IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/29458.html

Does Social Media Exacerbate Political Polarization? Experimental Evidence from Varying Access to Twitter/X during a Presidential Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Rafael Di Tella
  • Ramiro H. Gálvez
  • Ernesto Schargrodsky

Abstract

We study how variation in social media access (Twitter/X) during a salient political event affects political polarization and stress, and how these exposure effects relate to broader patterns of selection into social media. We conducted a pre-registered laboratory experiment during the 2019 Argentine presidential debate, recruiting both Twitter users and non-users. Twitter users were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: watching the debate with their usual phone access, watching the debate with their phones switched off, watching the debate while interacting with an experimenter-run Twitter account that shared a balanced mix of partisan content, or watching a politically neutral documentary without phones. Non- Twitter participants were randomly assigned to watch the debate or the documentary without phones. Selection comparisons indicate that recruited Twitter users are more polarized than recruited non-users. Causal exposure comparisons within the Twitter-user sample show that two strategies often proposed to reduce political polarization on social media, removing access to the platform and exposing users to counter-attitudinal content, do not reduce polarization and may instead produce mild increases. The latter treatment also significantly increases physiological stress (as measured by salivary cortisol). Further exploratory analyses reveal substantial heterogeneity tied to users’ online political environments. Politically segregated individuals — that is, users embedded in echo chambers — exhibit clear backfire effects when access is removed or cross-ideological interactions are encouraged. In particular, both treatments increase polarization among these users. In addition, when cross-ideological interaction is encouraged, segregated users concentrate a larger share of their Twitter engagement within like-minded networks and show higher cortisol levels. By contrast, non-segregated users show little to no response and closely resemble non-users. Moreover, the selection differences observed between recruited Twitter users and non-users in our sample are concentrated among politically segregated users.

Suggested Citation

  • Rafael Di Tella & Ramiro H. Gálvez & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2021. "Does Social Media Exacerbate Political Polarization? Experimental Evidence from Varying Access to Twitter/X during a Presidential Debate," NBER Working Papers 29458, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:29458
    Note: DEV IO POL
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w29458.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Simon Columbus & Lars P. Feld & Matthias Kasper & Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Behavioural Responses to Unfair Institutions: Experimental Evidence on Rule Compliance, Norm Polarisation, and Trust," CESifo Working Paper Series 10591, CESifo.
    2. Nicolás Ajzenman & Bruno Ferman & Pedro C. Sant’Anna, 2023. "Rooting for the Same Team: On the Interplay between Political and Social Identities in the Formation of Social Ties," Working Papers 231, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    3. Carolina Arteaga & Victoria Barone, 2023. "Democracy and The Opioid Epidemic," Working Papers tecipa-765, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    4. Heiler, Phillip, 2024. "Heterogeneous treatment effect bounds under sample selection with an application to the effects of social media on political polarization," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 244(1).
    5. 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.
    6. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • L82 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Entertainment; Media
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    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:nbr:nberwo:29458. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.