Filter Bubble

https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118800319

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction

and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Social Media + Society July-September 2018: 1 –14 © The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/2056305118800319 journals.sagepub.com/home/sms

Article

Scholars investigating how information is diffused through online channels have begun accumulating evidence regard- ing information diffusion processes, including information acquisition through search (Dubois & Blank, 2018; Dutton et al., 2017), distortions in the way information is diffused through a network (Bakshy, Rosenn, Marlow, & Adamic, 2012; Halberstam & Knight, 2016), and information literacy (Koltay, 2011). Despite these interests, the development of theory related to understanding the multifaceted nature of online information diffusion is still in a nascent phase. Although Rogers’s (1995) pre-digital treatise on the diffu- sion and potential adoption of ideas and practices is founda- tional to our understanding of modern processes, the online environment introduces new concepts requiring understand- ing and explanation. Online media has contours and affor- dances contributing to the way information is diffused. The modern media environment is incredibly social; including online communities and social network sites (SNSs). Thus, an array of relational and personal variables influencing the mediated diffusion of information contribute to the phenom- enon of online information diffusion. In addition, scholarly explanations of online behavior related to diffusion and influence should consider cognitive variables at the root of scholarship on persuasion such as attitudes, beliefs, and ego- involvement. In proposing this theory, the Mediated Skewed Diffusion of Issues Information (MSDII) theory, we attempt

to provide plausible explanatory mechanisms for perceptions of, and actual, increases of polarization on a variety of issues (Baldassarri & Gelman, 2008). Second, we provide a foun- dation for further work in online information diffusion by clearly articulating testable theoretical propositions.

The diffusion of information is an important phenomenon contributing to democratic deliberation. Democracies, whether or not they achieve this ideal, are founded on the precepts of free and truthful information. Ideally, a demo- cratic citizenry can make appropriate governance choices because the citizens are aware of necessary, sufficient, and truthful information regarding the issues of the day (Berelson, 1952). Engaging in political discussion with people of oppos- ing viewpoints can potentially contribute to understanding oppositional perspectives (Price, Cappella, & Nir, 2002). One of the early promises of the internet was that the dawn- ing of the information age would increase the democratiza- tion of society through offering more avenues for participation in the public sphere, fostering networked communities, and

800319 SMSXXX10.1177/2056305118800319Social Media <span class="symbol" cstyle="Mathematical">+</span> SocietyMcEwan et al. research-article20182018

1DePaul University, USA 2Western Illinois University, USA

Corresponding Author: Bree McEwan, DePaul University, 1813 Daley Building, 14 E. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604, USA. Email: [email protected]

Mediated Skewed Diffusion of Issues Information: A Theory

Bree McEwan1, Christopher J. Carpenter2, and Jill E. Hopke1

Abstract The modern media ecology has changed drastically over the last decade yet scholarly theoretical perspectives lag behind lay theories regarding news diffusion making it difficult to fully articulate and understand the processes driving dissemination of information and persuasion across networks and media contexts. The proposed theoretical framework takes into account extant research on the multiple mechanisms, specifically, cognitive ego involvement, the media environment, and interpersonal processes that operate in concert to influence the way information about societal issues is diffused through digital communication channels. The theoretical framework of mediated skewed diffusion of issues information provides 11 testable propositions. These are put forth to provide a foundation and encourage future research on information dissemination, online persuasion, and position polarization.

Keywords diffusion of information, persuasion, ego involvement, social media, social network sites, online communities, tie strength, filter bubbles

2 Social Media + Society

changing the ownership structure and diffusion potential of media (Halpern & Gibbs, 2013; Kamarck & Nye, 2002; Papacharissi, 2015; Zuckerberg, 2017). Yet, today there are concerns about decreased participation due to filter bubbles, silo-ing information consumers into echo chambers, the spread of misinformation, and increased polarization (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Faris et al., 2017; Garrett, Carnahan, & Lynch, 2013; Pariser, 2011). Comprehending the way infor- mation is diffused through online communication is impor- tant to understand debates on a wide range of issues including vaccines, climate change, and more. People still rely on tra- ditional sources for information about the world they live in, such as broadcast and print journalism (Barthel, 2017; Matsa, 2017a, 2017b); however, social media influences how people are exposed to information and affects how information is diffused through interpersonal networks connected via tech- nology (Toff & Nielsen, 2018). Scholars have called for more theoretically informed work on technology and opinion formation and diffusion (e.g., Dutton et al., 2017).

Within the MSDII theoretical framework, issues informa- tion is defined as information shared between network con- nections with the potential to influence opinions regarding a debated issue. Political discussions are a common frame- work for issues information, but our intention is to apply the MSDII framework to a wide range of issues such as econom- ics, social concerns, environmental issues, and public health. Researchers interested in media, journalism, and communi- cation technology are producing excellent scholarship (e.g., Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Bakshy et al., 2012; Beam, Hutchens, & Hmielowski, 2018; Dubois & Blank, 2018; Evans, 2016; Hermida, 2013; Nielsen & Schrøder, 2014; Toff & Nielsen, 2018; Weeks, Lane, Kim, Lee, & Kwak, 2017) to provide more accurate insight into the way informa- tion is diffused online. Yet, without a theoretical framework, studies may face difficulty contextualizing the directions and effects of these variables. The MSDII weaves together our knowledge gained from previous work to provide testable propositions for future research.

In seeking to understand the diffusion of media today, we posit the following. First, information consumers and dis- seminators have access to a wide variety of sources of issues information. These sources include social media, but also content produced by traditional news broadcast and print outlets (disseminated through either traditional or digital channels), as well as information generated and distributed through digital communities. Through selecting different media sources actively as well as passively receiving mes- sages through social media news feeds, people receive both attitude-consistent and attitude-inconsistent messages. People highly invested in particular issues are the most likely to actively seek messages to share with their social media networks; however, their ego-involvement in an issue also makes it difficult for them to accurately assess the quality of those arguments. Therefore, many of the issues messages shared on social media are both polarizing and low quality;

however, messages one disagrees with are perceived as lower quality than messages one agrees with. In addition, people are likely to receive most oppositional messages from weak ties with whom they have little other contact. These factors are likely to lead to a cyclical process where individuals increasingly move to more polarized positions and find the oppositional positions to be static and uninformed.

Notes on Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Fake News

Before reviewing the specific tenants of our theoretical position, we wish to explain our position on current issues related to online information diffusion: filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news. We find these particular concepts to be related to the current debate and scholarship regarding online information diffusion. Our theoretical stance pro- vides an alternative explanation for polarization without invoking filter bubbles and echo chambers. In addition, one of our propositions addresses low-quality arguments, which can be low quality and truthful, but also can be low quality due to being false.

Filter Bubbles/Echo Chambers

In the current theoretical vacuum, popular conceptualiza- tions of online information diffusion have sprung up around the idea of filter bubbles and/or echo chambers. Both the fil- ter bubble concept (Pariser, 2011) and echo chambers (Jamieson & Cappella, 2008; Sunstein, 2009) center on the theoretical principle that algorithmic and self-selected filter- ing will drive the way information diffuses through online social networks (Zuiderveen Borgesius et al., 2016). Taken together these theoretically similar models assume people will end up in “a unique universe of information” (i.e., filter bubbles, Pariser, 2011, p. 8) consisting of only people with similar viewpoints (i.e., echo chambers, Sunstein, 2009).

Explanations centered on information personalization are heuristically provocative—inspiring a bevy of both academic work (more than 1,600 scholarly publication have cited Pariser’s book [Google Scholar]) and journalistic hot takes (Baer, 2016; Dreyfuss, 2016; Hess, 2017; Jackson, 2017; Newton, 2016; Thompson, 2016; Wortham, 2016). However, as noted by Stray (2012), the idea of a filter bubble is a power- ful heuristic because “it’s both significant and marvelously ill- defined” (para. 1). Dutton et al. (2017) argued, “Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news are intuitively appealing . . . [but] not supported by the empirical evidence marshaled by the study of Internet users in seven countries” (p. 21).

One reason theoretical explanations invoking filter bub- bles and echo chambers are flawed is such explanations gen- erally only consider the information consumer within the online environment. People receive information through a variety of other channels, including face-to-face conversa- tions (Dubois & Blank, 2018), conducting internet searches

McEwan et al. 3

(Dutton et al., 2017), and other internet information sources (Van Aelst et al., 2017). In 2014, television was still consid- ered the most important source of news (Nielsen & Schrøder, 2014). However, newer research by Nielsen and colleagues argues for the importance of “ambient news” exposure through social media. The current media environment is one of “distributed discovery” where traditional news media are no longer the primary distributors of information. However, these media still produce much of the content people see whether they access content via reading a physical or digital newspaper, watching news broadcasts, or clicking on stories presented in their social media feeds (Toff & Nielsen, 2018).

The Reuters Institute digital report identified social media as one of the least trusted sources of news (Newman, Fletcher, Kalogeropoulos, Levy, & Nielsen, 2017). However, there are still multiple reasons to study the effects of social media on public opinion. First, social media platforms are not typically news producers and while people may report not trusting social media as a source, they may still view diverse stories through their social media feeds (Groshek & Koc-Michalska, 2017). The increase in mobile technologies allow people to use the interstices of their days to scan for news and enter- tainment via social media platforms (Meijer & Kormelink, 2014). People may find that for particular news topics they are less invested in, they end up receiving most of their infor- mation through the posts of friends invested in the topic (Toff & Nielsen, 2018). Furthermore, more recent work suggests time spent on social media appears to increase network het- erogeneity, and active social media use led to experiences with more diverse information (Groshek & Koc-Michalska, 2017). This finding is logical given that distributed discovery expands opportunities to find and access information.

Empirical work attempting to measure filter bubbles in online media exposure have found little evidence for their existence (Bakshy, Messing, & Adamic, 2015; Goel, Mason, & Watts, 2010; Zuiderveen Borgesius et al., 2016). Garrett and colleagues (Garrett, 2009; Garrett et al., 2013) found people do not actively avoid information contradict- ing their views. People incidentally view counter-attitudi- nal messages through their social media newsfeeds (Beam et al., 2018; Weeks et al., 2017). The more interested people are in politics and the more diverse the media channels are, the less likely they are to be in an echo chamber (Dubois & Blank, 2018). In a multinational study, Dutton and col- leagues (2017) found people regularly use search engines to seek out attitude-inconsistent information and sources. Thus, we argue rather than experiencing a filter bubble, most people passively, and actively, regularly view coun- ter-attitudinal information.

Fake News

The veracity of information people share and consume is a critical component for several of our theoretical proposi- tions. Although issues information may be verifiably false or

settled science, the influence of shared information generally rests on the believability of a piece of information not on the objective truth regarding the information. The modern news environment presents challenges for journalistic norms of objectivity, verification, and factual reporting at its core. Social media platforms facilitate the grassroots, crowd- sourced spread of information, bypassing traditional press gatekeepers (Hermida, 2014). This diffusion of the locus of control provides new types of opportunities for the spread of false information, especially in times of crisis (Hermida, 2014). Concerns about variants of objective truth are timely as the Oxford Dictionary selected “post-truth” as the 2016 word of the year and White House advisors attempt to make a case for “alternative facts” (Perlman, 2017; Rutenberg, 2017). A disregard for truth (and a new media information ecology allowing the circulation of claims with weak and wildly differing standards of editorial control) lets content producers publish information in support of their stance on an issue with little regard for veracity.

The veracity of information both matters and does not matter in this information ecology. A lack of veracity has the potential to destabilize facts, as they are treated on par with opinion statements. News consumers have the ability to pick and choose information and opinions consistent with previously held beliefs and discount those that do not conform to their beliefs. Kahan (2017) called this phenom- enon “factual polarization,” in which individuals engage in a form of “identity-protective reasoning” (Flynn, Nyhan, & Reifler, 2017; Kahan, 2010). In this process of identity- protective reasoning, people have difficulty properly inter- preting the veracity of information. Across a range of important issues including gun control and climate change, people interpret new information and information veracity according to previously held beliefs (Kahan, Peters, Dawson, & Slovic, 2017; Sunstein, Bobadilla-Suarez, Lazzaro, & Sharot, 2016). This type of reasoning does not seem to be dependent upon the intelligence level of the content recipient. Indeed, Kahan et al. (2017) found people with higher numeracy were more likely to misunderstand data regarding gun control bans.

Furthermore, the destabilization of media institutions related to information dissemination may make it more dif- ficult for people to determine the credibility of information. Research across three countries (China, Denmark, and Iran) by Mahmoodi and colleagues (2015) found an “equality bias,” showing in small group decision-making, individuals weight opinions of others equally to their own regardless of varying levels of competence. A. Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, and Xenos (2012) found reading online com- ments about controversial science led readers to have more polarized views and mistrust the reported science. A. Anderson et al.’s findings may reflect the familiarity bias found by Pennycook, Cannon, and Rand (2017). Familiar headlines, even if fake, were rated as more accurate by par- ticipants than unfamiliar headlines.

4 Social Media + Society

The MSDII Framework

There is evidence of the spread of increasingly polarized (Beam et al., 2018), low quality (Faris et al., 2017), and fake news (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018) via online channels. Drawing connections between the ways people are presented with information online, cognitively process that informa- tion, and disseminate that information to their social net- works through social media channels can help us to understand why increased polarization occurs despite the lack of evidence for filter/echo bubble/chambers. The fol- lowing outlines an understanding of information diffusion taking into account variables such as ego-involvement with a particular issue, type of online platform where information is disseminated, message quality, and diversity of network ties on a given issue.

Ego-Involvement

In considering how information is diffused through media systems, we must first consider aspects of people diffusing information. We suspect particularly relevant individual- level variables are people’s ability to evaluate argument quality and ego-involvement.

Evaluation of Argument Quality. The ability to evaluate argu- ment quality is relevant to the diffusion of information because this ability influences both if people will believe and share a piece of content and the perception others develop regarding the content and the sharer. Generally speaking, people are bad at evaluating the quality of an argument when it supports their beliefs and become much better at evalua- tion when the argument is in opposition to their beliefs. One early demonstration of this pattern was shown by Cathcart’s (1955) study of persuasive messages concerning the death penalty. Cathcart demonstrated when the message was con- sistent with the audience’s beliefs, they rated evidence and argument quality equally well when the message contained actual evidence and when it contained empty repetitions of the claim. On the contrary, when the message contradicted their beliefs, they rated evidence-based messages as higher quality than the empty assertions. Cathcart explained people “in agreement with a speaker tend to ‘supply’ their own evi- dence or to overlook the speaker’s lack of evidence” (p. 232). This basic pattern has appeared repeatedly in persuasion experiments (Edwards & Smith, 1996; Giner-Sorolla & Chaiken, 1997; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979; Morgan & Mor- ton, 1944; Munro et al., 2002).

Although assessors of this cognitive bias may like to think these biases can be overridden by superior intellect or numer- acy, as noted above, evidence suggests otherwise. Recent work has shown expertise in evaluating numeric evidence fails to affect this pattern (Kahan et al., 2017). When partici- pants were asked to evaluate skin cream, those with superior numerical skill were better at evaluating scientific results

than those who were not. Yet, when the data table was identi- cal but the topic was the effectiveness of a handgun ban, numerical skill had minimal effect whereas political party affiliation had a strong effect on how participants evaluated the data. Specifically, accurately interpreting the results usu- ally only occurred when the results were consistent with the participants’ political orientation.

Ego Involvement and Argument Processing. Biased argument processing is a central MSDII mechanism. The extent to which a person engages in biased argument processing tends to be moderated by their level of ego-involvement. Someone can be described as highly ego-involved when they consider their stance on an issue to be a key part of their identity (Sherif & Cantril, 1947). Information consumers may be especially vulnerable to cognitive biases when they are highly ego-involved in the issue at hand. Some evidence and theory suggest the tendency to be a poor evaluator of atti- tude-consistent arguments and to be a critical evaluator of attitude-discrepant arguments is magnified by ego-involve- ment. Specifically, the general positive relationship between how attitude-discrepant the message seems to the person and the extent to which that person processes the message in a biased fashion tends to be stronger when the message receiver is more ego-involved (Eagly, 2007; Nickerson, 1998). Consistent with this position, Choi, Yang, and Chang (2009) found the extent to which people are ego-involved in an issue is positively associated with the extent to which they believe the media presents a biased perspective when report- ing on that issue. Recent work by Carpenter (2018) found that when encountering a persuasive message on a political topic, the extent to which people perceive the message as presenting a position discrepant from their own is positively related to the degree to which they believe the source is biased, the extent to which the supporters of that position have been misled by inaccurate information, and the extent to which they believe they would be unlikely to be able to be friends with the message’s author. These effects were much stronger for highly ego-involved rather than low ego- involvement audiences (Carpenter, 2018).

The Media Environment

News Diffusion. The MSDII’s focus on the diffusion of news and information rather than the production of news by spe- cific institutions allows researchers to begin to study the way that information is circulated and transformed through mul- tiple channels within the networked information ecosystem (C. W. Anderson, 2010; Greenberg, 1964). Traditional or legacy forms of news distribution such as television broad- casting and print journalism remain important sources of information (Barthel, 2017; Matsa, 2017a, 2017b). However, these sources now exist within a more complex, high choice, media environment (Figure 1). Information flows within this hybrid media ecosystem, supplemented by interpersonal

McEwan et al. 5

communication (Chadwick, 2013; Coleman et al., 2016). Understanding this hybrid media approach allows scholars to account for the complexity of online media ecologies and move beyond a binary perspective on the field (Witschge, Anderson, Domingo, & Hermida, 2018).

Journalism scholarship has examined how news moves through local media ecosystems and the ways in which infor- mation evolves as it is transmitted between news institutions (C. W. Anderson, 2010; Coleman et al., 2016; Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media Staff, 2010). Yet, the diffusion of information through the media ecosystem is not a linear pro- cess. Journalists at mainstream media outlets find themselves reporting and opining in the same digital attention economy as political activists, marketers, bloggers, celebrities, and aver- age citizens (C. W. Anderson, 2010). The affordances of online websites make it increasingly easy to enter the “news” market (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). Thus, some information in this environment adheres to journalistic standards while much of the information on issues of the day are presented and ampli- fied by “quasi-institutional digital actors acting in their own organizational interest” (C. W. Anderson, 2010, pp. 305-306). Even when considering local news, a networked, hybrid sys- tem emerges. People seek out local news not only to find information about where they live but also acquire news through interpersonal communication (a portion of which likely comes via mediated communication) (Coleman et al., 2016). Local news channels not only report local information but also repackage information and news previously published via other components of the media ecosystem (Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media Staff, 2010).

One result of the advent of distributed discovery (see Toff & Nielsen, 2018) is news institutions are no longer in control of the distribution of news, and the power that came along with that control is diminished (Carlson, 2017). The shift away from traditional mainstream media, for example, tele- vision networks, as powerbrokers in political communica- tion has resulted in reconfigured relationships between politicians, citizens, and the press (Blumler & Coleman,

2015). These changing power dynamics have led to a weak- ening of the journalistic role as a watchdog on governmental workings and as an interpreter of information (Carlson, 2017). Traditional mainstream media outlets may no longer be viewed as the main gatekeepers on issues of the day (Hermida, 2013).

Evidence suggests people are active participants in co- constructing the media messages they consume (Gunther, 2008). Highly ego-involved individuals with a strong posi- tion on a particular issue tend to see the media in general as biased against their viewpoint, an effect known as the hostile media phenomenon (Vallone, Ross, & Lepper, 1985). Vallone et al.’s work on the hostile media phenomenon showed view- ers perceived different biases and recollections of news con- tent depending on their view of the issues. Those with greater knowledge of the issue reported a stronger perception of bias than low knowledge viewers. Other research has also found group affiliation to be related to perceptions of news cover- age (Gunther, 1992). Highly involved or partisan individuals may seek to take “corrective action” in what they perceive to be a biased media environment and attempt to offset the per- ceived bias. Rojas (2010) argued such corrective action could, because of the highly ego-involved nature of those more likely to engage in corrective action, actually heighten polarization.

However, if people find the mainstream media to be biased, they are no longer limited to these sources (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). In a media environment where a plethora of options are available, highly ego-involved individuals cannot only deny mainstream stories, they can actively search for information fitting their particular worldview. This active seeking of information reflecting one’s own biases appears to be what many of the news stories (Baer, 2016; Dreyfuss, 2016; Hess, 2017; Jackson, 2017; Newton, 2016; Thompson, 2016; Wortham, 2016) proclaiming we now live in filter bubbles seem to be calling a filter bubble. However, this media environment—while fragmented and allowing people to find content supporting their worldview regardless of the veracity of that worldview—is not a true filter bubble. People who visit even the most ideologically extreme sites are likely to visit sites with oppositional views (Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2011). Even highly ego-involved individuals are aware of the existence of differing world- views, they just do not believe those views.

Existence of Attitude-Consistent Online Communities. Different types of online communication channels may provide differ- ent influences in the way users are introduced to and spread information. Although SNSs can introduce information from weak ties, online message communities may be particularly good at bringing together homophilous viewpoints (Centola, Gonzalez-Avella, Eguiluz, & Miguel, 2007). Chatrooms and message boards devoted to political issues are even more likely to have members with homogeneous perspectives (Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009). People holding positions that

Figure 1. The media environment.

6 Social Media + Society

might have previously been geographically fragmented can find each other on the internet, reinforce their arguments, and organize for information diffusion and action. Spaces on the internet such as Reddit boards, Facebook groups, online forums, message board communities, and specialized plat- forms such as Gab allow internet users to find issues infor- mation fitting their particular worldview.

Participation in these groups can move people to more extreme or even radical positions. The reduced cue environ- ment and anonymous or pseudonymous nature of online com- munities can increase group identification over time (Spears, Lea, & Lee, 1990). Increases in group identification likely lead to increases in ego-involvement. Arguments and discus- sions within such groups tend to be one-sided and may amplify the perceived strength of the majority opinion (Wojcieszak, 2010). Over time, these types of communities have the poten- tial to move lurkers and casual participants to extreme view- points as they move toward the core beliefs of the group (Centola et al., 2007). For example, Wojcieszak (2010) found the longer people participated in a neo-Nazi online discussion forum, the more their extremism increased. Thus, seeking out a homophilous group on a particular issue may indicate a level of ego-involvement with a particular issue, and participating in the group may increase ego-involvement over time.

Proposition 1: Members of attitude-consistent online communities (ACOCs) are more likely to be highly ego- involved in the issue relevant to that ACOC than the gen- eral population. The longer an individual participates and the more active they are within an ACOC, the more their ego-involvement will increase.

SNSs. An important element in the diffusion of issues infor- mation consists of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. While the term social media can generally refer to “user generated content” (boyd, 2009), Carr and Hayes (2015) provide a more precise definition arguing social media are based on user-generated content but also “Internet- based, disentrained, and persistent channels of masspersonal communication facilitating perceptions of interactions among users” (p. 50). A subset of social media include SNSs. Ellison and boyd (2013) defined SNSs as social media sites where users have identifiable profiles, connections are pub- licly articulated, and users and their connections can con- sume and interact with each other’s content.

Although people communicating in ACOCs may find fairly homogeneous groups, social networks are never bounded or finite (Barnes, 1969). Rather than being organized in predomi- nantly geographically rooted social networks, individuals are now organized by “person-to-person” ties transcending place- based connections (Wellman, 2002). Non-ACOC social media applications, particularly SNS, facilitate the maintenance of more heterogeneous weak tie networks (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Tong & Walther, 2011). These weak tie net- works, particularly Facebook, allow people to share news,

memes, and posts regarding social issues (De Mao, Ferrara, Fiumara, & Provetti, 2014). Weak ties are a particularly cru- cial component of social networks in regard to the dissemina- tion of information (Granovetter, 1973). Echo chambers and filter bubbles are unlikely to occur via social media because social media can exposes people to greater diversity in opinion through facilitating a greater amount of weak tie connections (Barberá, 2015). Social media platforms enable individuals to view information they previously would not have sought, although some have investigated how politically heteroge- neous such online networks actually are in practice (e.g., Yang, Barnidge, & Rojas, 2017). In a large-scale study of 10.1 mil- lion U.S. Facebook users, Bakshy and colleagues found indi- vidual choices determine whether or not they are exposed to “cross-cutting content” to a greater degree than affordances and constraints of the platform itself (Bakshy et al., 2015). Another study found self-reported SNS use was positively associated with a greater likelihood of exposure to information challenging their views (Kim, 2011). As weak ties can refer to extended family networks, acquaintances made throughout one’s life history, and friends of friends, these ties have the ability to bring greater information diversity into the social media environment (Bakshy et al., 2012; Granovetter, 1973). In addition, weak ties promulgate the diffusion of information at a greater rate than strong ties (De Mao et al., 2014).

In addition, despite news stories to the contrary (e.g., Linder, 2016), people may not be likely to unfriend those with differing opinions. Using a sample of the adult, urban popula- tion in Colombia, Yang and colleagues (2017) found unfriend- ing is not related to increased exposure to political disagreement on social media platforms. Similarly, Dutton et al.’s (2017) multinational survey found less than 20% of people had unfriended or blocked someone because of differing political views. So while popular press articles blame SNSs for increas- ing filter bubbles, these are actually the sites where people experience divergent views. The problem may not be social media enhancing selective exposure, the problem may be ego- involvement on certain issues can lead to biased processing of social media messages with divergent perspectives.

Proposition 2: Different types of social media facilitate the maintenance of different types of ties. The use of social media sites that facilitate the creation and mainte- nance of weak ties will increase the diversity of informa- tion exposure.

Proposition 3: Ego involvement will be positively and linearly related to the amount of information on a particu- lar issue an individual is likely to share with the most highly ego involved seeking out and creating content to bring into SNS environments.

Proposition 4: People who have a low amount of ego involvement in a particular issue will be exposed to atti- tude-diverse messages on that issue through their use of SNSs. The polarizing nature of the messages shared by

McEwan et al. 7

more highly ego-involved individuals are likely over time to attract low ego-involved individuals to increasingly polarized positions.

Message quality in the information age. The proliferation of low-quality arguments as social media content may influ- ence the way issues information is perceived. People use social media sites, particularly SNSs, to post links, messages, and memes supporting their particular positions, but much of the content regarding various issues appearing in people’s news feeds does so in an over-simplified package. Many issues infor- mation statuses and tweets are links to web stories with click- bait headlines and image memes. However, due to the difficulty people have in ascertaining the quality of an argument and the limited bandwidth of social media, many of the posted mes- sages are likely to be low-quality arguments. For example, Halpern and Gibbs (2013) found unfounded claims, unsup- ported claims, and arguments based on external quotes, data, or websites made up the majority of argument strategies in the comments on the White House’s Facebook and YouTube pages. Text-based memes shared on Facebook tend to become abbre- viated over time (Simmons, Adamic, & Adar, 2011). While people may be exposed to greater diversity of information through their social media networks, they may not click through headlines they disagree with. One large sample study of Facebook users found people were more likely to click on ads promising attitude-consistent information about presidential candidates than ads promising attitude-inconsistent informa- tion (Ryan & Brader, 2017). Flaxman, Goel, and Rao (2016) found social media use was strongly correlated with only read- ing ideologically consistent news articles.

Although most studies in the persuasion literature on the length of message or the number of arguments have concep- tualized this variable as peripheral cues (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), there is indirect evidence that less complex messages are more likely to be associated with biased processing. Shorter and more ambiguous messages have been found to encourage biased processing (Johnson & Wood, 1944; Ziegler & Diehl, 2003). The extent to which the information quantity in a message encourages biased processing awaits empirical testing, yet based on Johnson and Wood’s (1944) work which examined perceptions of increasingly shorter messages of an issue, we posit the following:

Proposition 5: The less information a message contains, the more likely it is to be (a) perceived as more factual, less biased, and of higher argument quality, by people who find the message consistent with their viewpoints and (b) found to be less factual, more biased, and of lower argument quality by people who find the message to be inconsistent with their viewpoints.

Highly ego-involved individuals may be more likely to post issues information–related posts to social media (Carpenter, 2018). The most popular messages posted on

social media are also likely to be the most partisan and unreliable (Faris et al., 2017). Due to the above mentioned difficulties of ego-involved individuals to evaluate the argument quality of information supporting their position, it is likely many of the posted arguments will be lower quality and more difficult to defend. In addition, people may perceive the accuracy based on how much a message or headline matches their political beliefs rather than any actual credibility indicators (Pennycook et al., 2017). Regardless of message accuracy, ego-involved individuals are likely to post messages associated with the extreme poles of an issues debate.

Proposition 6: The ego-involvement of individuals post- ing about a specific issue will moderate information diffu- sion processes in the following ways such that people who are highly ego-involved will experience the follow- ing more or less than people who are less ego-involved.

6a: Individuals who are highly ego-involved about a spe- cific issue will be more likely to post on social media about that issue.

6b: Highly ego-involved individuals are less likely to accurately assess the quality of arguments.

6c: Thus, highly ego-involved individuals are more likely to post low-quality arguments related to their position.

6d: Highly ego-involved individuals are more likely to post messages associated with the extreme poles of a debate.

The Influence of Social Networks

Given the above factors, we argue that people have the opportunity to view a diverse array of messages on the inter- net. In addition, social connections on SNSs often reflect many different online social contexts. The diversity in the network ties likely facilitate a diversity of information shar- ing within a particular individual’s network (Bakshy et al., 2015; Dutton et al., 2017). For example, Evans (2016) found YouTube videos regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict were viewed by a heterogeneous audience. Work analyzing Twitter interactions about the murder of an abortion provider found there was a small trend for people to interact more with those they agreed with. Yet there was a substantial amount of cross-position interaction between users, even on this contentious topic (Yardi & boyd, 2010). With regard to political affiliations, Bakshy et al. (2015) argued there are many Facebook connections with different political affilia- tions. Approximately 9% to 36% (Mdn = .20) of liberal Facebook users’ ties are conservative and around 9% to 20% (Mdn = .18) of conservative Facebook users’ ties are liberal (Bakshy et al., 2015). An article being shared by others within a user’s social network is a strong predictor for what sources a news consumer chooses, particularly in regard to

8 Social Media + Society

what Messing and Westwood (2014) termed “ideologically misaligned sources” (p. 15).

As noted, social media users could unfriend those with divergent views. However, the MSDII seeks to explain behavior across a variety of societal issues beyond presiden- tial elections. We posit it would be very difficult to pre-screen family, friends, and acquaintances for every debatable issue. Thus, it is unlikely social media users could maintain com- pletely homogeneous networks and newsfeeds on every issue and therefore are likely regularly exposed to opposing viewpoints. In addition, for SNSs such as Facebook which cut across social contexts, we may be connected to individu- als who share differing opinions on an issue but would be socially difficult to disconnect from. Kinship networks may provide examples of these types of connections, but friends of friends may also be structurally difficult to “defriend.” Even if people have opposing viewpoints, they may remain connected to avoid social repercussions from the larger network.

Proposition 7: People using SNSs will be exposed to oppositional viewpoints.

7a: SNS users will be exposed to more posts portraying oppositional viewpoints, the more time they spend view- ing a SNS newsfeed.

7b: The more connections a SNS user has, the more the user will be exposed to posts portraying oppositional viewpoints.

7c: The more one views SNS newsfeeds, the more posts portraying oppositional viewpoints people will be exposed to.

Although people will be exposed to oppositional view- points, people are likely embedded both in a social network with dominating viewpoints on polarizing topics as well as a cognitive network directing how messages regarding issues are received. In a sense, this cognitive network could be con- sidered what philosophers Quine and Ullian termed “web of belief,” in which a person’s beliefs are embedded within aggregated sets of logically consistent groupings, and infor- mation encountered is rejected or dismissed based on how well it fits into this network (Quine & Ullian, 1970). Cognitive psychologists also suggest the existence of net- worked beliefs. As information in memory is distributed across neural networks, the human brain changes beliefs quite slowly (McClelland, McNaughton, & O’Reilly, 1995; Van Overwalle & Siebler, 2005). Small changes are neces- sary as large immediate attitude shifts cause disruption to entire neural patterns. Thus, in our distributive cognitive net- works, behavior and attitudes are based not only on the mes- sages presented to the system but also on the message receiver’s prior knowledge (McClelland et al., 1995; Queller, 2002; Van Overwalle & Siebler, 2005). Thus, the way people

perceive issues information is likely to be influenced by their previous position. People will fill in the blanks of arguments they are predisposed to agree with and may be likely to quickly reject opposing arguments.

Proposition 8: People are more likely to perceive view- points closer to their own as more nuanced and of higher quality than messages that support oppositional viewpoints.

Although networks composed primarily of weak ties on SNSs are likely composed of heterogeneous members and thus contribute oppositional messages to our news feeds, these contributions may not be persuasive. People tend to reject or ignore counter-attitudinal messages (Arceneaux & Johnson, 2013). Some work suggests news shared on SNSs tends to be from partisan news sites (An, Quercia, & Crowcroft, 2013) and such sites may not be perceived as credible by opposing partisans. As noted in the previous section, the restrictions and norms of social media are likely to lead to the posting of low- quality arguments. When people see these arguments from their opponents, they are likely to already have conflicting evi- dence in mind and are motivated to engage in discrediting these arguments. There is also evidence people may see cross- cutting content but may not necessarily click on the content of opposing viewpoints (Bakshy et al., 2015). This phenomenon may limit users’ understanding of the opposition’s argument and increase their perspective that the opposition makes low- quality arguments.

In contrast, when people see issues posts from others with whom they agree, these arguments fit with their current understanding of the world and previously developed narra- tive frames. Thus, even when arguments are low quality, individuals cognitively provide themselves with additional information to make the message make sense. The informa- tion provided by the self to complete an argument or provide evidence for a premise is accepted as true and informative by that same self.

Proposition 9: People are more likely to view posts that are not aligned with their own viewpoint from weak tie connections in a negative light because of the prevalence of low-quality arguments in general, the propensity to provide less cognitive resources to evaluating the argu- ment, and the presence of opposition from stronger ties.

Proposition 10: Over time, people will view the opposi- tion as increasingly uninformed (i.e., the opposition does not know pertinent information) and misinformed (i.e., the opposition believes information that is not true).

We argue the sender and receiver processes outlined above will over time lead to a feedback loop intensifying these processes. Thus, increased time on social media should increase satisfaction with one’s position. In addition,

McEwan et al. 9

increased time on social media will increase our ego-involve- ment regarding a particular issue. In addition, increased time on social media should increase our credibility of issue sup- porters and decrease our perceptions of credibility of issue opponents.

Ego-involved individuals will likely be the most prolific social media posters on a particular issue. The highly ego- involved will be more likely to seek information supporting their view from other media sources and will be more likely to share and repost information from others in their net- work. In addition, over time, posting on a particular issue is likely to lead to increased ego-involvement as these posts represent a public statement of the poster’s identity (Festinger, 1957). Over time, posts from highly ego- involved people are likely to draw the rest of the network closer to the poles of the debate.

Individuals who are close to the extreme ends of the poles in an issues debate will be more likely to think their oppo- nents are less intelligent or easily misled. This assessment rests on three principles. First, as described above, the low- quality arguments of the opposition are evaluated more harshly than postings closer to one’s own viewpoint. Second, the bulk of diversity in information received through social media is likely to be through weak ties (Bakshy et al., 2012). People are less likely to regularly interact with these ties in environments external to social media and thus are less likely to have additional evidence regarding their positive qualities. Finally, people are more likely to consider the opposition as more homogeneous.

These three principles lead to two outcomes. One, people are likely to believe the opposing side is coming from a shel- tered, low information perspective, that is, the opposition resides with an informational filter bubble. Two, over time, the rejection of the arguments and negative characterization of the opposition will lead to greater polarization of positions within the social media environment. This phenomenon is not necessarily unique to the social media environment. As people engage in sharing and discussing information, these discussions are likely to lead to further polarization. Research has shown group discussions on issues leads to increased

polarization (Isenberg, 1986; Myers & Lamm, 1975). We argue that via social media the processes outlined above are likely to be exacerbated (Figure 2).

Proposition 11: These processes are part of a cyclical feedback loop that intensifies the process over time. Increased time on social media should increase our ego- involvement and satisfaction with our own position. Increased time on social media should increase perceived credibility of issue supporters and decrease perceived credibility of issue opponents.

The MSDII Contributions

The theoretical explanations provided by the MSDII model are drawn from decades of work on media, information diffusion, cognitive processing, and interpersonal and net- worked relationships. Through drawing together work from interdisciplinary spheres, the MSDII could help fur- ther our understanding of communication processes occur- ring within a system of effects. Specifically, MSDII-based explanations take into account the networked relationships between those sharing messages, where message content originates, the quality of different messages, and the ego- involvement of communicators. The MSDII predicts that variance in these variables is likely to lead to different message effects. In this way, the MSDII has the potential to provide a more nuanced understanding than theoretical devices such as filter bubbles or echo chambers. Although both the MSDII and existing theoretical positions predict polarization can occur, our new model offers a description of the key processes involved and predictions of when and how polarization will occur.

This outlining of specific theoretical propositions pro- vides only the first step in the investigation of increased polarization and message diffusion through digital channels. Empirical testing of the theory propositions is necessary. However, the results of said testing could help scholars, pol- icy makers, and platform owners, to understand better the process underlying information diffusion online. An

Figure 2. The MSDII process.

10 Social Media + Society

improved understanding of these issues may allow modera- tors and participants in public deliberations a chance to cre- ate more high-quality discussion, and greater empathy for opposing views.

Given the depth of interdisciplinary and intertwined explanations presented here, we are currently concerned that, based on filter bubble theorizing, some are calling for efforts to increase exposing opposing sides to each other’s messages to reduce the vitriol and polarization in online channels (Green, 2011; Hess, 2017; Keegan, 2016). The MSDII posits that polarized sides are already exposed to oppositional argu- ments and that it is that very exposure that can lead to greater polarization (see Propositions 5 and 11). Our theorizing sug- gests that those rushing out to try to pop filter bubbles may exacerbate the problems they are trying to solve. We argue a deeper understanding of the interplay between the dynamics of the media consumer, the information ecology, and the social network is likely to hold the most utility for scholars, journalists, and media consumers.

Although the foregoing analysis paints a dismal picture, there is some hope to be found in SNS use and political discussion. Some research suggests people use Facebook as a source of self-affirmation (Toma & Hancock, 2013). If people find self-affirmation of their self-worth in areas unrelated to a political topic, they tend to be less biased in their evaluation of information on that topic (Cohen, Aronson, & Steele, 2000). If people are self-affirmed by their social network on Facebook in areas not related to their political identity, they may be more likely to evaluate political information more objectively. If SNSs can be structured to encourage more of this kind of affirming interaction, perhaps some of the pitfalls illuminated by the MSDII can be ameliorated.

The MSDII represents an attempt to synthesize a broad swath of literature related to the problem of increasing polar- ization of issues information on social media platforms. While the propositions of the MSDII predict and explain cur- rent phenomenon in a way that is supported by the extant literature, each proposition needs further testing to under- stand how these factors work together as a system within the swirl of information to increase polarization of media con- sumers. We are hopeful this explication of the intertwined influences of this system of cognitive processes, media effects, and networked relationships will help scholars develop solutions, suggestions, and future research to explain the media ecology of today and tomorrow.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31, 211–236. doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211

An, J., Quercia, D., & Crowcroft, J. (2013, May 13–17). Fragmented social media: A look into selective exposure to political news. Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Retrieved from http://www2013.w3c. br/companion/p51.pdf

Anderson, A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2012). Online talk: How exposure to disagreement in online comments affects beliefs in the promise of controversial science. In L. Phillips, A. Carvalho, & J. Doyle (Eds.), Citizen voices: Performing pub- lic participation in science and environment communication (pp. 119–135). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, C. W. (2010). Journalistic networks and the diffusion of local news: The brief, happy news life of the “Francisville Four.” Political Communication, 27, 289–309. doi:10.1080/10 584609.2010.496710

Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds or chang- ing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Baer, D. (2016, November 9). The “Filter Bubble” explains why Trump won and you didn’t see it coming. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/11/how- facebook-and-the-filter-bubble-pushed-trump-to-victory.html

Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideo- logically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348, 1130–1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160

Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L. (2012, April 16–20). The role of social networks in information diffusion. Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference, Lyons, France. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.4145.pdf

Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 408–446. doi:10.2139/ ssrn.1010098

Barberá, P. (2015, September 3–6). How social media reduces mass political polarization: Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.

Barnes, J. A. (1969). Networks and political process. In J. C. Mitchell (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations (pp. 51–76). New York, NY: Humanities Press.

Barthel, M. (2017, June 1). Newspapers Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/ newspapers/

Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2018). Facebook news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 election. Information, Communication, & Society, 21, 940–958. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1444783

Berelson, B. (1952). Democratic theory and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16, 313–330. doi:10.1086/266397

Blumler, J. G., & Coleman, S. (2015). Democracy and the media— Revisited. Javnost—The Public, 22, 111–128.

boyd, d. (2009). Social media is here to stay . . . Now what? Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/MSRTechFest2009.html

Carlson, M. (2017). Journalistic authority: Legitimating news in the digital era. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

McEwan et al. 11

Carpenter, C. J. (2018). An assessment of the measurement valid- ity of the value-relevant involvement scale. Western Journal of Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/105 70314.2018.1475680

Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: Defining, devel- oping, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23, 46–65. doi:10.1080/15456870.2015.972282

Cathcart, R. S. (1955). An experimental study of the relative effectiveness of four methods of presenting evidence. Speech Monographs, 22, 227–233. doi:10.1080/03637755509375146

Centola, D., Gonzalez-Avella, J. C., Eguiluz, V. M., & Miguel, M. S. (2007). Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51, 905–929. doi:10.1177/0022002707307632

Chadwick, A. (2013). Politics and Communications in the Hybrid Media System. Hanover Communications Blog.

Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Choi, J., Yang, M., & Chang, J. J. C. (2009). Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon: The roles of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and per- ceived opinion climate. Communication Research, 36, 54–75. doi:10.1177/0093650208326462

Cohen, G. L., Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2000). When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1151– 1164. doi:10.1177/01461672002611011

Coleman, S., Thumim, N., Birchall, C., Moss, G., Parry, K., Stamper, J., & Blumler, J. G. (2016). The mediated city: The news in a post-industrial context. London, England: Zed Books.

De Mao, P., Ferrara, E., Fiumara, G., & Provetti, A. (2014). On Facebook, most ties are weak. Communications of the ACM, 57, 78–84. doi:10.1145/2629438

Dreyfuss, E. (2016, November 19). Coders think they can burst your filter bubble with tech. Wired. Retrieved from https://www. wired.com/2016/11/coders-think-can-burst-filter-bubble-tech/

Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21, 729–745. doi:10.1 080/1369118X.2018.1428656

Dutton, W. H., Reisdorf, B. C., Dubois, E., Blank, G., Ahmad, S., & Robertson, C. (2017, May). Search and politics: The uses and impacts of search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States (Quello Center Working Paper No. 5-1-17). East Lansing, MI: Quello Center.

Eagly, A. H. (2007). In defense of ourselves: The effects of defen- sive processing of attitudinal phenomena. In M. Hewstone, H. A. W. Schut, J. B. F. de Wit, K. van den Bos, & M. S. Stroebe (Eds.), The scope of social psychology: Theory and applica- tions (pp. 65–83). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Edwards, K., & Smith, E. I. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.71.1.5

Ellison, N. B., & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 151–172). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. doi:10.1111j.1083- 6101.2007.00367.x

Evans, M. (2016). Information dissemination in new media: YouTube and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Media, War, & Conflict, 9, 325–343. doi:10.1177/1750635216643113

Faris, R. M., Roberts, H., Etling, B., Bourassa, N., Zuckerman, E., & Benkler, Y. (2017, August). Partisanship, propa- ganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential election (Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society research paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 298–320. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006

Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and ori- gins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127–150. doi:10.1111/pops.12394

Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online? Politically moti- vated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 265–285. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x

Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35, 113–134. doi:10.1007/ s11109-011-9185-6

Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136, 1799–1839. doi:10.1093/qjr/qjr044

Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1997). Selective use of heu- ristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84–97. doi:10.1177/0146167297231009

Goel, S., Mason, W., & Watts, D. J. (2010). Real and per- ceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 611–621. doi:10.1037/a0020697

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. doi:10.2307/202051

Greenberg, B. S. (1964). Person-to-person communication in the diffusion of news events. Journalism Quarterly, 41(4), 489– 494.

Green, H. (2011, August 29). Breaking out of your internet filter bubble. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ work-in-progress/2011/08/29/breaking-out-of-your-internet- filter-bubble/2/#c262ec164d46

Groshek, J., & Koc-Michalska, K. (2017). Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles and support for popu- list presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information, Communication, & Society, 20, 1389–1407. doi:1 0.1080/1369118x.2017.1329334

Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public: Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147–167. doi:10.1086/269308

Gunther, A. C. (2008). Hostile media phenomenon. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved from http:// www.communicationencyclopedia.com/public/tocnode?qu ery=gunther&widen=1&result_number=1&from=search& id=g9781405131995_yr2015_chunk_g978140513199513_ ss24–1&type=std&fuzzy=0&slop=1#citation

12 Social Media + Society

Halberstam, Y., & Knight, B. (2016). Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: Evidence from Twitter. Journal of Public Economics, 143, 73–88. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.08.011

Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1159–1168. doi:10.1016/j/chb.2012.10.008

Hermida, A. (2013). #Journalism: Reconfiguring journalism research about Twitter, one tweet at a time. Digital Journalism, 1, 295–313. doi:10.1080/21670811.2013.808456

Hermida, A. (2014). Tell everyone: Why we share and why it mat- ters. Toronto, ON: Doubleday Canada.

Hess, A. (2017, March 3). How to escape your political bubble for a clearer view. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www. nytimes.com/2017/03/03/arts/the-battle-over-your-political- bubble.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141–1151. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141

Jackson, J. (2017, January 8). Eli Pariser: Activist whose filter bubble warnings presaged Trump and Brexit. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ jan/08/eli-pariser-activist-whose-filter-bubble-warnings-pre- saged-trump-and-brexit

Jamieson, K., & Cappella, J. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. London, England: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, W., & Wood, C. B. (1944). John told him what Joe told him: A study of the process of abstracting. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 2, 10–28.

Kahan, D. (2017, February 20). “Fake news”—enh. “Alternative Facts presidency”—Watch out! (Talk summary & slides). Retrieved from http://www.culturalcognition.net/ blog/2017/2/20/fake-news-enh-alternative-facts-presidency- watch-out-talk-su.html

Kahan, D. M. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463, 296–297. doi:10.1038/463296a

Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioral Public Policy, 1, 54–86. doi:10.1017/bpp.2016.2

Kamarck, E. C., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2002). Governance.com: Democracy in the information age. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution Press.

Keegan, J. (2016, May 18). Blue feed, red feed. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed- red-feed/#/president-trump

Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to expo- sure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 971–977. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.001

Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society, 33, 211–221.

Linder, M. (2016, November 9). Block. Mute. Unfriend. Tensions rise on Facebook after election results. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct- facebook-election-reaction-family-1109-20161109-story.html

Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimila- tion and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.37.11.2098

Mahmoodi, A., Bang, D., Olsen, K., Zhao, Y. A., Shi, Z., Broberg, K., . . . Roepstorff, A. (2015). Equality bias impairs collec- tive decision-making across cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 3835–3840. doi:10.1073/ pnas.1421692112

Matsa, K. E. (2017a, July 13). Local TV news fact sheet. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/ fact-sheet/local-tv-news/

Matsa, K. E. (2017b, June 16). Network news fact sheet. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/ fact-sheet/network-news/

McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O’Reilly, R. C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippo- campus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review, 102, 419–457. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.102.3.419

Meijer, I. C., & Kormelink, T. G. (2014). Checking shar- ing, clicking, and linking. Digital Journalism, 5, 664–679. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.93714

Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affili- ation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41, 1042–1063. doi:10.1177/0093650212466406

Morgan, J. J. B., & Morton, J. T. (1944). The distortion of syllogis- tic reasoning produced by personal convictions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 39–59. doi:10.1080/00224545.1944 .9918830

Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., & Peterson, E. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopoliti- cal arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U. S. Presidential Debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 15–26. doi:10.1207/ s15324834basp2401_2

Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1975). The polarizing effect of group discussion. American Scientist, 63, 297–303.

Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D., & Nielsen, R. (2017). Reuters digital news report 2017. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/

Newton, C. (2016, November 16). The author of The Filter Bubble on how fake news is eroding trust in journalism. The Verge. Retrieved from http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653026/ filter-bubble-facebook-election-eli-pariser-interview

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenom- ena in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175– 220. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.2.2.175

Nielsen, R. K., & Schrøder, K. C. (2014). The relative importance of social media for accessing, finding, and engaging with news: An eight-country cross-media comparison. Digital Journalism, 2, 472–489. doi:10.1080/21670811.2013.872420

Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. New York, NY: Penguin.

McEwan et al. 13

Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2017). Prior expo- sure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2958246

Perlman, M. (2017, January 9). 2016’s words of the year. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/lan- guage_corner/2016_words_of_the_year_surreal_unpresi- dented_posttruth_xenophobia_dumpster_fire.php

Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.

Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media Staff. (2010, January 11). How news happens: A study of the news ecosystem of one American City. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http:// www.journalism.org/2010/01/11/how-news-happens/

Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement con- tribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19, 95–112. doi:10.1080/105846002317246506

Queller, S. (2002). Stereotype change in a recurrent network. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 295–303. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0604_04

Quine, W. V. O., & Ullian, J. S. (1970). Web of belief. New York, NY: Random House.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). The diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Rojas, H. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behav- iors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 343–363. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq018

Rutenberg, J. (2017, January 22). “Alternative facts” and the costs of Trump-branded reality. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/business/media/alterna- tive-facts-trump-brand.html

Ryan, T. J., & Brader, T. (2017). Gaffe appeal: A field experiment on partisan selective exposure to election messages. Political Science Research and Methods, 5, 667–687. doi:10.1017/ psrm.2015.62

Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involve- ments. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Simmons, M. P., Adamic, L. A., & Adar, E. (2011, July 17–21). Memes online: Extracted, subtracted, injected, and recollected. Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Spain.

Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communica- tion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121–134. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00893.x

Stray, J. (2012, July 11). Are we stuck in filter bubbles? Here are five potential paths out. Nieman Lab. Retrieved from http:// www.niemanlab.org/2012/07/are-we-stuck-in-filter-bubbles- here-are-five-potential-paths-out/

Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic Com 2.0. New York, NY: Princeton University Press.

Sunstein, C. R., Bobadilla-Suarez, S., Lazzaro, S. C., & Sharot, T. (2016). How people update beliefs about climate change: Good news and bad news. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2821919

Thompson, A. (2016, December 8). Parallel narratives. Vice News. Retrieved from https://news.vice.com/story/journalists-and- trump-voters-live-in-separate-online-bubbles-mit-analysis- shows?utm_source=vicenewsfbads

Toff, B., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). “I just google it”: Folk theo- ries of distributed discovery. Journal of Communication, 68, 636–657. doi:10.1093/joc/jqy009

Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 321–331. doi:10.1177/0146167212474694

Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Relational maintenance and CMC. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer- mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 98– 118). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577–585. doi:10.1037//0022- 3514.49.3.577

Van Aelst, P., Stromback, J., Aalbert, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., . . . Stanyer, J. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, 41, 3–27. doi:10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551

Van Overwalle, F., & Siebler, F. (2005). A connectionist model of atti- tude formation and change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 231–274. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_3

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146–1151. doi:10.1126/sci- ence.aap9559

Weeks, B. E., Lane, D. S., Kim, D. H., Lee, S. S., & Kwak, N. (2017). Incidental exposure, selective exposure and politi- cal information sharing: Integrating online exposure pat- terns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 22, 363–379. doi:10.1111/ jcc4.12199

Wellman, B. (2002). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. In M. Tanabe, P. van den Besselaar, & T. Ishida (Eds.), Digital cities II: Computational and sociologi- cal approaches (pp. 337–343). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-45636-8_2

Witschge, T., Anderson, C. W., Domingo, D., & Hermida, A. (2018). Dealing with the mess (we made): Unraveling hybridity, norma- tivity, and complexity in journalism studies. Journalism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1464884918760669

Wojcieszak, M. (2010). “Don’t talk to me”: Effects of ideologi- cally homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society, 12, 637–655. doi:10.1177/146144809342775

Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online groups and politi- cal discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement. Journal of Communication, 59, 40– 56. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x

Wortham, J. (2016, November 22). Is social media disconnecting us from the big picture? New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/magazine/is-social- media-disconnecting-us-from-the-big-picture.html

Yang, J. H., Barnidge, M., & Rojas, H. (2017). The politics of “unfriending”: User filtration in response to political disagree- ment on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 22–29. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.079

Yardi, S., & boyd, d. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, 316–327. doi:10.1177/0270467610380011

14 Social Media + Society

Ziegler, R., & Diehl, M. (2003). Is politician A or politician B more persuasive? Recipients’ source preference and the direction of biased message processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 623–637. doi:10.1002/ejsp.174

Zuckerberg, M. (2017). Building global community. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building- global-community/10154544292806634/

Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Trilling, D., Moller, J., Bodo, B., de Vreese, C. H., & Helberger, N. (2016). Should we worry about fil- ter bubbles? Internet Policy Review, 5. doi:10.14763/2016.1.401

Author Biographies

Bree McEwan (PhD, Arizona State University) is an assistant professor of communication in the College of Communication

at DePaul University. Her research interests are communication among interpersonal network ties, social media use and effects, and perceived social affordances of communication channels.

Christopher J. Carpenter (PhD, Michigan State University) is an associate professor of communication at Western Illinois University. His research interests include motivated reasoning, the effects of social media on personal relationships, and opinion leaders.

Jill E. Hopke (PhD, University of Wisconsin–Madison) is an assis- tant professor of communication in the College of Communication at DePaul University. Her research interests are science communi- cation, visual social media, and journalism.