IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v170y2021ics0040162521003565.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Iandoli, Luca
  • Primario, Simonetta
  • Zollo, Giuseppe

Abstract

Social media are often accused of worsening the quality of online debate. In this paper, we focus on group polarization in the context of social media-enabled interaction, a dysfunctional group dynamic by which participants become more extreme in their initial position on an issue. Through a systematic literature review, we identified a corpus of 121 research papers investigating polarization in social media and other online conversational platforms and reviewed the main empirical findings, as well as theoretical and methodological approaches. We use this knowledge base to assess some recurrent accusations against social media in terms of their supposed tendency to worsen online debate. Our analysis shows that, while some concerns have been exaggerated, social media do contribute to increase polarization either by amplifying and escalating social processes that also occur offline or in specific ways enabled by their design affordances, which also make these platforms prone to manipulation. We argue against suggestions aimed at reducing freedom of speech in cyberspace and identify in inadequate regulation and lack of ethical design as the leading causes of social media-enabled group dysfunctions, highlighting research areas that can support the creation of higher quality online discursive spaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Iandoli, Luca & Primario, Simonetta & Zollo, Giuseppe, 2021. "The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:170:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521003565
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521003565
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120924?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew S. Levendusky, 2013. "Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 611-623, July.
    2. Svetlana S. Bodrunova & Ivan Blekanov & Anna Smoliarova & Anna Litvinenko, 2019. "Beyond Left and Right: Real-World Political Polarization in Twitter Discussions on Inter-Ethnic Conflicts," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 119-132.
    3. 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.
    4. Christopher A. Bail & Lisa P. Argyle & Taylor W. Brown & John P. Bumpus & Haohan Chen & M. B. Fallin Hunzaker & Jaemin Lee & Marcus Mann & Friedolin Merhout & Alexander Volfovsky, 2018. "Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(37), pages 9216-9221, September.
    5. Feng Shi & Misha Teplitskiy & Eamon Duede & James A. Evans, 2019. "The wisdom of polarized crowds," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 329-336, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Şengün, Sercan & Santos, Joao M. & Salminen, Joni & Jung, Soon-gyo & Jansen, Bernard J., 2022. "Do players communicate differently depending on the champion played? Exploring the Proteus effect in League of Legends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    2. Muaz Azinuddin & Muhammad Burhanuddeen Mohammad Nasir & Mohd Hafiz Hanafiah & Nur Shahirah Mior Shariffuddin & Mohd Khairul Amri Kamarudin, 2022. "Interlinkage of Perceived Ecotourism Design Affordance, Perceived Value of Destination Experiences, Destination Reputation, and Loyalty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-18, September.

    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. Yeomans, Michael & Minson, Julia & Collins, Hanne & Chen, Frances & Gino, Francesca, 2020. "Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 131-148.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Market for News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
    5. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Social media, sentiment and public opinions: Evidence from #Brexit and #USElection," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    6. Salvatore Barbaro, 2021. "A social-choice perspective on authoritarianism and political polarization," Working Papers 2108, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    7. Petter Törnberg & Claes Andersson & Kristian Lindgren & Sven Banisch, 2021. "Modeling the emergence of affective polarization in the social media society," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Koorank Beheshti, Mohammadali & Gopinath, Mahesh & Ashouri, Sama & Zal, Saeed, 2023. "Does polarizing personality matter in influencer marketing? Evidence from Instagram," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    9. Zakaria Babutsidze & Ann-Kathrin Blankenberg & Andreas Chai, 2023. "The effect of traditional media consumption and internet use on environmental attitudes in Europe," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 309-340, April.
    10. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    11. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    12. Donald R. Davis & Jonathan I. Dingel & Joan Monras & Eduardo Morales, 2019. "How Segregated Is Urban Consumption?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(4), pages 1684-1738.
    13. 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.
    14. Cason, Timothy N. & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2015. "Rich communication, social motivations, and coordinated resistance against divide-and-conquer: A laboratory investigation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 146-159.
    15. Faia, Ester & Fuster, Andreas & Pezone, Vincenzo & Zafar, Basit, 2021. "Biases in information selection and processing: Survey evidence from the pandemic," SAFE Working Paper Series 307, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    16. Shane Greenstein & Yuan Gu & Feng Zhu, 2016. "Ideological Segregation among Online Collaborators: Evidence from Wikipedians," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-028, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2017.
    17. Michael Thaler, 2020. "The Fake News Effect: Experimentally Identifying Motivated Reasoning Using Trust in News," Papers 2012.01663, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    18. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    19. Caetano, Gregorio & Maheshri, Vikram, 2019. "Gender segregation within neighborhoods," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 253-263.
    20. Doh-Shin Jeon & Nikrooz Nasr, 2016. "News Aggregators and Competition among Newspapers on the Internet," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 91-114, November.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:170:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521003565. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.