The Echo Chamber: John Boyne

Product Information

Tokita, Christopher; Guess, Andrew; Tarnita, Corina (2021). "Polarized information ecosystems can reorganize social networks via information cascades". PNAS. 118 (50). Bibcode: 2021PNAS..11802147T. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2102147118. PMC 8685718. PMID 34876511. Fletcher, R., Cornia, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020a). How polarized are online and offline news audiences? A comparative analysis of twelve countries. International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(2), 169–195. This work provides a set of basic findings about the dynamics of contemporary news media use, the relative importance of algorithmic ranking versus self-selection in shaping it, and how engagement with some forms of information can further strengthen already strongly held beliefs.

a b Cinelli, Matteo; De Francisci Morales, Gianmarco; Galeazzi, Alessandro; Quattrociocchi, Walter; Starnini, Michele (23 February 2021). "The echo chamber effect on social media". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (9). Bibcode: 2021PNAS..11823301C. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023301118. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 7936330. PMID 33622786. Even in the United States, researchers have long found that echo chambers are smaller and less prevalent than commonly assumed. Gentzkow and Shapiro (2011, p. 1831) observe that “internet news consumers with homogeneous news diets are rare,” and Garrett (2013, p. 248) similarly argues that the notion that large numbers of people are cocooned in pure ideological news echo chambers, cut off from other points of view, is exaggerated and wrong.How self-selection driven by forms of opinion other than political ones operate and how self-selection based on partisanship and/or interest shapes engagement with news and information around science. Thus, there are distinct questions of outcomes (how many people live in echo chambers versus more diverse media spaces?) and contributing causes (what is the relative importance of active users’ choices versus algorithmic filtering in determining the diversity of sources people access?). Supply, distribution, and demand can all contribute to the formation of echo chambers.

a b c Nguyen, C. Thi (June 2020). "Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles". Episteme. 17 (2): 141–161. doi: 10.1017/epi.2018.32. ISSN 1742-3600. S2CID 171520109. In terms of distribution, algorithmic selection by digital platforms such as search engines and social media that make personalised display decisions for countless users using automated systems might, some fear, generate filter bubbles by reducing the diversity of information people come across, serving them more attitude- consistent news and resulting in less cross-cutting exposure. Finally, there are many areas where there is at this point little empirical research to help us understand a situation that is rapidly evolving. These include, among other things:

Brulle, R.J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169–188. Commentators and analysts typically worry about echo chambers and filter bubbles because they fear they will fuel polarisation, diminish mutual understanding, and ultimately lead to a situation where people are so far apart that they have no common ground – effectively inhabiting different realities. Polarisation can take substantially different forms. The most important forms for the purposes of this review are the following. First, ideological polarisation, which refers to the degree to which people disagree about political issues. Second, affective polarisation, which refers to people’s feelings about the ‘other side’ – those they disagree with on a given issue. Third, news audience polarisation, which refers to the degree to which audiences for news outlets in a given country are generally more politically partisan or politically mixed. In public and policy debate the term echo chamber is sometimes used interchangeably with the term filter bubble, but it is important to distinguish between the two. The subreddit /r/incels and other online incel communities have also been described as echo chambers. [49] [50] [51]

a b "The Reason Your Feed Became An Echo Chamber — And What To Do About It". NPR.org . Retrieved 12 June 2020. There is also some work on media, including media reporting about polarisation. US studies find that exposure to like-minded partisan media under experimental conditions can strengthen the views of already partisan individuals (Levendusky 2013). Panel survey work, which measures the same people's media use and attitudes at different points in time, has also found that using like-minded partisan media in the US can increase anger toward the ‘other side’ and make people more willing to share political information on social media (Hasell and Weeks 2016). At the same time, cross-cutting exposure, at least on social media, also seems to be able to increase polarisation, at least among political partisans (Bail et al. 2018). This leaves distribution and demand as the main possible causes for the formation of echo chambers. Hartmann, Andrew (2019). War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars (2nded.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-62191-3.Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016a). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 554. There is evidence for all these, but it is either mixed or exclusively from one country, so we cannot necessarily assume these findings apply everywhere. SourceWatch entry on media "Echo Chamber" effect". SourceWatch. 22 October 2006 . Retrieved 3 February 2008. Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551–569.

Gentzkow, Matthew; Shapiro, Jesse M. (November 2011). "Ideological Segregation Online and Offline *". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 126 (4): 1799–1839. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjr044. ISSN 0033-5533.A New Statesman essay argued that echo chambers were linked to the United Kingdom Brexit referendum. [48]