "filter bubble" myth
If algorithms tailor our content based upon our interaction, it may seem worrying that they can create "echo chambers", otherwise known as filter bubbles.
These "bubbles" have been found to be relatively rare. In reality, the content we are exposed to online is incredibly more diverse compared to what we see in our real-life social groups. Because we actively choose who to associate with in real life, we have effectively curated the type of opinions we are exposed to. Online, however, you have less control over seeing content that you don't want to.
Social media ultimately "drives" polarization by providing a highly interconnected platform where individuals in different locations can communicate instantly, but not necessarily by tailoring the content they see.
Intentional sharing of misinformation
Misinformation is widespread in this digital age and can impact informed decision-making such as voting. Many attribute the sharing of fake news to ignorance or a lack of knowledge, but what if some of it was intentional?
​
Rather than ignorance, some individuals are motivated to share fake news that casts negative attention on an opposing group. This is known as "goal-oriented motivation" and it reflects the idea that sharing news, both real and fake, reflects partisan goals, where one has a specific aim in mind, and they hope to accomplish it by tailoring the media they share to support their perspective (Osmundsen et al., 2021).
The strongest partisans ultimately end up sharing news articles from the most "extreme" media outlets on the spectrum of fake news publishing, hoping to cast a negative light on opposing partisans and become "negative partisans" rather than advocates of their own positions.
