IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/keo/dpaper/2019-015.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does the Internet cause polarization? -Panel survey in Japan-

Author

Listed:
  • Tatsuo Tanaka

    (Faculty of Economics, Keio University)

Abstract

There is concern that the Internet causes ideological polarization through selective exposure and the echo chamber effect. This paper examines the effect of social media on polarization by applying a difference-in-difference approach to panel data of 50 thousand respondents in Japan. Japan is good case for this research because other factors affecting polarization like huge wealth gap and massive immigration are not serious issue, thus it offers quasi natural experimental situation to test the effect of the Internet. The results show that people who started using social media during the research period (targets) were no more polarized than people who did not (controls). There was a tendency for younger and politically moderate people to be less polarized. The only case in which the Internet increased polarization was for already radical people who started using Twitter. However, since radical people represent only 20% of the population and there was no effect for Facebook or blogs, the overall effect of the Internet was moderation, not polarization.

Suggested Citation

  • Tatsuo Tanaka, 2019. "Does the Internet cause polarization? -Panel survey in Japan-," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2019-015, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    • Handle: RePEc:keo:dpaper:2019-015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ies.keio.ac.jp/upload/pdf/en/DP2019-015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano DellaVigna & Ethan Kaplan, 2007. "The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1187-1234.
    2. Liang, Che-Yuan & Nordin, Mattias, 2012. "The Internet, News Consumption, and Political Attitudes," Working Paper Series, Center for Fiscal Studies 2012:10, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    3. Gregory J. Martin & Ali Yurukoglu, 2017. "Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(9), pages 2565-2599, September.
    4. Melki, Mickael & Pickering, Andrew, 2014. "Ideological polarization and the media," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 36-39.
    5. Norman H. Nie & Darwin W. Miller, III & Saar Golde & Daniel M. Butler & Kenneth Winneg, 2010. "The World Wide Web and the U.S. Political News Market," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 428-439, April.
    6. Levi Boxell & Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2017. "Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics," NBER Working Papers 23258, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Azzimonti, Marina & Fernandes, Marcos, 2023. "Social media networks, fake news, and polarization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    8. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2011. "Ideological Segregation Online and Offline," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1799-1839.
    9. Jonathan S. Morris, 2007. "Slanted Objectivity? Perceived Media Bias, Cable News Exposure, and Political Attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 88(3), pages 707-728, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Azzimonti, Marina & Fernandes, Marcos, 2023. "Social media networks, fake news, and polarization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. Deena A. Isom & Hunter M. Boehme & Toniqua C. Mikell & Stephen Chicoine & Marion Renner, 2021. "Status Threat, Social Concerns, and Conservative Media: A Look at White America and the Alt-Right," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Andrea Tesei & Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante, 2022. "Media and Social Capital," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 69-91, August.
    4. Ashani Amarasinghe & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Competing for Attention - The Effect of Talk Radio on Elections and Political Polarization in the US," SoDa Laboratories Working Paper Series 2022-02, Monash University, SoDa Laboratories.
    5. Thomas Fujiwara & Karsten Müller & Carlo Schwarz, 2021. "The Effect of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from the United States," NBER Working Papers 28849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. repec:hal:journl:hal-03533356 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Shane Greenstein & Grace Gu & Feng Zhu, 2021. "Ideology and Composition Among an Online Crowd: Evidence from Wikipedians," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 3067-3086, May.
    8. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.
    9. Saia, Alessandro, 2018. "Random interactions in the Chamber: Legislators' behavior and political distance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 225-240.
    10. Yeon-Koo Che & Konrad Mierendorff, 2019. "Optimal Dynamic Allocation of Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2993-3029, August.
    11. Thomas Fujiwara & Karsten Müller & Carlo Schwarz, 2021. "The Effect of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from the United States," NBER Working Papers 28849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Roberto Mosquera & Mofioluwasademi Odunowo & Trent McNamara & Xiongfei Guo & Ragan Petrie, 2020. "The economic effects of Facebook," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 575-602, June.
    13. Junze Sun & Arthur Schram & Randolph Sloof, 2019. "A Theory on Media Bias and Elections," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-048/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Prat, Andrea & Kennedy, Patrick, 2017. "Where Do People Get Their News?," CEPR Discussion Papers 12426, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Raymond, Collin & Taylor, Sarah, 2021. "“Tell all the truth, but tell it slant”: Documenting media bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 670-691.
    17. Jimmy Chan & Daniel Stone, 2013. "Media proliferation and partisan selective exposure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 467-490, September.
    18. Juan Pablo Atal & José Ignacio Cuesta & Felipe González & Cristóbal Otero, 2024. "The Economics of the Public Option: Evidence from Local Pharmaceutical Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(3), pages 615-644, March.
    19. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    20. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2020. "Measuring partisan media bias in US Newscasts from 2001-2012," Working Paper 183/2020, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, revised 15 Nov 2022.
    21. Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante & Francesco Sobbrio, 2018. "Politics 2.0: The Multifaceted Effect of Broadband Internet on Political Participation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1094-1136.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Polarization; Social media; Difference-in-Difference; Facebook; Twitter;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L82 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Entertainment; Media
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • H80 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:keo:dpaper:2019-015. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iekeijp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.