Bursting the filter bubble: the mediating effect of discussion frequency on network heterogeneity

Nadine Strauß · Laura Alonso-Muñoz · Homero Gil de Zúñiga

29 citations0/0 files storedOnline Information Review

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Social Media and Politics Electoral Systems and Political Participation Media Influence and Politics

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify the structural processes that lead citizens to escape their common social circles when talking about politics and public affairs (e.g. “filter bubbles”). To do so, this study tests to what extent political attitudes, political behavior, news media consumption and discussion frequency affect discussion network heterogeneity among US citizens. Design/methodology/approach Supported by the polling group Nielsen, this study uses a two-wave panel online survey to study the antecedents and mechanisms of discussion network heterogeneity among US citizens. To test the hypotheses and answer the research questions, ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions (cross-sectional, lagged and autoregressive) and mediation analyses were conducted. Findings The findings imply that political discussion frequency functions as the key element in explaining the mechanism that leads politically interested and participatory citizens (online) as well as news consumers of traditional and online media to seek a more heterogeneous discussion network, disrupting the so-called “filter bubbles.” However, mediation analyses also showed that discussion frequency can lead to more homogenous discussion networks if people score high on political knowledge, possibly reflecting the formation of a close network of political-savvy individuals. Originality/value The survey data give important insights into the 2016 pre-election situation, trying to explain why US citizens were more likely to remain in homogenous discussion networks when talking about politics and public affairs. By using two-wave panel data, the analyses allow to draw tentative conclusions about the influential and inhibiting factors and mechanisms that lead individuals to seek/avoid a more heterogeneous discussion network.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

References

2006Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs 2018The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States 2009Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes 2002The Law of Group Polarization 2010Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure 2002The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation 1991Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study 1999Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation

Cited by

2021Can social network sites facilitate civic engagement? Assessing dynamic relationship between social media and civic activities among young people 2022Homophily and polarization on political twitter during the 2017 Norwegian election 2024Network Structure Matters: Unpacking Associations Among Informational WeChat Use, Network Heterogeneity, Network Capital, and Civic Involvement 2023Internet-based micro-identities as a driver of societal disintegration

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.