IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v9y2019i1p2158244019832705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Eady
  • Jonathan Nagler
  • Andy Guess
  • Jan Zilinsky
  • Joshua A. Tucker

Abstract

A major point of debate in the study of the Internet and politics is the extent to which social media platforms encourage citizens to inhabit online “bubbles†or “echo chambers,†exposed primarily to ideologically congenial political information. To investigate this question, we link a representative survey of Americans with data from respondents’ public Twitter accounts ( N = 1,496). We then quantify the ideological distributions of users’ online political and media environments by merging validated estimates of user ideology with the full set of accounts followed by our survey respondents ( N = 642,345) and the available tweets posted by those accounts ( N ~ 1.2 billion). We study the extent to which liberals and conservatives encounter counter-attitudinal messages in two distinct ways: (a) by the accounts they follow and (b) by the tweets they receive from those accounts, either directly or indirectly (via retweets). More than a third of respondents do not follow any media sources, but among those who do, we find a substantial amount of overlap (51%) in the ideological distributions of accounts followed by users on opposite ends of the political spectrum. At the same time, however, we find asymmetries in individuals’ willingness to venture into cross-cutting spaces, with conservatives more likely to follow media and political accounts classified as left-leaning than the reverse. Finally, we argue that such choices are likely tempered by online news watching behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Eady & Jonathan Nagler & Andy Guess & Jan Zilinsky & Joshua A. Tucker, 2019. "How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:2158244019832705
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244019832705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244019832705
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244019832705?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guess, Andrew M., 2015. "Measure for Measure: An Experimental Test of Online Political Media Exposure," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 59-75, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Tausanovitch, Chris & Warshaw, Christopher, 2017. "Estimating Candidates’ Political Orientation in a Polarized Congress," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 167-187, 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. Simon Porcher & Thomas Renault, 2021. "Social distancing beliefs and human mobility: Evidence from Twitter," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Lyytimäki, Jari & Assmuth, Timo & Paloniemi, Riikka & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Rantala, Salla & Rikkonen, Pasi & Tapio, Petri & Vainio, Annukka & Winquist, Erika, 2021. "Two sides of biogas: Review of ten dichotomous argumentation lines of sustainable energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Romer, Daniel & Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, 2021. "Conspiratorial thinking, selective exposure to conservative media, and response to COVID-19 in the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    5. Guohui Song & Yongbin Wang, 2021. "Mainstream Value Information Push Strategy on Chinese Aggregation News Platform: Evolution, Modelling and Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Francesco Giavazzi & Felix Iglhaut & Giacomo Lemoli & Gaia Rubera, 2020. "Terrorist Attacks, Cultural Incidents and the Vote for Radical Parties: Analyzing Text from Twitter," NBER Working Papers 26825, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Daniel Muise & Nilam Ram & Thomas Robinson & Byron Reeves, 2023. "Identification, Impacts, and Opportunities of Three Common Measurement Considerations when using Digital Trace Data," Papers 2310.00197, arXiv.org.
    8. 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.
    9. Mohsen Mosleh & David G. Rand, 2022. "Measuring exposure to misinformation from political elites on Twitter," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Jianshan Sun & Jian Song & Yuanchun Jiang & Yezheng Liu & Jun Li, 2022. "Prick the filter bubble: A novel cross domain recommendation model with adaptive diversity regularization," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 101-121, March.
    11. Pierluigi Conzo & Andrea Gallice & Juan S. Morales & Margaret Samahita & Laura K. Taylor, 2021. "Can Hearts Change Minds? Social media Endorsements and Policy Preferences," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 641, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    12. Ximeng Fang & Sven Heuser & Lasse S. Stötzer, 2023. "How In-Person Conversations Shape Political Polarization: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from a Nationwide Initiative," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 270, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    13. Beatriz Jordá & Azahara Cañedo & Márton Bene & Manuel Goyanes, 2021. "Out-of-Place Content: How Repetitive, Offensive, and Opinion-Challenging Social Media Posts Shape Users’ Unfriending Strategies in Spain," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.

    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. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Market for News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
    2. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    4. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Caetano, Gregorio & Maheshri, Vikram, 2019. "Gender segregation within neighborhoods," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 253-263.
    11. 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.
    12. Poy, Samuele & Schüller, Simone, 2016. "Internet and Voting in the Web 2.0 Era: Evidence from a Local Broadband Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 9991, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    14. Gordon Anderson & Oliver Linton & Jasmin Thomas, 2017. "Similarity, dissimilarity and exceptionality: generalizing Gini’s transvariation to measure “differentness” in many distributions," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 75(2), pages 161-180, August.
    15. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    16. Alejandra Agustina Martínez, 2023. "Raise your Voice! Activism and Peer Effects in Online Social Networks," Working Papers 277, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    17. Charles Heckscher & John McCarthy, 2014. "Transient Solidarities: Commitment and Collective Action in Post-Industrial Societies," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 52(4), pages 627-657, December.
    18. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    19. Besley, Timothy & Fetzer, Thiemo & Mueller, Hannes, 2019. "Terror and Tourism: The Economic Consequences of Media Coverage," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 449, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    20. Manudeep Bhuller & Tarjei Havnes & Edwin Leuven & Magne Mogstad, 2013. "Broadband Internet: An Information Superhighway to Sex Crime?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1237-1266.

    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:sae:sagope:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:2158244019832705. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.